Research Study

EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES:
A Study of the Ways in Which Tenure, Work Group, and Job

Level Influence Employee Commitment
A dissertation submitted
by
DIANE FERRY COBLE
to
FIELDING GRADUATE INSTITUTE
in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
HUMAN AND ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS

This dissertation has been
accepted for the faculty of
Fielding Graduate Institute by:
Marie P. F a r r e ^ , Ed.D., M.P.H.

Chair
J. Silverman, Ph.D.
Faculty Reader
^'rederick Steier, Ph.D.

Faculty Reader
Kaplan, Ph.D.
Student Reader
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3168525
Copyright 2004 by
Coble, Diane Ferry
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3168525
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Employee Commitment and organizational influences: A study
of the ways in which tenure, work group and job level
influence employee commitment
by
Diane Ferry Coble
Abstract
This study explored employee commitment in the context
of organizational influences, specifically the ways in
which employee commitment differs according to employee
tenure, work group and job level. Employee commitment is
reported to be an important part of an employee's
organizational experience as it leads to high performance,
retention and high productivity. These outcomes are
essential to the survival and competitiveness of an
organization and contribute to retaining valuable human
assets.
Commitment is a multidimensional construct and
describes a phenomenon wherein a person activates his or
her cognitive and emotional processes to make decisions
about organizational membership. The focus of this study
was affective or emotionally activated commitment and the
ways in which this form of commitment differs according to
an employee's tenure, work group or job level.
11
This study found that affective commitment differs
according to these organizational factors; and the
implications for organizations are also discussed.
Ill
Copyright
by
Diane Ferry Coble
2004
IV
Acknowledgements
Thanks, Dad.
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter One The Study 1

Introduction 1
Eroding Commitment 2
Current Situation 3
Employee Commitment 4
Significance 5
Implications 8
Conceptual Framework 9
Operational Definitions 12
Hypotheses 14
Limitations 15
Assumptions 15
Chapter Two Literature Review 16

Situation the Literature Review 17
The 1960s-The Emergence of a Concept 18
Broadening the Concept of Commitment 20
The 1970s-Commitment and
Organizational Effectiveness 22
Measuring Commitment 22
1980s-Organizational Influences and Commitment 26
The 1990s-Social Change and Commitment 30
Commitment and Employee Tenure 34
Approaching Further Study 35
Chapter Three Methods 38

Introduction 38
Setting 38
Sample 40
Data Collection Instrument
The Study Company Survey 42
Data Collection Instrument-Validity 43
Procedure-Access to the Data 45
Procedure-Data Collection: Study Company Survey 45
Procedure-Data Collection: Present Study 46
Procedure-Pilot Study 47
Procedure-Protection of Human Subjects 47
Data Management-Study Company Survey 50
Data Management-Present Study 51
Data Analysis 51
Limitations 52
VI
Page
Chapter Four Findings with Analysis, Interpretation

and Discussion 54
Final Sample 54
Analysis and Interpretation 58
Employee Commitment and Work Group 60
Employee Commitment and Job Level 63
Discussion 67
Missing Pieces 67
A Concept Examined 68
Chapter Five Summary, Conclusions

and Recommendations 70
Summary 70
Conclusions 73
References 78
Aiêndixes 83
Appendix A Organizational Influences, Employee
Experience and Commitment 83
Appendix B Employee Opinion Survey 2002 84
Appendix C Employee Commitment Literature
Review Summary 88
Appendix D Fielding Institutional Review Board 92
Appendix E Demographics of Sample 97
Vll
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 Respondents by Tenure 41

Table 2 Respondents by Work Group 41
Table 3 Respondents by Job Level 42
Table 4 Survey Items in Conceptual Framework 43
Table 5 Analysis of Variance-Tenure 57
Table 6 Post-Hoc Tests-Tenure 57
Table 7 Analysis of Variance-Work Group 61
Table 8 Post-Hoc Tests-Work Group 61
Table 9 Analysis of Variance-Job Level 64
Table 10 Post-Hoc Tests-Job Level 64
List of Figures
Figure 1 Organizational Influences, Employee

Experience and Commitment 83
Figure 2 Commitment by Tenure 57
Figure 3 Commitment and Work Group 60
Figure 4 Commitment by Job Level 63
VIll
Chapter One
The Study
Introduction
The last two decades of the 20^^ century ushered in a
radical change in the relationship between employees and the
organizations for which they work. Dramatic shifts in the
global economy coupled with a dramatically changing workforce,
brought about many changes in the ways in which employees and
employers interact (Kim, Emmett & Sikula, 2001). Demands for
cost efficiencies, innovation and agility, in terms of
responding to the ever-changing marketplace, required
organizations to change the way they did business.
Sophisticated business strategies and complex technologies were
brought to bear, and organizations were pressed to maximize the
use of all their resources, including the human resources they
employed (Tulgan, 2002). It was vital to the organization's
viability to explore ways to bind employees to an organization
and inspire them to high levels of performance, and do so as
early in the employment experience as possible. The purpose of
this study is to examine employee commitment in the context of
organizational influences, specifically, as employees tenure,
work in groups and progress in job level.
Eroding Commitment
In the early 1980s, the quest for cost efficiency
influenced companies to eliminate jobs and consolidate
operations. This led to mass lay offs, worker dislocation and
the disruption of income and careers, even for long-service
employees. The notion of "lifetime employment" no longer
existed, causing a fissure in the trust between employee and
employer (Patch, 1992). Furthermore, as the century came to a
close, massive corporate bankruptcies, assumed to be brought
about by corruption and wrong-doing, resulted in lost jobs and
retirement savings for thousands of employees. More recently,
news about companies such as Enron and WorldCom, blared from the
headlines, creating disquiet and fear in the workforce (Grieves,
2003). These reports led to further erosion in trust and
confidence in employers, and cast a pall over the entire
employment relationship.
Adding to the challenges of cost pressures and corporate
scandal, the marketplace placed increasing demands on
organizations in terms of product innovation, service and
technology. The market demanded new business models and
processes in order to accommodate the emerging information age,
and it was essential that organizations appropriately deploy
human resources to meet these new demands (Tulgan, 2002).
The emphasis on knowledge workers as opposed to
production workers required organizations to either retrain or
acquire the skills and abilities to meet the emerging demands.
Those possessing desirable skills could demand high salaries and
numerous perquisites, and organizations responded with lucrative
offers (Tulgan, 2002),
Despite these enriched compensation packages, some
organizations found that the employees in whom they had invested
so much had little hesitation in leaving for compelling job
offers. The transitory nature of the workforce confounded the
attempt to acquire and retain valuable talent. In addition, the
emerging workforce possessed alternative beliefs about work, and
engaged the employment relationship quite differently than their
predecessors.
Current Situation
Currently, "new age" workers view the employment
relationship as contingent not contractual, thus they limit
their commitment to a particular organization (Mir, Mir & Mosca,
2002). "New age" workers possess the power to leverage
favorable employment arrangements, and do not feel compelled,
through loyalty or obligation, to remain, long term, with an
organization.
Economic and social changes have converged to create a very
different view of the employment relationship across the
workforce. The trust once shared between employees and
employers has disintegrated due to the demands of a global
economy, and the ravages of job loss and corporate wrongdoing.
This has jeopardized employee loyalty, as employees fear the
risk of attaching to a particular company (Grieves, 2003). As
such, organizations are more challenged than ever to engender
employee commitment and generate employee affinity. Creating
these bonds is essential to survival and organizations must
carefully examine ways to develop and sustain employee
commitment.
Employee Commitment
Employee commitment has long been of interest to
researchers and practitioners, and given the challenges of
today's marketplace, it is of considerable interest to
organizations that wish to remain competitive. Commitment is an
important part of an employee's psychological state because
employees who experience high organizational commitment tend to
exhibit selected behaviors, such as extraordinary performance,
increased productivity and interest in innovation (Meyer &
Allen, 1997) . Additionally, high organizational commitment
reportedly contributes to greater retention of employees, thus
maximizing the investment that companies make in human capital.
Organizations that seek a return on the investment made in
their employees may reap rewards by creating a workplace that
forges an emotional bond between the organization and the
employee, thus enhancing the likelihood of a lasting and durable
attachment to the company. This form of commitment, described as
an employee's affective or cathetic response and experienced by
such feelings as trust, pride, affinity and inspiration, binds
the employee to the organization through the psychic aspects of
the work experience (Kanter, 1968). This type of commitment is
engendered without the necessity of tangible rewards, and proves
to be more enduring (Kanter, 1968; Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Galvanizing this type of commitment early in the employment
experience offers organizations the opportunity to retain newly
acquired talent and ensures the retention of these assets, over
time.
Significance
The cost of attracting and retaining viable talent is
considerable. Companies must vigorously search for talent, and
must be ready to make compelling employment offers. These
activities require a significant investment of company
resources. Depending upon an individual's level in the
organization, a company may spend $10,000 to $30,000 for the
acquisition of a single, non-executive employee (Corporate
Leadership Council, 1998). This outlay includes costs for
advertising and staff time, as well as for pre-employment
processing expenses. It does not include costs that may be
incurred for signing bonuses and relocation expenses that
are routinely offered for more senior level positions. However,
the acquisition expense is only the beginning of a company's
investment in a newly hired employee.
A new entrant to an organization is a costly undertaking.
Costs associated with the orientation, assimilation and training
of a newly hired employee are significant during the first few
years of employment, and can cost double or triple the amount of
an employee's first-year salary (Corporate Leadership Council,
1998). A great deal of time, money and attention is devoted to
ensuring that the new employee is well situated to perform his
or her job, thus causing the expense structure for a new hire to
be a "front end load" proposition. And, as an employee gains
experience and valuable skills, he or she becomes more
marketable to other organizations.
Failure to retain these assets not only drains the
organization of resources, but also serves to enrich the
position of a competing organization. Further, these high value
employees exit at rates that are as high as twice the turnover
for the aggregate employee population (Corporate Leadership
Council, 1998), and they make exit decisions earlier in the
employment relationship (Reicheld, 1996). Losing talent carries
a high price in terms of lost investment, cost of reinvestment,
and in terms of the impact on customers and co-workers. These
7
indirect or hidden costs can account for 70-85% of the
total cost of loss, and expose the organization to risks that
have a deleterious impact upon its viability and competitive
position (Reichheld, 1996).
The benefits of retaining employees are evident in the
opportunity to avoid costs to the organization. However, there
is additive benefit in retaining employees who are fully engaged
and productive. This opportunity compels companies to find ways
to inspire employees and create workplaces that energize and
excite employees to high levels of performance and innovation.
This can be accomplished by activating the emotional aspects of
an employee's work life that bring about contributions beyond
the confines of the employee's assigned role. Given the
considerable positive benefits of engaging a workforce and the
costs of losing valuable employees, there exists a case for
examining how various aspects of organizational life may
influence commitment.
This study examines employee commitment in relation to
tenure and an employee's organizational status in regard to work
group and job level. This study is significant because prior
research studies have examined only employee commitment and
tenure (Beck & Wilson, 2000: Van Maanen, 1975; Wiener, 1982),
and very little has been researched to better understand
8
cominitment and its relationship to specific facets of the
organizational setting. Understanding these dynamics may
inform organizational practices that contribute to the retention
of the talent that organizations will need to effectively
compete in an ever changing, global marketplace.
As labor shortages intensify, this will become an even more
troublesome issue for organizations, as it is expected that by
2010, businesses in the United States will face labor shortages
of more than 10 million workers (Department of Labor, 2003).
Largely, this gap is caused by the aging workforce, as those
leaving the workforce in the next 15 years will increase by 26%,
whereas new entrants will account for only 6% of the total
workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001) . This situation is
further exacerbated by the expectation of increased flight of
talent, as the United States economy improves and job
opportunities become more plentiful.
Implications
The outcomes of this inquiry have several implications and
opportunities for organizations that wish to improve performance
through more effective use of human resources. Understanding
the ways in which organizational influences relate to commitment
may provide clues for organizations wishing to intervene early
in the employment relationship to effect higher levels of
employee commitment and improve the potential for employee
retention. By examining the ways in which organizational
factors such as tenure, work group and job level relate to
commitment, an organization may garner more precise information
about new hire commitment, and allow for more differentiated
retention strategies. In addition, by understanding the
commitment at various intervals throughout the work experience,
companies can intervene to impact commitment in a timely and
salient way. This study will make a contribution to the
development of best practices in employee relations and
organizational effectiveness by examining actionable
opportunities for organizations to optimize employee commitment.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study uses commitment as
a core concept. Commitment, in general, is a multidimensional
construct, and employee commitment, in particular, has three
components: affective, continuance, and normative commitment
(Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Affective commitment is a psychological phenomenon in which
an employee possesses feelings of affinity, inspiration and
enthusiasm for an object.
Continuance commitment is a course of action driven by an
employee's belief that he or she should stay with an
organization because too much time and energy have been invested
10
to risk exiting the organization, or the employee
perceives that there are few employment opportunities elsewhere.
Normative commitment relates to the moral imperative of the
employment relationship, wherein an employee stays with an
organization because he or she believes it is the morally
correct course of action. A normatively committed employee
remains with an organization because he or she believes it is
the right thing to do and staying with the organization is
congruent with his or her personal, familial or community
values. Continuance and normative commitment are less desirable
because these forms of commitment do not inspire positive
emotional affect, whereas an employee who is affectively
committed is far more likely to engage and be inspired to great
performance than is an employee who commits for passive or
obligatory reasons (Meyer & Allen, 1997) .
The part of conceptual framework used in this study
isolates affective commitment in relation to organizational
influences involving tenure, work group and job level. I focus
exclusively on affective commitment because, as noted in the
literature review, affective commitment is the most enduring and
productive form of commitment (Kanter, 1968). According to the
literature, affective commitment emotionally binds an employee
to an organization and is more likely to be a catalyst for high
levels of productivity and performance (Mowday, Porter & Steers,
11
1982), whereas continuance and normative commitment do
not offer these benefits and can have a negative impact on the
organizational system.
Developing Commitment
This framework assumes that, through various experiences
that employees have with an organization, affective commitment
develops, over time. As an employee's tenure in an organization
increases, he or she experience various aspects of
organizational life, and these interactions evoke an emotional
response. The employee draws upon these perceptions and
feelings to make decisions about his or her membership in the
organization, and it is likely that an employee who possesses
positive feelings about an organization and his or her situation
in it, will choose to continue the employment relationship and
engage productively in the mission of the organization.
Affective commitment develops through such mechanisms as
receiving supportive feedback from management and having
affirming relationships with co-workers (Schein, 1970). Highly
committed employees also report having trust and confidence in
the organization and its leadership (Meyer & Allen, 1997) and
they possess pride in organizational membership, excitement
about their work, and feel empowered to succeed (Kanter, 1968).
In addition, these employees have positive feelings toward the
organization when they perceive that the organization supports
12
their development and growth (Eisenberger & Huntington,
1986). Conversely, employees who experience indifference,
hostility, or oppression in the workplace do not positively
engage or commit. These employees commit to an organization for
unproductive reasons, such as fear or inertia, and are more
likely to exit an organization or engage in counterproductive
activities.
Given the potentially deleterious effects of continuance
and normative commitment, these dimensions of commitment were
excluded from this study, thus limiting the scope of this
examination to the affective dimension of commitment. (See
Appendix A, Figure 1 for an illustrative model.)
Operational Definitions
The operational definitions used in this study are:
• "Employee" defines an individual who is paid through
the organization's payroll system, and is regularly
scheduled to perform a specific job for the
organization. These individuals are employed at all
levels of the organization.
• "Organization" and "company" are used interchangeably
to identify a $90 billion, for-profit, multi-line
financial services organization located in the Midwest
of the United States. This organization has been in
operation since 1895, and employs approximately 22,000
13
employees, nationwide. For the purposes of
this study, the "Study Company" serves to identify the
organization, in order to maintain confidentiality.
"Tenure" and "years of service," "years of
employment," and "employment" are used interchangeably
and are defined as continuous time from an employee's
first day of work through the date that the employee
participated in the survey used in this study. This
includes time worked within a calendar year with no
official break in service, and is not affected by
intermittent absences from the organization. This
timeframe is measured by participant responses to the
"Length of Service with the Study Company" identifier
on the survey instrument. (See Appendix B for a copy
of the fully vetted survey instrument.)
"Work Group" identifies the business group in which an
employee works. This status is measured by
participant self-identification with 1 of 8 business
groups on the survey instrument. The business groups
are identified as. Corporate & Investment Banking,
Financial Group, Capital Management, Consumer Banking,
Consumer Finance, Administration Services, Support
Areas, Finance.
14
• "Job Level" is defined as the salary grade
level as defined by the Study Company. For
interpretation purposes in this study, these levels
are classified as follows: job grades 13-24 (entry
level), job grades 74-79 (professional), job grades
80-83 (managerial) 84-88 (executive), job grades 89 or
higher (senior executive).
• "Commitment," "employee commitment," "affective
commitment," and "organizational commitment" are used
interchangeably and are defined as an act of
consigning or engaging one's emotional and
intellectual energy to a particular entity. Included
in this dynamic are elements such as feelings of
pride, empowerment, excitement, inspiration and
affinity, and were measured by items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
8, 19, 28, and 30 on the survey instrument. See
chapter three for further illustration of this
commitment construct.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses that were tested in this study were:
HI: Employee commitment differs according to employee

tenure.
H2: Employee commitment differs according to the work

group of the employee.
H3: Employee commitment differs according to the job level

of the employee.
15
Limitations
This study has several limitations. The data that were
examined in this research were obtained from a secondary data
source that was compiled for an unrelated study. This limits
the present study to the inquiries that were made in the
original research design. In addition, this study is limited by
time, content and setting. The data used were collected at one
point in time and do not provide a time series examination of
the respondent group. Lastly, the setting is specific to one,
for-profit organization in the United States, thus limiting the
application and generalization of the results to similarly
situated organizations.
Assumptions
The data contained in the secondary data source were
collected in a fashion consistent with generally acceptable
research methods, and the data were appropriately managed and
maintained. This includes the use of legitimate design,
distribution, collection and analytical methods throughout the
survey process. It is also assumed that the respondents from
whom the data were collected possessed the ability to understand
the inquiries, and that respondents were provided adequate time
to participate. This study also assumes that respondents were
not constrained by issues of confidentiality, and felt free to
participate completely and candidly.
16
Chapt:er Two
Literature Review
This study focuses on employee commitment and is concerned
with the relationship between commitment and tenure and an
employee's organizational status in the context of his or her
work group and job level. This is measured by responses to
selected commitment-related items that were administered as part
of an employee satisfaction survey. These items measure
elements such as pride, excitement, inspiration, and desire to
stay with the organization. These aspects of organizational
life are reported to be among the most essential to attracting
and retaining talented employees (Meyer & Allen, 1997). They
are vital to affecting high productivity, and are thought to be
more enduring than other forms of commitment (Kanter, 1968).
Creating work environments and managerial practices that foster
these aspects of employee commitment and engage employees at an
affective level serve to build the competitive strength and
long-term viability of an organization. But, what exactly is
commitment, and how does it operate in the organizational
setting? What organizational factors effect commitment? To
answer these questions, it is important to first clarify the
concept of commitment and the way it affects an employee's work
experience. Decades of research can better elucidate the
17
concept of employee commitment and provide an
understanding as to how commitment operates in the
organizational setting.
Situating the Literature Review
Even a cursory review of the organization and employee
commitment literature situates the reader in the midst of myriad
conceptualizations and definitions of commitment. Researchers
have sought a common definition for commitment for more than 40
years. None has emerged. However, these studies have yielded
increasing clarity about various aspects of commitment, and have
advanced the notion that commitment refers to a dynamic
constellation of employee attitudes and behaviors (Angle &
Perry, 1983; Etzioni, 1961; Kanter, 1968; Porter, Steers &
Mowday, 1974; Mowday, Porter, Steers, 1982; Meyer & Allen,
1997). This chapter presents a chronological review of this
research and the resulting literature. Examining the commitment
literature from this vantage point provides a basis for
understanding the evolution and development of the concept of
employee commitment and underscores the importance of this study
and the possibilities for future research.
A comprehensive review of organizational, industrial and
social psychology literature was conducted. This investigation
was limited to the literature concerning commitment in
organizational settings, specifically in for-profit and non
18
profit organizations. Howard Becker's (1960)
foundational work on employee commitment serves as a starting
point for a review of four decades of research, ending with
current commentary on employee commitment. I conducted a
thorough examination of online and library resources and
examined several professional publications and learning
resources in order to extract the appropriate materials for this
review.
The on line databases First Search, WorldCat, Psychlnfo,
and Social Psychology Abstracts were used as primary resources.
First Search and WorldCat provided coverage of industrial and
organizational text, whereas Psychlnfo and Social Psychology
Abstracts elicited literature related to the attitudinal and
behavioral aspects of commitment. The libraries of the
Corporate Leadership Council and the Saratoga Institute were
consulted to extend the examination of commitment in
organizations. These resources provide customized research to
organizations through their respective membership networks. In
all, the literature was narrowed to 42 articles and nine books
containing salient commentary. (See Appendix C for summary.)
The 1960s - The Emergence of a Concept
The genesis of modern commitment literature can be traced
to Howard Becker's description of commitment as a series of
"side bets" that an individual makes relating to his or her
19
relationship with an organization (Becker, 1960). Becker
described these "side bets" as conscious or unconscious cost
analyses that inform a person's decision to stay or leave an
organization. According to Becker (1960), an individual may
choose to stay with an organization because the decision to
leave would bring with it costs or losses that are intolerable.
For example, a person may make a "side bet" relating to the cost
of losing retirement benefits, the risk of finding other
employment, or the loss of social contacts. Becker
operationalized commitment as a cognitive and behavioral
construct by suggesting that an individual activates analytical
and decision-making processes to commit to a particular course
of action. Through this conceptualization, Becker provided a
strong foundation for the study of employee commitment.
Another early attempt to frame and define commitment was
made by Amitai Etzioni (1961) in his work on complex
organizations. Etzioni supported the use of commitment
typologies to describe the various aspects of the commitment
construct, and identified an individual's commitment in three
forms: moral, calculative and alienative (Etzioni, 1961). In
this framework, Etzioni posited that a person may possess an
intense and positive orientation toward an organization, and he
or she internalizes this affect by identifying with the
organization's goals and values, particularly as this
20
identification relates to authority within the
organization (Mowday, et al., 1982). In this context,
calculative commitment is much like what Becker described as
"side betting," although Etzioni incorporated a positive aspect
and suggested that calculative commitment involves the exchange
of both the costs and benefits of commitment. Lastly, Etzioni
contended that alienative commitment is borne out of required
involvement in an acquiescent association with an organization.
Here, individuals are constrained and forced to be involved in
an organization and lack the freedom of choice. Prisons and
cults are examples of these captive organizations (Etzioni,
1961). Etzioni broadened Becker's definition by extending the
concept of commitment to include an affective component. His
conceptualization of commitment introduced the
multidimensionality of commitment and launched a body of
research regarding the development of the commitment construct.
Broadening the Concept of Commitment
Rosabeth Moss Kanter built upon the early work of Becker
and Etzioni and presented an expansive study of commitment in
utopian societies (Kanter, 1968). Kanter described commitment
in the construct of personality, and noted that commitment has
cognitive, emotional, and control or governance features
(Kanter, 1968). Kanter not only examined the personality
21
aspects of commitment, but also extended the discussion
to include the impact of commitment on organizations. She noted
that commitment is "an intersection of organizational requisites
and personal experience"(Kanter, 1968), and like Etzioni,
suggested a multidimensional concept of commitment.
Kanter discussed how cognitive engagement leads to
commitment, as Becker did in his "side bet" theory. That is, a
person uses mental processes to understand and make decisions
about his or her commitment intentions. Kanter's discussion
extends to the impact of emotion in binding an individual to an
organization, and suggests that there may be a cathetic or
affective response when individuals engage with an organization
(Kanter, 1968). This response may include feelings of pride,
excitement or inspiration. Further, Kanter (1968) introduced
ego involvement as a response to the binding nature of
commitment through an individual's evaluation of the moral
imperative of committing to an organization. This process acts
as a control mechanism and involves an individual's decision
making based upon alignment with his or her moral view, or the
view held by a larger societal group. Kanter, like Becker and
Etzioni, noted that individuals do, indeed, make commitment
decisions based on the costs and benefit of their decisions;
however, Kanter expanded this view to include the psychic and
moral dimensions of the act of committing.
22
The 1970s - Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness
Kanter's work enhanced the evolving research related to
organization commitment in the commercial and industrial
setting. Edgar Schein (1970), in his early work on
organizational socialization, contributed to this discussion by
noting the impact that commitment has on an individual's
assimilation into and success with an organization. Schein
contended that highly and affectively committed employees
positively impact organizational effectiveness, and he argued
that organizations can intervene to impact the development of
commitment, particularly in the early stages of employment.
This was a significant contribution to the commitment literature
in that, to date, much of the research had been limited to the
definition and dynamic of the commitment construct, and did not
address the ways in which organizations can play a role in
developing commitment. This discussion ushered in a decade of
major and pivotal research, beginning with ventures into the
measurement of commitment, and research related to the way
organizations and employees play a role in developing employee
commitment.
Measuring Commitment
As noted earlier, there was little consensus in regard to a
definition of employee commitment, and this presented a
challenge for researchers who were interested in measuring
23
commitment. The divergent conceptualizations made it
difficult to settle upon one enduring measurement approach.
However, in 1974, Lyman Porter and his colleagues developed an
instrument through which various conceptions of commitment could
be measured. Porter and his associates conceived yet another
definition of commitment to facilitate the measurement process
noting that:
Organizational commitment is defined in the present context

as an individual's identification with and involvement in a
particular organization. Such commitment can generally be
characterized by at least three factors: (a) a strong belief
in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values;
b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization;(c) a definite desire to maintain organizational
membership." (Porter et al., 1974)
This definition identifies commitment as a multidimensional
construct, much like the definitions that Kanter and Etzioni
advanced. In it. Porter et al. (1974), elucidated the affective
aspects of commitment by including organizational identification
and involvement as key components of commitment. This research
was the first to test the causal aspects of commitment and
organizational life, and offered an avenue for predicting
outcomes.
This framework served as the foundation for the
Organization Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) as conceived by
Porter et al.(1974). This 15-item questionnaire was designed to
measure the degree to which respondents felt committed to an
organization. It included items pertaining to an employee's
24
perception of his or her loyalty to the company, his or
her willingness to put forth extra effort for the organization,
and the employee's acceptance of and identification with the
organization's values (Porter et al., 1974). The instrument
focuses upon the features of affective and continuance
commitment and inquires about an employee's emotional situation,
as well as his or her "side-betting" or calculative commitment
(Becker, 1960; Etzioni, 1961). This instrument also
incorporated Ranter's (1968)conception of commitment as an
emotional engagement. For example, the OCQ includes the item:
"I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization"
as a measure of affective commitment (Porter et al., 1974).
Initially, the OCQ was administered in a non-profit
healthcare setting and provided baseline data for understanding
employee commitment and job satisfaction as they relate to an
employee's propensity to leave an organization. The study's
results indicated that commitment is a stronger predictor of
employee turnover than is job satisfaction, suggesting that
measuring an employee's commitment level provides valuable
bellwethers for employee exit (Porter et al., 1974). This
research served an important role in emphasizing the importance
of understanding commitment and its impact on an organization.
Also, it compelled subsequent studies to examine the way
25
commitment develops and how the nature of commitment
changes across time.
Influencing Commitment
Situating commitment in a longitudinal perspective is
particularly salient to the present study, as it presents an
opportunity to understand if commitment changes as an employee
tenures. Early longitudinal research focused upon newly hired
employees and measured commitment at the time of entry and
across the early months of employment. Van Maanen (1975), in
his study of police recruits, learned that early experiences had
the most impact on the development of affective commitment. He
posited that socialization processes, such as group
identification, strongly influenced the extent to which an
individual commits to an organization. For example, Van Maanen
found that recruits were more likely to commit and be
affectively committed to an organization, and that their
commitment was more enduring over time if the recruits engaged
in socially supportive relationships, such as mentoring or peer
social groups early in the employment experience.
Concurrent with these research activities were studies
attempting to understand how individual characteristics, such as
age, gender, education, tenure and marital status affected
employee commitment. Richard Steers (1977), in his study of
hospital employees, scientists and engineers, found that
26
although there was some relationship between personal
characteristics and commitment, the relationship was
considerably stronger between commitment and organizational
influences, such as leadership, managerial effectiveness and
communications. These outcomes intensified research interest in
organizational influences, and contributed to the waning
interest in using personal characteristics as markers for an
individual's propensity to commit to an organization. As such,
commitment literature in the past 25 years has given little
attention to personal characteristics as antecedents to
commitment. Rather, researchers have focused their attention on
gaining clarity and consensus on a definition of commitment that
would more precisely guide their endeavors in measuring
commitment, and in attending to the way organizational
influences affect commitment.
1980s - Organizational Influences and Commitment
The outcome of these efforts yielded various definitions
and descriptions of commitment, but none was distinctive or
highly differentiated (Cook & Wall, 1980). Largely, any
differences among definitions were in semantics and word choice.
However, the unmet call for clarity in definition did not slow
the generation of research. Researchers launched numerous
studies related to organizational influences and management
practices (Angle & Perry, 1983; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986;
27
Wiener, 1982;). These studies further affirmed the
significant influence that organizational philosophy, values and
practices have on employee commitment.
An example of this trend in research is found in Yoash
Wiener's (1982) study on employment selection and new employee
entry. Wiener found that the effective transmission of
organizational values and culture strongly influenced commitment
of newly hired employees. Wiener built on early studies of new
entrants (Van Maanen, 1975) and discussed the importance of the
entry process, especially in the pre-employment stage. Wiener
posited that the development of commitment begins before an
individual joins an organization, and that interventions into
this development process do have an effect on the nature and
intensity of commitment.
Wiener's work was an example of the developing interest in
the field of commitment and organizational influences, and the
1980s launched a renewed interest in the social psychological
aspects of commitment. As an example, Eisenberger and
Huntington(1986) introduced the concept of Perceived
Organizational Support (PCS) as a model for understanding how an
organization can transmit its involvement with and support of
employees. Eisenberger and Huntington found that greater
commitment is engendered if an organization can demonstrate high
levels of support for employees. For example, an employee's
28
propensity to coinmit to an organization may increase if
the employee perceives the organization as demonstrating support
for the welfare of employees by offering medical and retirement
benefits. Or, organizational support may be evident through the
organization's interest in assimilating, training and developing
its employees.
In similar research, Arnon Reichers (1985) examined how
leadership effectiveness influenced employee commitment. She
found a strong, positive relationship between employee
perception of leaders and an employee's propensity to commit to
an organization. The results of her study indicated that
employees are more affectively committed to an organization when
they perceive that the leaders of the organization support the
welfare of employees and invest in their development and
success. Together, Eisenberger and Huntington's (1986) and
Reicher's (1985) research endeavors are exemplars of an emerging
era of inquiry.
Perhaps the most significant contribution to the employee
commitment literature in the 1980s, was the publication of
"Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment,
Absenteeism, and Turnover" (Mowday et al., 1982). This work
served as a capstone for prior research and as a catalyst for
more robust research relating to the causal aspects of
commitment. Mowday et al. (1982), acknowledged the conundrum of
29
arriving at a common definition of employee commitment,
and concluded that to fully understand commitment, one must
accept the construct as multidimensional (Mowday et al., 1982).
This conceptualization suggests that there are behavioral and
emotional aspects of commitment that cannot be categorized
neatly nor blended for the saice of parsimony. As such, Mowday
and his associates borrow from Etzioni's work and discuss how
commitment typologies help frame the wide and diverse
conceptualizations of commitment, such as moral, calculative and
affective commitment. The authors discussed the antecedents and
outcomes of commitment from this framework, specifically those
related to employee absenteeism and turnover (Mowday et al.,
1982). Their work also captured a rich discussion on the impact
of managerial action, especially in regard to selection, early
work experiences, and socialization processes. The research
supports the notion that organizations and their leaders have a
significant opportunity to influence the development and
sustenance of commitment.
This work served as a pathway to more expansive research
into the conceptualization and operationalization of employee
commitment. Several studies were conducted to test various
aspects of organizational life, such as reward practices,
communications, decision-making, and organization climate (Angle
& Perry, 1983; Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Stumpf & Hartmann,
30
1984), These studies found that commitment is predictive
of an individual's motivation and performance, thus expanding
upon Schein's (1970) early discussion regarding the impact of
commitment on organizational effectiveness (DeCotiis & Summers,
1983).
The 1990's - Social Change and Commitment
The economic climate in the United States during this time,
caused many organizations to assess their business models in an
effort to maintain profitability. The increasing influences of
a global marketplace and intensified competition compelled
organizations to operate more efficiently and effectively.
Maximizing the efficiency and productivity of human capital was
of particular concern given that these assets represent the most
costly and transient resources of an organization.
The 1990s brought the era of corporate downsizing and
industry consolidation. Employees experienced radical changes
in their employment arrangements and found that "lifetime
employment" had become a cultural artifact. Mass lay offs,
limited pay increases, and diminished promotional opportunities
created unease in the workforce and altered the way in which
employees viewed their relationships with employers (Reichheld,
1996). The psychological or affective bonds between employee
and employer eroded making the relationship more contingent and
transitory. Employers could no longer promise lifetime
31
employment, thus limiting the extent to which employees
attached to a particular company. The long-held "employment
contract" ceased to exist, and caused employees to invest fewer
emotional stakes in the employment relationship (Hackett, 1996).
The dynamic of the employment relationship and employee
commitment is represented in the major work of John Meyer and
Natalie Allen (1997), These authors published "Commitment in
the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application" wherein they
discuss their conceptualization of commitment in a three-
component model that defines commitment.in terms of an
employee's attitudinal or motivational situation (Meyer & Allen,
1997). Meyer and Allen acknowledged and affirmed the presence
of affective and continuance or calculative commitment and noted
that employees do commit to organizations for both the psychic
and tangible rewards. Meyer and Allen extended this concept by
adding the dimension of normative commitment. This describes a
form of commitment that is borne out of obligation. An employee
may be normatively committed because cultural norms dictate
unequivocal allegiance to an organization, or their commitment
may be the result of an emotional response such as guilt and
fear of being ostracized for not committing to the organization.
Employees who commit to an organization out of obligation, feel
as if they "ought" to stay, as opposed to feeling an affective
desire or calculative need to stay (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
32
The discussion of comraitment in a moral or
obligatory context was particularly salient at the time of Meyer
and Allen's publication (1997), because moral obligation was an
essential component of the "lifetime employment" contract
(Hackett, 1996). Companies and employees engaged in the
employment relationship and felt a reciprocal moral obligation
to deliver on the promises of that contract. The advent and
realities of a radically changing economic and social
environment shattered this notion and made normative or
obligatory commitment a hollow promise.
Meyer and Allen (1997), through the lens of a three-
component model, explored various aspects of commitment,
specifically related to organizational outcomes, such as
performance, absenteeism and turnover. They discovered that
there are strong associations between commitment and these
outcomes, and used these findings to illuminate the relationship
between commitment and managerial practices. This effort at
application was among the first and provided insights into the
ways organizations can use research to inform organizational
effectiveness, thus making this considerable body of research
accessible and useful to the practitioner.
2000 and Beyond - Commitment in the New Millenium
We again see the impact of social change in this era of
research. At the turn of the century, organizations were
33
attempting to regain their competitive orientation after
the upheaval of the "dot.com" industry. Employers became
increasingly concerned about employee retention as the scarcity
of talented and skilled workers challenged their competitive
position. The highly desirable "new age" employees, those with
essential skills, but possessing non-traditional work values,
were highly valued and difficult to retain (Mir et al., 2002).
These highly fungible and transferable assets present new
retention issues, because they are more likely to attach to the
content and design of their work, rather than attaching to an
organization (Newmark, 2002). These employees are not driven by
traditional organizational offerings such as upward career
mobility, the psychic rewards of membership, nor tangible
rewards, like pension plans or stock options. Instead, they
place a high value on balancing work and personal time and view
upward mobility as an ancient hallmark of success (Pink, 2001).
These individuals view their careers as a series of meaningful
engagements as opposed to ladders of success, and view job
challenge, stimulating work and inspiring peer groups as
evidence of career achievement. In addition, these workers are
highly transient and can move easily among organizations. Given
these emerging demands, organizations must find new ways to
develop and sustain employee commitment, particularly early in
34
the employment relationship, in order to retain these
valuable employees.
Commitment and Employee Tenure
Longitudinal research has focused on newly hired employees
and their experiences in the early months of employment (Van
Maanen, 1975; Wiener, 1982). The recent work of Karen Beck and
Carlene Wilson is the first foray into a broad study of
affective commitment and tenure across several years of
employment (Beck & Wilson, 2000). This study found that
employee commitment decreases across the employment experience,
whereas prior studies, focusing only on commitment in the early
months of employment, found that commitment increases across
time (Cohen, 1993; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, 1997). This
indicates that there may be some impact of longer tenure on
commitment, as noted in Beck and Wilson's study. However, Beck
and Wilson's work has several limitations.
Beck and Wilson's (2000) study of commitment and tenure is
limited by the research environment because the study
participants were members of an Australian police force, and the
authors acknowledge the cultural implications of a police
organization. These groups are often highly fraternal and
reflect the militaristic origins of law enforcement. This study
also is limited by geography, in that it was conducted in
35
Australia, and may provide very little transference to
the work culture in the United States. Further, the study is
limited to a non-profit organization and does not elicit
information relating to commitment in for-profit companies.
Although the current literature is a catalyst for a
discussion regarding commitment in the early years of
employment, there is a dearth of research relating to tenure and
other organizational factors. The present study contributes to
this discussion by examining the relationship between commitment
and tenure, and goes further to examine employee work group and
job level to determine if there is a relationship between these
factors and an employee's commitment level. This area of
research may provide clues as to what factors influence employee
commitment, thus providing guidance for developing intervention
strategies.
Approaching Further Study
Arriving at this point in the literature has been built
upon various research activities relating to employee
commitment. The concept of commitment has traveled through
numerous iterations, beginning in the 1960s with Howard Becker's
(1960) one-dimensional conception of commitment. Amitai Etzioni
(1961) and Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1968) elaborated on this model
and are credited with the early work on affective commitment,
and the ways in which this emotional aspect of a person's
36
organizational experience operates. The 1970s added
discourse regarding how organizational influences and activities
can affect an employee's perception and affinity, and served as
an impetus for measuring commitment (Schein, 197 0; Porter, et
al., 1974).
The prospect of measuring and influencing commitment
compelled researchers throughout the 1980s to uncover the
antecedents of commitment and attempt to assess them in a
scientific and valid manner. Various measurement instruments
were developed during this time and they allowed researchers to
apply empirical analysis to the commitment concept. These
studies contributed both predictive and descriptive data
analysis that informed outcomes of commitment such as
absenteeism and turnover, and were a catalyst for future applied
research.
Research in the past 15 years has added a focus on the
precursors and outcomes of commitment, and has been particularly
interested in the impact of organizational influences on
employee commitment. Specifically, there has been an increasing
interest in the ways in which organizations can bind employees
to the organization early in the employment experience.
However, this research is in its infant stages and requires
considerably more attention. This work is particularly salient
37
at a time when talent is scarce and trust between
employees and employers has eroded.
The review of commitment literature illustrates the
evolution of the commitment concept, from the early stages of
concept development to the current state that situates
commitment as an important organizational issue (Kanter, 1968).
The compelling case for retaining employees in a fiercely
competitive labor market offers a sturdy platform on which to
launch further examination of the employee commitment in the
organizational setting. There is considerable opportunity to
further examine commitment and the ways in which it is
influenced by various organizational factors. The present study
will endeavor to contribute to this body of knowledge.
The following chapter will address the methods that were
used to examine commitment and its relationship to specific
organizational influences. A secondary database containing
employee satisfaction survey data was used to assess employee
commitment and its relationship to tenure, work group and job
level. The procedures and processes used to extract and analyze
these data are discussed in the following chapter.
38
Chapter Three
Methods
Introduction
This section presents the methods that were used to conduct
this study and includes a description of the setting, the
research design, the instrument, the sample and the procedures
that were used to collect and analyze the data for this
research.
The data were derived from a secondary database that was
compiled by the Study Company for the purposes of assessing
employee satisfaction. These data were gathered for purposes
other than this study, thus limiting the study to the specific
questions asked of the Study Company employees pertaining to
employee commitment. Further comment regarding the limitations
of these data will be discussed later in this chapter.
Under a written agreement with the Study Company, the author
of this study was given unrestricted access to the data to
examine whether differences exist in the level of employee
commitment relative to employee tenure, work group and job
level.
Setting
The Study Company is a large, multi-line financial services
organization located in the Midwest of the United States. The
Study Company has experienced considerable change during the
39
four years prior to this study, highlighted by the
appointment of a new Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in
May, 2001. Part of this transformation included a major shift
in the strategic direction of the organization, several cost
containment initiatives and many changes in the senior
leadership of the organization. In addition, external forces
such as a radical downturn in the economy, the terrorist attacks
in the United States on September 11, 2001, and the turbulence
in the overall geopolitical landscape have impacted the social
climate of the organization.
In light of these events, the senior leadership of the Study
Company redoubled efforts to retain productive and engaged
employees, and devoted substantial time and resources to
understanding and improving employee satisfaction and commitment
to the organization. The leaders of the organization hoped that
through these efforts, they would build enduring commitment, and
in turn, inoculate the organization from an exodus of employees
when the economy and social climate improved. And, the company
wished to continuously improve the level of employee engagement
and innovation, as this was believed to be the key to the
organization gaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
The organization turned to its existing employee feedback
systems for evaluation and assessment in an attempt to measure
the effectiveness of these efforts. The organization conducted
40
its first employee opinion survey in September 1999, the
second survey in February 2001, and the third survey was
administered in November 2002. The survey findings provided
important data regarding employee satisfaction and the
information is used to support strategic and tactical
initiatives across the organization, particularly decisions
regarding Human Resources policies and managerial practices.
The survey data are an important resource for understanding
potential problem areas and identifying areas of strength. As
such, outcomes of the survey serve as useful diagnostic tools in
strategy planning and implementation.
The Study Company has particular interest in this present
study because the focus upon commitment and various
organizational influences may more precisely influence their
attempts to bind employees to the organization. From this
analysis, the leaders of the organization hope to better
understand where best practices exist, as well as target chronic
or pervasive problems regarding employee commitment.
Research Design
This is a descriptive study using a secondary data set
collected at one point in time in November 2002.
Sample
The sample for this study was derived from the overall
Study Company's survey sample of 22,019 people who, in November
41
2002, were actively employed by the organization and were
located at 1,100 locations throughout the United States. A 64%
survey response rate elicited 13,985 respondents to the survey.
The sample for this study is drawn from the primary dataset and
consists of respondents who identified their status by tenure,
work group and job level, as shown in Tables 1, 2, 3,
respectively.
Table 1
Respondents by Tenure
Tenure n
Less than 1 year 1, 376
1-3 years 3, 319
4-10 years 4,724
11-20 years 2, 800
21 or more years 1,597
Total 13,816
Table 2
Respondents by Work Group
Work Group n
Corporate & Investment Banking 1, 881
Study Company Financial Group 1, 309
Capital Management Group 271
Consumer Bank 5,058
Administration Services 3,363
Technology Services 1, 071
Support Areas 420
Finance 412
Total 13,785
42
Table 3
Respondents by Job Level
Job Level n
Entry Level 5,303
Professional 2,881
Managerial 3,119
Executive 936
Total 12,239
Data Collection Instrument-The Study Company Survey
The Study Company's employee opinion survey contained 59
items of inquiry that explored an employee's opinion regarding
various aspects of organizational life, including issues of
employee commitment. Through a factor analysis conducted by the
Study Company, 10 items were isolated as those that most closely
represent commitment, as defined in the Operational Definitions
section in chapter one. These items were the focus of this
study.
Participants used a 5-point response scale ranging from
"Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree" to provide their
feedback for each survey item. In addition, survey participants
were provided the opportunity to identify themselves by work
group, work schedule, geographic location, job level, gender,
race/ethnicity, age and length of service.
43
Data Collection Instrument-Validity
The use of a secondary dataset restricts the ability of the
researcher to test for validity. As such, no face or construct
validity can be established. However, content validity can be
established by identifying the survey items that represent the
affective commitment phenomenon as it is presented in the
Conceptual Framework used in this study. See Table 4 for
illustration.
Table 4
Survey Items in Conceptual Framework
Survey Item/Conceptual Affinity, Empowerment Organizational
_____________ Framework______________ Pride, Excitement_______________________ Support____
#1 "I want to be working at the X

Study Company one year from
now."
#2 "I am empowered to achieve X X

results."
#3 "I am confident in the X X

leadership of the Study
Company."
#5 "I have opportunities to X X X

learn and grow at the Study
Company."
#6 "I would encourage others X X

to work at the Study Company."
#7 "Being an employee of the X X

Study Company has a great deal
of meaning to me."
#8 "I am committed to the X

Study Company as an
organization."
#9 "I am excited about the X

future of the Study Company."
#28 "I am proud to work at the X

Study Company."
#30 "Overall, my attitude X

toward the Study Company is
positive.'
44
The data used in this study were extracted from the
Study Company's employee opinion survey database, and was recast
for analysis of employee commitment by tenure, work group and
job level. Specifically, the job level identifier on the
original survey reflected the organization's unique, internal
job grading system. For the purposes of this study, these grade
levels were translated to "entry level," "professional,"
"managerial," and "executive," in order to provide a more common
and recognizable definition to the reader.
Data Collection Instrument-Scorability, Utility and Cost
To ensure appropriate process standards, the survey items
were written in language easily understood by the sample group,
and all inquiries were made via the survey instrument. Survey
participants had equal access to the survey, and were similarly
situated in terms of general knowledge of the organization.
The survey instrument was easily administered, given the
direct response design of the survey process. This approach is
widely accepted in the organization, and is deemed the most
useful method for survey administration. The survey required no
more than 15 minutes to complete, and the participants were
provided 10 working days to complete and return the surveys.
The Study Company reports that the average cost of each survey
was approximately $3.00, which includes all design, printing,
and mailing costs.
45
For the purposes of this study, a summative mean
score was computed for each participant using the responses to
the survey items identified in Table 4. Analysis of the mean
scores was chosen for this study because the mean represents a
score that is most representative of an entire body of data. In
addition, mean scores are understood easily when presenting
results relating to variance (Thorne & Slane, 1997). Further,
tenure, work group and job level were isolated, and along with
the items related to commitment, were analyzed to specifically
understand if there exists a significant difference in employee
commitment scores relative to these organizational influences.
Procedure-Access to the Data
Initial contact with the Study Company regarding this study
was conducted in person with the Chief Human Resources Officer.
A complete review of the project, its timeline, and the
resources necessary to complete the study were provided to him.
Permission to conduct the study was granted in writing by the
Chief Human Resources Officer. Approval to conduct this study
also was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the
Fielding Graduate Institute. (See Appendix D for letters of
permission.)
Procedure-Data Collection: The Study Company Survey
The Study Company's survey relied upon anonymous,
voluntary, self-reporting by participants and was distributed to
46
all employees via electronic or paper and pencil survey.
Paper/pencil surveys were designed to be tabulated via optical
scanning equipment, and were distributed to 1,700 employees who
did not have access to the company's interoffice electronic mail
system. This population was identified by the company's Human
Resources department and received a paper survey via the
company's regular interoffice mail system. A letter from the
Chief Executive Officer requesting employee participation
accompanied each survey.
The electronic version of the survey was administered via
the company's interoffice electronic mail system. The
electronic survey was accessed via an Internet link located in
an electronic mail message sent by the Chief Executive Officer
to this employee population. The link connected the respondent
to an electronic survey that was housed on the survey
administrator's website. The survey was completed on line and
submitted directly to the third party survey administrator.
Procedure-Data Collection; Present Study
Extracting data for this study involved several statistical
and report writing procedures. The methods, analyses, and
protocol for data requests were identified and the key variables
to be analyzed, along with the criteria for data extraction,
analysis and reporting were determined.
A1
Procedure-Pilot Study
To test the viability and accuracy of the key variables and
the statistical analysis framework used in this study, prototype
reports were produced. This provided an opportunity to review
the way in which data were extracted and analyzed, as well as
the way in which the data were formatted and displayed. The
pilot study also allowed for an assessment of the statistical
procedures that were used, and as a result, it was confirmed
that analysis of variance (ANOVA) was the appropriate test for
this study.
Finally, the pilot study indicated that alterations to
report formats were necessary to improve clarity in
communication and documentation of results. Specifically, the
initial report formats did not fully adhere to the format
requirements of the American Psychological Association (APA),
Publication Manual, (2001), thus requiring an update to the
report formatting criteria. In addition, the pilot study
provided an opportunity to review and affirm appropriate
headings and labels for the graphs and tables used in this
study.
Procedure-Protection of Human Subjects
The Study Company ensured that the employee opinion survey
instrument and methodology that was used in November 2002,
adhered to a number of rigorous steps in order to protect the
48
anonymity and privacy of the employee respondents.
First, the survey instrument was reviewed and approved by the
organization's executive committee, including senior leaders
from all of the organization's business, human resources and the
legal department. Next, a third party research provider was
used to minimize the possibility and perception that individual
responses would be extracted from the database. Third, no
personal identification information (e.g., social security
number, name, employee number) was contained in the survey.
Fourth, to optimize confidentiality, a direct response procedure
was established via a return mail process using a third party
survey administrator. The survey instrument was sent, en masse,
to all employees of the organization in either a paper/pencil
format or via the organization's interoffice electronic mail
system. The paper and pencil surveys were returned via pre
addressed envelope to a special internal mailbox that was
designated for the external vendor and the completed electronic
surveys were transmitted directly to an outside vendor.
Finally, to ensure that a respondent could not be identified,
only departments with at least 25 respondents were analyzed for
reporting purposes, and this specification was communicated to
survey participants prior to the survey being administered.
This study was confined to the survey materials that were
available through the Study Company's database only, and no
49
direct contact with or solicitation of human subjects was
made. These materials are housed at and secured by the Study
Company. The survey database is stored on personal computers
under password protection, and only the statistician and
designated members of the market research staff have access to
the database. The personal computers are accessed only by
authorized personnel and reside in a secured area at the
headquarters location. Dissemination of information is
centralized in the Human Resources department, and only
designated members of the Human Resources staff may request
data. Requests for information that are made by parties other
than the Human Resources staff must be approved by the Chief
Human Resources Officer.
Security was maintained by limiting access to the data and
securing the data files at the vendor sites. The database was
duplicated and retained at alternative sites to ensure easy
replication if the primary databases were compromised or
destroyed. A thorough documentation and archival protocol was
established to ensure appropriate legacy for successor surveys.
The Human Resources staff of the Study Company has
custodianship of the database and managed the data that is
pertinent to this study. Requests for analysis were submitted
to the staff statistician in person or in writing via electronic
mail. Output from these requests was provided in hard copy via
50
confidential mail to the author of this study. These
reports were also available via electronic means, if requested.
The electronic files containing the core data used in this study
were confined to the computer system located at the Study
Company, and were not available for transportation or
transmittal outside of the organization. Reports, whether hard
copy or electronic were available for use at the Study Company
location and were portable to outside locations. At all times,
these records were marked "Confidential," and access to them was
restricted to the researcher, the statistician and.those
individuals who were specifically identified by the Study
Company.
Data Management-The Study Company Survey
The Study Company managed the employee opinion survey data
that was collected in November, 2002, in several ways. The
survey was tabulated using electronic scanning and data transfer
methods. The completed paper surveys were retrieved by the
outside vendor and processed via an optical scanner. The
optical scanning activity was performed at the vendor site by
specially trained staff. After scanning, the data were cleaned
and reviewed for accuracy and then deposited into a secured
database supported by a sbatistical software program in the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS©) that
codified and organized the survey data and demographic
51
identifiers for analysis and reporting. Concurrently,
the responses received via electronic transmission were
deposited directly into the SPSS database. This database,
constructed and maintained by the external survey administrator,
served as the primary repository of the survey data, and the
SPSS application provided utility and flexibility in data
management and analysis. The Human Resources staff has
accountability for maintaining, analyzing and disseminating the
survey data.
Data Management-Present Study
The survey material is held within the electronic files of
the Study Company's Human Resources department at the
headquarters location, and is accessible through the assistance
of a staff statistician. The author of this study provided
instructions for data retrieval, analysis, and reporting to the
statistician and confined these inquiries to survey content
relating to commitment, tenure, work group and job level. These
requests were transmitted in person or in writing, and the
reports were provided to the author in hard copy or via
electronic mail.
Data Analysis
The research hypotheses were:
HI: Employee commitment differs according to employee

tenure.
52
H2: Employee commitment differs according to the
work group of the employee.
H3: Employee commitment differs according to the job level

of the employee.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine
if differences exist, and to determine if any differences were
significant, Tukey's HSD post-hoc tests were conducted with the
level of significance set at .05 (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2000).
Limitations
It is acknowledged that the use of secondary data have
limitations, in that the data that were used in this study were
gathered for purposes other than this study. Because these data
are the outcome of another study, they contain information that
is unrelated to the research topic, and do not address certain
aspects of commitment. As such, the researcher was limited to
the data at hand and could explore commitment only in the
confines of this dataset. In addition, the study relied upon
the records of the third-party vendor to confirm the validity
and reliability of the survey instrument, as well as
confirmation of process quality and integrity.
This study was also limited by its setting. The study was
conducted in a for-profit organization in the Midwest region of
the United States, and as a result, the outcomes cannot be
generalized across all organizations, geographies, or cultures.
Lastly, this study was bound by time, in that it only examined
53
data at one point in time, thus excluding the opportunity
for longitudinal or time series analyses.
54
Chapter Four
Findings with Analysis, Interpretation and Discussion
Final Sample
The final sample in this study included employees of the
Study Company, who, in November 2002, responded to an employee
opinion survey and identified their status in terms of tenure,
work group and job level. Of 13,985 possible respondents,
13,816 completed the survey and identified themselves by tenure;
13,785 identified themselves by work group; and 12,239
identified themselves by job level. Respondents who identified
by tenure, work group or job level chose from five tenure
categories, eight work groups, and four job levels. See
Appendix E for the demographic characteristics of the final
sample in terms of gender, age, ethnicity and work schedule.
The sample for this study was extracted from an existing
dataset, thus there were no differences between the expected
sample and the actual sample used in this study. It might be
argued that the range of group differences observed in these
analyses are rather small, typically ranging from about .1 to
.4, This raises the question of the power of the analysis.
That is, while statistically significant, was the analysis
sufficiently powerful to detect real differences? A variety of
simple analyses are available to answer this question (Cohen,
1988; Keppel, 1991) .
55
The ANOVA analyses used in this study contained the
best estimates of the necessary parameters, thus the estimated
variances and average group differences were used to calculate a
minimum sample size. These calculations revealed that sample
sizes of 292-297 would have resulted in detection of differences
with power exceeding 99%. With a sample size of 13,985, the
current analyses far exceed expectations for power.
Although the statistic indicates that differences exist,
they are not substantial, and do not necessarily indicate if
there exists a true difference in commitment. This outcome may
be attributed to several circumstances.
First, the limitations of the data collection instrument,
particularly in regard to the measurement of the commitment
phenomenon, may have been a source of the variance. Given that
small differences were found, it may indicate that the
instrument was not adequately sensitive to detect more
substantial differences. Second, certain aspects of commitment
may have been excluded from the Conceptual Framework that served
as the basis for this research. Third, the use of secondary
data places limitations on establishing validity and
reliability, thus creating ambiguity as to whether it is
actually "commitment" that is being measured, and there is
ambiguity in the degree of error in that measurement. Further,
the use of a secondary data source did not allow an assessment
56
of the ways in which the data were collected and the data
collection process, which may be possible sources of error.
These factors and their influence must be taken into
account when examining the ways in which commitment differs as a
function of tenure, work group and job level.
Employee Commitment and Tenure
As shown in Figure 2, there was a difference in the level
of employee commitment as a function of tenure. Employees with
less than 1 year of tenure reported the highest commitment, with
employees in the 21 years and above tenure category reporting
the next highest level of commitment. Employees with 11-20
years of tenure report the third highest level of commitment,
and employees with 1-10 years of tenure report the lowest levels
of commitment.
4.25
4.20
4.15
4.10
4.05
i 4.00
3.85
3.60
J.75
3.70
4-10 years of sendee 11-20 years ^ 21 years of sendee or more
Years o f Service
Figure 2
Commitment by tenure
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA)
computation revealed that differences exist among the tenure
groups, F(4, 13811)=74.636, £<.001 (Table 5). The Tukey's post-
hoc tests showed that these differences were significant among
all groups except that the levels of commitment for employees
with 1 to 3 years of tenure and employees with 4 to 10 years of
tenure were not different, and together, these two tenure groups
were different than the other three tenure groups, as indicated
by the .98 9 significance shown in Table 6.
Table 5
Analysis of Variance - Tenure
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 140.234374 4 35.05859361 74.63626913 0.0000
Within Groups 6487.385315 13811 .469725966
Total 6627.619689 13815
Table 6
Post Hoc Tests - Tenure
Post Hoc Tests
Tukey HSD
Mean
(I) Tenure (J) Tenure Difference Std. Error Sig.
Less than 1 year of
service 1-3 years of service .2870(*) 0.02197 0
4-10 years of service .2949(*) 0.021 0
11-20 years of service .1862(*) 0.02256 0
21 years of service or more .0850(*) 0.02521 0.007
1-3 years of service 4-10 years of service .008 0.01552 0.986
11-20 years of service -.1008(*) 0.01759 0
21 years of service or more -.2020(*) 0.02087 0
4-10 years of service 11-20 years of service -.1088{*) 0.01635 0
21 years of service or more -.2100 (*) 0.01984 0
11-20 years of service 21 years of service or more -.1012(*) 0,02149 0
58
Analysis and Interpretation
These results show that employee commitment is reported to be at
it highest level upon entry into the organization, and drops
significantly after the 1st year. Commitment does not
significantly increase from this reported level until the 11th
year of employment and is significantly higher in the 21 or more
years of tenure category.
Findings from prior studies diverge in terms of the ways in
which commitment is affected by tenure. Most studies found that
commitment increased across the employment experience (Meyer &
Allen, 1997; Cohen, 1993; Mathieu fie Zajac, 1990), with the
exception of Beck and Wilson's study (2000), where commitment
was found to decrease, over time. However, high levels of
commitment at the entry-level, and at the early stages of
employment are reported consistently across these studies, and
were found in this study, as well. Early employment experiences
such as selection, orientation and training are reported to
influence an employee's perception of his or her organizational
experience (Meyer fit Allen, 1997; Schein, 1970; Weiner, 1982),
and these experiences, along with an employee's perception of
organization support (Eisenberger fit Huntington, 1986) early in
their tenure, may account for positive affect and high levels of
affinity for the organization.
59
Beyond the 1st year of employment, affective
commitment decreases significantly and remains at this level
across 10 years of employment. This finding is an area of
concern, given that these years are those in which an
organization invests considerable resources in employee training
and development, and it is the time during which employees
acquire desirable skills. Retaining these employees is vital to
the organization's ability to gain and maintain a competitive
position, and the company risks losing these employees, given
the malaise that appears to pervade this tenure group. The loss
of these valuable assets, whether to the competition or through
inertia, drains the organization of essential resources and
erodes its viability. However, there are positive aspects to
these findings, in that employees in whom the organization has
invested the most, those with 21 or more years of tenure, report
the highest levels of commitment.
It is evident that employee commitment varies according to
tenure, and these differences are significant. As such, these
findings can be relied upon to identify areas of risk, as well
as areas of opportunity to inform organizational strategy and
practices related to retaining and engaging employees, thus
avoiding the cost of loss, and enjoying the fruits of a highly
committed workforce.
60
Employee Commitment and Work Group
As shown in Figure 3, there was a difference in employee
commitment as a function of an employee's work group. Employees
in the Consumer Banking work group report the highest level of
commitment, with the other work groups reporting lesser
commitment at varying levels. The Capital Management and
Technology work groups report the lowest levels of commitment.
4.25
4.20
4.15
4.10
4.05
I 4.00
I
3 3.95
S
3.90
3.85
3.60
3.75
3.70
Corporate & Company Rnanoiai ComiiarTy Capital Consumer Bankir^ Adrrtini^rative Tectinology Si^port Areas
Investment Banlong Group Management Services S^^nces
WoricGroup
Figure 3
Commitment by Work Group
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that statistically
significant differences existed among the work groups, F(7,
13777)=43.191, £<.001 (Table 7). The post-hoc tests showed that
these differences were significant and that employees in the
61
Capital Management and the Technology groups formed a
pair and are significantly different from all other groups
(Table 8) .
Table 7
Analysis of Variance Work Group
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 141.5211905 7 20.21731293 43.19058973 0.0000
Within Groups 6448.949228 13777 .469725966
Total 6590.470418 13784
Table 8
Post' -Hoc Tests - Work Group
Post Hoc Tests
Tukey HSD
Mean Std.
(I) Work Group (J) Work Group Difference Error Sig.
Corporate & Investment Banking Company Financial Group 0.0413 0.02463 0.704
Company Capital Management .1830 (*) 0.04445 0.001
Consumer Banking -.1379(*) 0.01848 0
Administrative Services 0.0308 0.0197 0.771
Technology Services .1835(*) 0.02619 0
Support Areas -0.0742 0.03692 0.475
Finance -0.0561 0.03722 0.804
Company Financial Group Company Capital Management .1417 (*) 0.04566 0.04
Consumer Banking -.1791(*) 0.02122 0
Administrative Services -0.0104 0.02229 1
Technology Services .1422 (*) 0.02819 0
Support Areas -0.1155 0.03837 0.053
Finance -0.0974 0.03865 0.187
Company Capital Management Consumer Banking -.3209(*) 0.04266 0
Administrative Services -.1522 (*) 0.0432 0.01
Technology Services 0.0005 0.04652 1
Support Areas -.2572(*) 0.05331 0
Finance -.239K*) 0.05351 0
Consumer Banking Administrative Services .1687 (*) 0.01522 0
Technology Services .3213(*) 0.02301 0
Support Areas 0.0636 0.03474 0.598
Finance 0.0818 0.03505 0.276
Administrative Services Technology Services .1526(*) 0.02401 0
Support Areas -0.1051 0.03541 0.06
Finance -0.0869 0.03571 0.225
Technology Services Support Areas -.2577 (*) 0.03939 0
Finance -.2396(*) 0.03966 0
Support Areas Finance 0.0181 0.04744 1
62
These findings affirm prior research regarding the effect of
organizational influences on employee commitment (Mowday et al.;
Schein, 1970; 1982; Wiener, 1982). Specifically, the literature
speaks to the ways in which an employee's relationship with co
workers influences his or her commitment (Newmark, 2002; Van
Maanen, 1975). These influences, some suggest, may contribute
to an employee's perception of the social and emotional habitat
in which they work, and individuals who are positively situated
within these associative relationships report higher levels of
affective commitment (Kanter, 1968; Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Further, perceived managerial effectiveness and support are
important bellwethers for employee commitment (Mowday, 1982;
Reichers, 1985; Steers, 1977). Employees who experience high
levels of managerial support and interest, report higher levels
of coiranitment, as they believe that through a manager's actions,
they receive the positive benefits of organizational membership
(Eisenberger & Huntington, 1986). The ways in which employees
experience the managers and leaders of their local work group
may account for the differences in commitment levels among the
groups.
These findings do not elucidate the contribution of other
influences that are specific to a work group, such as the type
63
of work conducted by a particular group, the performance
of the group, or its overall contribution to organizational
success.
Employee Commitment and Job Level
As shown in Figure 4, there was a difference in employee
commitment as a function of job level. Employees in the
Executive job level report the highest level of commitment, with
Professional level employees reporting the next highest level of
commitment. Entry-level and Managerial level employees report
the lowest levels of commitment.
4.25
4.20 J
4.15
4.10
4.05
at
I
tt
S 3.95
S
3.90
3.85
3.80
3.75
3.70
E n^ Level Professional Managerial
Job Levti
Figure 4
Commitment by Job Level
The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) computation
revealed that statistically significant differences existed
among job levels, F(3, 12235)=22.792, p<.001 (Table 9). The
64
Tukey's post-hoc tests showed that the Entry-level group
and the Managerial group are not significantly different from
each other, but are significantly different from the other two
job level groups (Table 10).
Table 9
Analysis of Variance - Job Level
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 32.49111801 3 10.83037267 22.79182137 0.0000
Within Groups 5813.910501 12235 0.4751868
Total 5846.401619 12238
Table 10
Post-Hoc Tests - Job Level
Post Hoc Tests
Tukey HSD
(I) Job Level (J) Job Level Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
Entry Level Professional -.0836(*) 0.01595 0
Managerial -0.008 0.01556 0.956
Executive -.1694(*) 0.02444 0
Professional Managerial .0756(*) 0.01781 0
Executive -.0858(*) 0.02593 0.005
Managerial Executive -.1615(*) 0.02569 0
These findings affirm that organizational support is an
important factor in influencing commitment. This is embodied in
an employee's perception of his or her level of empowerment and
perceived involvement in organizational processes, such as
decision-making and communications (Eisenberger & Huntington,
1986; Meyer & Allen, 1997). The ways in which an employee
experiences these aspects of organizational life may account for
the differences in the level of commitment.
65
The Professional and Executive level are likely to
be in close association with supportive organizational
processes, given their hierarchal status in the organization.
As such, it is expected that these groups would report high
levels of commitment. Further, employees at the entry-level may
report lower levels of commitment due to their lack of proximity
to sources that influence support and inclusion, specifically
the management and executive levels of the organization.
However, as the findings indicate, managerial level employees
report levels of commitment similar to those of the Entry-level
employee, a finding that challenges the conventional supposition
that proximity to centers of influence positively affects
employee commitment (Eisenberger & Huntington, 1986; Meyer &
Allen, 1997).
Recent trends in workforce management have encouraged
companies to compress the managerial hierarchy, forcing managers
to be accountable for broader spans-of-control. These additive
responsibilities may truncate communication, and negatively
influence the manager and employee relationship. Managers with
extensive managerial accountabilities may lack the opportunity
to fully engage and inspire employees, thus eroding employee
affinity. And, as a group, these managers may feel overburdened
and oppressed, thus eliciting negative affect toward the
organization. The Managerial and Entry-level employees are
66
closely tied, given the nature of their responsibilities.
Further study is needed to understand the ways in which the
interaction of these two groups influences commitment.
Many elements of organizational life may apply to the
Professional level employee. These individuals represent
employees who possess higher levels of autonomy in their work,
and may enjoy more ready access to centers of influence. They
may also have collegial networks that provide support and
identity. In addition, it is likely that employees in the
Professional level extend themselves in service to building a
career, and perceive the organization as a vehicle for achieving
this goal, whether through special training, job enrichment or
professional development. These organizational attributes have
been clearly identified as levers for building employee
coinmitment (Eisenberger & Huntington, 1986; Reichers, 1985) .
Given what the literature reveals as important factors for
influencing commitment, specifically perceptions of
organizational support (Eisenberger & Huntington, 1986),
managerial effectiveness (Schein, 1970) and communications
(Angle & Perry, 1983; Bateman & Strasser, 1984), it is not
surprising that those who possess the most influence over these
factors, would report high levels of commitment. Employees in
the Executive level are close to, or perhaps are accountable
for, decisions that affect the ways in which an organization
67
supports and communicates with employees. In addition,
these individuals are likely to view managerial effectiveness in
a very positive light, as this is a measure of their own
performance. These outcomes may contribute to a discussion as
to how the organization may replicate some of these Executive
level experiences at the Managerial level. This could have an
extended affect, in that a more highly committed manager could
positively influence the commitment levels of his or her
employees (Stumpf & Hartmann, 1984), and provide a continuum of
positive affect across the other job levels.
Discussion
The findings in this study support the Conceptual Framework
as described in chapter 1. The elements of the framework state
that organizational factors, such as tenure, work group and job
level influence employee commitment. In the analyses of
variance it was found that differences do exist in relation to
these factors, and that in most cases, these differences are
significant. The possibility that the variance was due to the
data collection protocol or the data collection instrument is
minimized because a secondary database was used in this study.
Together with the affirmation of the Conceptual Framework, these
considerations support the hypothesis that the organizational
factors as described earlier are the sources of variance
presented in this study.
68
Missing Pieces
The framework does not account for attributes that may also
Influence commitment, but are not measured In the study. For
example, reward and recognition are reported to contribute to
employee commitment (Bateman & Strasser, 1984), but these
aspects of organizational life are not represented In the
framework. Second, this framework does not account for aspects
of employee motivation, or other psychological schemas. As
such, little can be concluded about the ways In which a person's
temperament or personality may Influence his or her commitment.
Third, although the literature Indicates that commitment Is not
Influenced by personal characteristics, such as age, race, or
gender (Steers, 1977), the emergence and changing role of women
In the workforce, the cross-generational stratification of
workers, as well as the Increasingly diverse workforce may
elicit different results. This study does not account for these
aspects or characteristics of the workforce.
Finally, this framework does not explore the Impact of
external forces upon employee commitment, specifically the
viability of the organization. An organization that Is
perceived as successful and vigorous could elicit higher levels
of excitement and pride, whereas an organization In trouble may
generate feelings of Indifference or hostility. This Is an
Important area of study, given the current difficulties In the
69
United States' economy, continuing globalization and
market consolidations (Grieves, 2003).
A Concept Examined
As illustrated in Figure 1 (see Appendix A), employee
commitment is influenced by various aspects of organizational
life, such as the ways in which an employee experiences
communications, leadership and various organizational factors.
The outcomes of these experiences influence an employee's
affinity, and produce a negative or positive emotional response
to the organization. A positive emotional affect, one that
produces feelings of pride, excitement and empowerment, is
reported to produce positive outcomes in terms of an employee's
performance, engagement, and productivity. These feelings also
influence an employee's decision to stay or exit an
organization, and as such, a positively situated employee is
more likely to remain with an organization.
This framework further illustrated the influence of three
other organizational influences, specifically tenure, work group
and job level. As evidenced in the findings discussed earlier,
these factors influenced commitment, and in most cases this
influence was significant.
70
Chapter Five
Suxnmary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Summary
This study explored employee commitment in the context of
organizational influences, specifically the ways in which
employee commitment differs according to employee tenure, work
group and job level. Employee commitment is reported to be an
important part of an employee's organizational experience as it
leads to high performance, retention and high productivity
(Jaros, Jermier, Koehler & Sincich, 1993). These outcomes, some
suggest (Reichheld, 1996) are essential to the survival and
competitiveness of an organization and contribute to retaining
valuable human assets.
Over the past 3 decades, employee commitment has been at
risk, given the poor condition of the United States economy,
intensifying global competition, industry consolidations and the
ravages of corporate scandals. These events have contributed to
the erosion of trust between employer and employee, thus
organizations must find ways to create working environments that
attract and retain employees, particularly those who are highly
engaged and desire to contribute extraordinarily through
innovation and creativity.
As noted in the literature, commitment is a
multidimensional construct and describes a phenomenon wherein a
71
person activates his or her cognitive and emotional
processes to make decisions about organizational membership
(Kanter, 1968). The model of commitment Meyer and Allen (1997)
developed describes commitment in three ways: continuance,
normative and affective. In this framework, continuance
commitment engages the cognitive aspects of the commitment
phenomenon, and relates to an employee's feelings that he or.she
should stay with an organization, given the cost of leaving, or
the benefits of staying with an organization. These employees
do not demonstrate behaviors that are extraordinary to their
assigned role, thus they do not positively impact the viability
of the organization, as they do not participate fully and may
distract or drain resources from the organization.
Normative commitment addresses the moral dimension of
commitment. Here, an employee's beliefs about the expectations
of his or her social or familial contacts govern the decision
making process. For example, an employee who commits on a
normative level, may do so to meet the expectations of his or
her community. This type of commitment is activated by the
expectations of others, rather than an independent, personal
desire to commit. Given this, these employees place substantial
importance upon their membership in the organization, and can be
counted on to extend their contributions beyond their specified
role. However, these additive efforts are borne out of moral
72
compulsion, rather than the desire to make an
extraordinary contribution in service to the organization's
success.
Affective commitment, which is the focus of this study,
describes an employee's cathetic response to an organization and
is embodied in feelings of pride and excitement about the
organization. An employee engaged at an affective level
reportedly contributes to the organization in ways that are
beyond the confines of his or her assigned role (Kanter, 1968,
Schein, 1970). These employees can be counted on to achieve
high levels of performance, engage in innovation and, in turn,
enjoy both the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards of superior
performance. Individuals who contribute at this level
continually build their value, and become vital assets to the
organization. These individuals are the focus of an
organization wishing to gain or maintain a competitive advantage
in the marketplace, and retaining them is essential to the
ongoing viability of the organization.
Understanding commitment in the organizational setting has
compelled researchers to explore ways to measure commitment, and
its interactions with various aspects of organizational life,
such as socialization, organizational support and managerial
practices (Angle & Perry, 1983; Mowday, et al., 1982; Schein,
1970; Wiener, 1982). More recently, there has been interest in
73
organizational status and commitment, specifically the
ways in which tenure influences employee commitment. These
studies had substantial limitations, yet offered a foundation
for exploring organizational influences, such as those addressed
in this study.
The focus of this study was affective commitment and the
ways in which commitment differs according to an employee's
tenure, work group or job level. Commitment was measured by
employee responses to 10 survey items that were administered as
part of the Study Company's employee opinion survey. These
items inquired about employee perceptions of leadership,
empowerment, pride, and desire to stay with the organization.
Commitment scores for each tenure group, work group and job
level group were analyzed using analysis of variance to
determine if differences exist in employee commitment levels,
and Tukey's post-hoc tests were computed to determine if the
differences were significant. These analyses revealed that
there are differences in employee commitment as a function of
tenure, work group and job level, and in most cases, these
differences are significant.
Conclusions
Based upon the above summary, the following conclusions are
drawn:
lA
1. The analyses indicate that tenure is associated with
employee commitment, as evidenced by the statistically
significant difference in commitment among the tenure groups.
However, these findings are incongruent with the literature
regarding commitment and tenure. Prior studies revealed that
employee commitment increases across the tenure period (Cohen,
1993; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, 1997), whereas Beck and
Wilson (2000) found that commitment decreases as an employee
gains tenure in an organization. The results of this study
suggest that commitment scores may fluctuate across the
employment experience, and may not constitute a static
phenomenon as previously thought. This lack of confirmatory
evidence offers an opportunity to more fully and consistently
measure commitment and its association with tenure, in order to
achieve a common understanding of this phenomenon.
2. The work group situates the employee in close proximity to
co-workers and managers and the ways in which they interact and
communicate, as indicated in the literature (Eisenberger &
Huntington, 1986; Schein, 1970). As such, these findings
suggest that there are some unexamined features of life within a
work group that may influence employee commitment, and require
further study.
3. These findings support Eisenberger and Huntington's (1986)
and Schein'3 (1970) conclusions that an employee's perception of
75
organizational support influences commitment and is an
important messenger for transmitting the organization's interest
and regard for employees. Employees who perceive their role as
important to the organization, believe that they have autonomy
and control, and feel in close proximity to decision-making
processes have the propensity to become more affectively
committed than those who are not within or close to these
spheres of influence (Kanter, 1968; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
Presumably, employees in a professional or executive level
within The Study Company are in close association with centers
of influence, and enjoy wide latitude and control in their
roles. As such, it may be concluded that this status plays some
role in influencing their commitment, as evidenced by the high
commitment levels for these groups.
4. The research design did not elicit an explanation of
differences between groups, leaving these questions unanswered.
Recommendations
In view of the above summary and conclusions, the following
recommendations are made:
1. The emerging interest in employee commitment and engagement
compels researchers to more fully define commitment and its role
in organizational life. It is recommended that the commitment
construct be further developed for application over a broad
range of environments. This will aid in building a common
76
language among researches, as well as facilitate the
creation of credible assessment tools.
2. It is recommended that more expansive and precise
measurement protocols of commitment be explored. Employee
commitment is influenced by a constellation of organizational,
social and psychological factors and, to date, research related
to employee commitment only has isolated particular aspects of
the experience, and has not focused on the effect of interaction
among various influences. Research that more broadly captures
the range of influences, and extends to an understanding of
their interaction, will more fully inform the dynamics of
employee commitment.
3. It is recommended that these findings be used as a
springboard for additional analyses related to the causal
effects of organizational influences. For example, the findings
of this study indicate that commitment differs among employee
work group, and prompts the question as to why these differences
exist. This finding also held for differences in tenure and job
level, as well as numerous other organizational influences.
4. The sample group in this study was limited to an employee
population within a single organization in the United States.
It is recommended that a similar inquiry be conducted using a
broader and more diverse sample group, in order to arrive at
77
outcomes that provide a more generalized view of
commitment in organizations.
5. This study was conducted using data that were collected at
one point in time. Longitudinal research is recommended for
future inquiries to address this one event limitation.
6. Although prior research suggests that personal
characteristics such as race, gender and age do not influence
commitment (Steers, 1977), the changing demographics of the
workforce and the current cultural context in which it operates,
may alter these findings.. It is recommended that future inquiry
regarding employee commitment include analyses relating to
personal characteristics.
7. It is recommended that the Conceptual Framework, the survey
instrument, and the data collection process be refined to
improve the capability of examining differences between the
subject groups.
78
References
American Psychological Association, (2001). Publication Manual
of the American Psychological Association (5^^ ed.)
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1983). Organizational commitment. Work
and Occupations, 10(2),123-146.
Bateman, T., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of
the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of
Management Journal, 27(1), 95-112.
Beck, K., & Wilson, C. (2000). Development of affective
organizational commitment: A cross-sequential examination
of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
56(1), 114-137.
Becker, H. (1960, July). Notes on the concept of commitment.
American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001) Employment & Unemployment.
National Employment Statistics, http://www.bls.gov.
Cohen, A. (1993). Work commitment in relation to withdrawal

intentions and union effectiveness. Journal of Business
Research, 26, 75-90.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of
trust, organizational commitment and personal need non
fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39-
52.
79
Corporate Leadership Council (1998). Employee retention:
New tools for managing workforce stability and engagement.
Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board.
DeCotiis, T., & Summers, T. (1983). A path analysis of a model
of the antecedents and consequences of organizational
commitment. Human Relations, 40(7), 445-470.
Department of Labor. (2003) Occupational Outlook Handbook 2003.
http://www.dol.gov.
Eisenberger, R., & Huntington, R. (1986). Perceived
Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71 (3), 500-507.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex
organizations. Glencoe: Free Press of Glencoe.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. G. (2000). Statistics for the
behavioral sciences. Belmont. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Grieves, J. (2003). Strategic human resources development.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hackett, B. (1996). The new deal in employment relationships: A

council report. New York: Conference Board.
Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T.
(1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral
commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of
eight structural equation models. Academy of Management
Journal, 36{5], 951-995.
Kanter, R. (1968). Commitment and social organizations: A study
of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American

Sociological Review, 33(4), 499-517.
80
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A research
handbook. Englewood Cliffs. Prentice-Hall.
Kim, C., Emmett, D., & Sikula, A. (2001). Employee relations
ethics and the changing nature of the American workforce.
Ethics and Behavior, 11 (1), 23-38.
Mathieu, J. & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of
the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of
organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108,

171-194.
Meyer, J., & Allen, A (1997). Commitment in the workplace:
Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mir, A., Mir, R., & Mosca, J. (2002). The new age employee: An
exploration of changing employee-organization relations.
Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 187-203.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., Steers, R. (1982). Employee-
organization linkages: The psychology of commitment,
absenteeism, and turnover. NY: Academic Press.
Newmark, D. (2002). Employment relationships in the new

economy. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment
and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance,
identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 492-499.
Patch, F. (1992). A contract for commitment. Training and
Development, 4 6, 11.
81
Pink, D. (2001). Free agent nation: How America's new
independent workers are transforming the way we live. New
York: Warner Books.
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover
among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology^ 59(5), 603-609.
Reichers, A, (1985). A review and reconceptualization of
organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review,
10(3), 465-476.
Reichheld, F. (1996). The quest for loyalty: Creating value
through partnership. Cambridge: Harvard Business School

Publishing.
Schein, E. (1970). Organization psychology. Oxford: Prentice-
Hall.
Steers, R. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational
commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
Stumpf, S., & Hartman, K. (1984). Individual exploration to
organizational commitment or withdrawal. Academy of
Management Journal, 27(2), 308-329.
Thorne, B. M., & Slane, S. (1997). Statistics for the
behavioral sciences. {2^'^ Ed.) Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Company.
Tulgan, B. (2002). Winning the talent war: Recruiting and
retaining the best talent. New York: W.W. Norton
82
Van Maanen, J. (1975) . Police socialization: A
longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban
police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20,
207-228.
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative
view. Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 418-428.
■C—D
D
i
O
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■CDD
C/)
(/)
Organizational Influences, Employee Experience and Com m itm ent

O
■OD
cq'
Employee
Orsanizational Influences Commitment Outcomes
Experience
Pride
W ork Group Excitement •High Performance
/ I \ Empowermem,
3- •Retention
CD V / 9 i Affective •Engagement
•Proiiuctivity
■CDD •Innovation
O
Q. Employee
C
a Continuance
o •Exit
■D ^ Îndifference or •inertia
•Leadership
O Job Level Hostility Normative •Apathy
•Communications Oppression
•Values
•Sabotage
CD
•Organizational Practices
Q. •Organizational Life
Tenure
T3
CD
(
(/
/)
) Ciroups .lob I.tf\e ]h
C o rp ttra le iirK l In \e s tm tm t M iia km i! I'nirN i evel
P inanctal < m n tp P rofessuw ul
C a p ita l M anH gt3i«m t M a n a g cn a !
C\>nsmTier B a n k in g f-Ntfcutive
A iim in ts lra tu 'n SerMces
S up p o rt A rttis
{'inanuc
A
ppe
ndixA
00
(jj
A
ppe
ndixB 84
EMPLOYEE OPINION SURVEY 2002
D irections:
In this sufvey. Manager and Leader w ill be defined in each question as follow s: **Manager" is defined as your immediate
manager/supervisor ar>d “Leader** is defined as his direct reports, and their direct reports ir>cluding Presidents.
The Employee O pinion Survey is confidential. Survey results wSl not be reported for groups w ith fewer than 25 respondents.
Mfhich one of the fo llo w in g best

describes your w ork group? C ^ a i Management O Corp. Oeveic^mienl & Strategic Ranning
O Legal
B&BB5SB O Marketing
Corporate Banking O Business B arring
O Mtddte Mahiet O Cwnmunity Devdopment Bank
O PuWk Affairs
O Large Corporate O Risk Management
ReteH Banking
Commercial Real Estate O Center
O Strategic /^ ly tic s & Decision Support
O Commercial Real Estate toset Recovery Group

O OthCT
Equipmmt Pinance
O Middle Market ARG
0 Equipment Finance O Busifvess Banking MTG

Auto Finartce Group O Large (Corporate/Specialty ARG
O Global Vendor Services (GVS)
O Express Leasmg Services fcLS)
o Auto Adnwnistrative/Sales Support
O <3ommerct^ Reai,Estate ARG
O Commercial Leasing Seniic«» <CLS)

o Auto Finance Prime Credit Client Sendees Graup
o Auto Finance Sales O Banking Services
o
Treasury Martagement |GTM)
GTM Product Management
o Auto Fmance End of Term Lease O Client Satisfaction Centers (GaH Centers)
O ASF Credit O Retirement F ^n Services
O GTM Sales and Service O ASF CoHections O Loan Services
Specialized tndustries Recreational Lerxting O Real Estate/Facilities Management
O speciîzed Industnes (Media. Heallhcare. O Recreational Lending
Structured f ii^n ce , Tecbnotogy and O O th e r
Asset Based Lending) Education Resources
Crecflt
Equities/Fixed Income/Banii Capital Markets O Education Resources
O Middle Market O edit
O Inveshnent Bankng Mortgage Services O Business Banking Credit/Business
O Equities O Mortgage Services Service ( ^ n t^ (BSCs)
O Bank Capital Markets (Foreign Exchange O Consumer Lending Center O Commercial Rea) Estate Credit
and Oenvatives) O Link O Large Corporate Porttotio Management
O Taxable Fixed Income Home Equity Services O Capital Markets Credit
Corporate ft Investment Banking O Home Equity Services Home Office O Portfolio Monitoring
O Corporate & Investment Banking
(r»ol covered in alaove categories i.e. Loan
O Home Equity Services Operations O Specialized Industnes Credti
Sates & Syndication. Corporate Finance O Home Equity Sales O Credit (not covered above)
Resource Center, etc.) O Services Tecttedogy Services
O C ollections O Enterprise Architeciure
Mortgage O Enterprise Management Services
Financial GroMD (High Mel Worth)
O Financial Solutions Advisors (Banking
O Support Funclitxis O Enlerpnse Techrtelogy Operations
Services, Trust & lovestm w ii Management O Closing Operations O TecJwology Devekîment
Sennces and Investor Services)
O Post Closing Operatiorrs
S u p pf.if' A a-l!:.
O Sales (Fornter PCG Investments
Consultants. Investments Associates.
O Sates Center
O Human Resources. Civic Affairs, Diversity
PB&I R ^ io n s tv p Managers. ReiatkKrship o Sales Center and Aviation
Associates and Othi»- Sates Support
Positions)
o Sales Center O Executive Admirwstration
O Wealth Management
o Sates Center
Put>l>c SeclO f/M unicipals/PubKc finance

o Sales Center
O AcccKjnting AdvisofV Services
National Ccritectiorts ft Recovery O Business Finance
O Pubhc Sector/M ufwipals/Public
Finance O NatK>nai Collections & Recovery
O Corporate Sourcing
Investment Operatkms Consumer Banking Support Functions O Management Reportmg/Fmancial Systwns
O Investment C^)eral»on& (Former O Consumer Product Management
O Protect Management Office/Management
Operations and ISO except Fielirement O PerfomTance Management Associates
Plan Services)
O D istribution Management O Treasury
O Consumer Paymerrt Sates
85
O Greater Qeveland Center

O Less th « i 1 year of service O ColorBda-Supehor O Job Grade 13-17
O }-3 years of service O GrrforarJo-M Other O Job Grade 18-24
O 4-10 years of servtce O Cotuntfnai O Job Grade 74-79
O 11-20 years of service O Dayton O Job Grade 80-83
O 21 years or more of service O Florida O Job Grade 84-88
O G e o r^ O Job Grades 89 and above
O Hudson Vafiey O No Job Gmde Assigned
O Full-time
O Idaho-Boise O Market Pnced
O Part-time less than 20 hours per week
O Idaho-Alt Other O Not sure
O Part-time 20o r n w e hours per week
O indianafK^s/C m tral Indiana
O On-Coit/Occasional
O Ntkthem Indiana
O
O KansasCity
O AkfOfVCanlon
O Female
O Maine
O Alaska O Michigan
O Albany-Corporate O Missouri O African Amctfk:im
O Albany/ Oistnct'AH Other O Hew Jersey O Asiwi A m m a n
O Aubum. WA O New York City O CaucasimW hHe
O Boston O Syracuse/Central New York O LatirKk^-Hsparac
O Buflalo-Mair. Operations Center O Oiegcm O Native American
O Buflalo/W esiern f4ew York O Rochester O Siradat/M ulteacia}
O Catifomia O Seattle-Cascades
O Cîartotte O Texas O 18-24 years of age
O Chicago/Wesimont O Tacoma/South Puget Sound O 25-39 years of age
O Gmcmnati O Tacomf O 40-54 years of age
O Cleveland- Public &:tuare O Toledo/Northwest CXko O 55-59 years of age
O Cleveland- O nlwio O Utah O 60 years or over
O Clevând- Superior O Vennorrt
O Cleve^nd- Tiedeman O Internatior^l
O Clevetand Tiedeman O Other________________ (Please ^secify)
1
Ol
cs
V) 1
O)
b <D
<
>. 0) >•
o> « CR
1 1 s % 1
Please in dicate your level o f agreem ent w ith th e follow ing statem ents: tn fi s k «
1. 1want to be working at one year from ix>w o o o o o

2 1^ empowered to achieve results o o o o o
3 1am cwifktent m the leadenm^ of o 0 o o o
4. I work m an inspinng environment o o o o o
5. 1have opportunities to le a 'll arvj grow at o o o o o
6 f would encourage others to work for o o o o o
7 Being an employee of has a great deal of meaning for me o o o o o
8. 1am committed to is an cvganization o o o o o
9. 1feel free to communicate my thoughts and ideas w ith my manager o o o o o
10. 1understand what my manager expects of me o o o o o
11. 1<HTi salisfted vrith the informatKMi 1receive at)out w im t is happening at o o o 0 0
12. 1leei our leaders w ill act upon the resirtts of this survey o o o 0 o
86
I
Ol
s s
6 I>.-
15 Ol
f 1 o 1
C7) 1
CO o z < in
13. 1have a generai undenitanding o f (voducts and services o o 0 o 0
14. i understand w tiat means o 0 o 0 o
13. delivers on promises to empioyees o o o o o
16. meets custonvsrs’ expectations o o o o o
17. allows the range ol people's talents and experieivte to be fi4ly ut*ft2 ed o o o o o
18. O ve r^, 1am satisfied w ith o o o o o
19. 1am excited ab<Mft the future of o o o 0 o
20. Ideas for continuous improvement are acted upon at o o o o 0
21. provides the Uairw^ artd resources 1need to perform effectrvety o o o o o
22. Service quality is making a (Aflerence m customer service at o o o o o
23. Our leaders a|:^>rophate)y rosponded to the 2001 Employee Opinion Survey r e ^ s o o o o o
24. 1have trust in leadership o o o o o
25. 1have seen p c^tive changes at is a result of the 2001 Employee CHilhton Survey o o o o o
26. 1am p ^ fairly for the work 1do o o o o o
27. svfifxsns career advancement o o o o o
28 1am proud to work for o o o o o
29. Employee satisfaction is a high pnortty at o o o o o
30. Overall, my attitude toward is positive o o o o o
31. 1am satisfied w ith the bertefits I receive at o o o o o
32. At work. 1have the opportunity to do what 1do t>est everyday o o o o o
33. At work, my opmions screm to count o o o o o
34. My IS im portm it to accompltshmg objectives o o o o o
35. 1receive recognition or praise for doing good work o o o o o
36. 1have an opportunity to discuss my progress w ith my manager o o o o o
37. My manager or scKneone at work, seems to care about me as a person o o o o o
38. I have ttie matenals arvj e qu ip nw it 1need to do my job o o o o o
39. My coworkers are com m itted to doing quality wcxk o o o o o
40. Overall, 1am satisfied w ith my manager 0 0 o 0 o
41. IS comm itted to treatirrg err^>loyees w ith respect o o o o o
42. Teamwork is valued at o o o o o
43. Our leaders are held accountable lor results o o o o o
44 As an organization. values leadership o o o o o
45. As an organization, demonstrates the V a ki^ o o o o o
46. values diversily and inclusion o o o o o
47 O u le a d ^ demonstrate the behaviors and values tfia t they expect from employees o o o o o
48. Overall. I am satisfied w ith my job o o o o o
49. Customer service is important to o o o o o
87
% 13
P lease n o te th e ch a n g e m th e ra tin g s c a le . 1
a
I
■o
9
J
fD
T h in ktn g a s a c o n s u m e r o f p ro d u c ts a nd s e rv ic e s , p le a s # in d ic a te
yo u r le v e l o f s a tis fa c tio n w ith th e fo llo w m g : 1
I
O
(«
3
z
m
n
<0
U)
e*
s
50. understanding of your needs as a customer 0 o o O o

S t. Ability of to eftectiveiy provide you with information about your account|s)/products aixf services o o o o o
52. Ease of di»i>g busmess with o o o o o
53. Atsility o f to treat you as a valuable customer of the bank o o o o o
54. Overall satisfaction wHh products and seonces 0 o o o o
>.
c >. 9
X
P lease n o te th e c h a n g e in th e ra tin g s c a le . D 2 >.
JC
<p
In d ic a te h o w lik e ly y o u a re to d o th e fo llo w in g : 1 c
D
9
3
Z Jj
e-
s
55. Use additional products and services in Itte future o o o o o

56. Recommend to a friend or retafive o o o o o
57. 1receive an annual pertormance review from my manager O Yes O No

58. 1ciealed a developmonf plan and set goals as part o l my O Yes O No
59. Did you com plete tfie all employee/corporate 2001 Employee Opinion Survey? O Yes O No
We weteome any additional comments and/or suggestions you may have regarding the improvement o( ’-'e \ as an organization
7J
■CD
D
—i
O
Q.
C
o
CD
Q.
■CDD
Employee Comm itment
(
/i
W Literature Review Summary
o' Diane F. Coble
o
o
CD W ho To eet what Outcomes?

O
O
■D
CD
Reference
Becker, 1960
CD
—i Etzioni. 1961 tJ
CD Kanter, 1968 73
■—iD (D
O Schein, 1970 {3
Q. a
C Porter, Steers & Mowday, 1974 H-
a X
o Van Maanen, 1975
o o
■—DJ Porter, 1976
o Steers, 1977
Katz & Kahn, 1978
CD
Q. Mowday, Steers 1979
Staw, 1979
Louis, 1980
Cook & W all, 1980
T3
CD Angle & Perry, 1981
Scholl, 1981
(/)
(/)
Morris & Sherman, 1981
CD
CD
■C—D
D
i
O
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■CDD
C/)
W
o' Employee Comm itment
o Literature Review Summary
o
Diane F. Coble
o
o
■D 2ZJ
cq'
1> 0>
c ■/) t
rt
e Vi .1
3 1
e
V u e ,0
£P .9
c
0. s
i 1
4} 1 -S E E
0 I iA .2
g Wi
i
1
0
V
•e
g
s
0
c
0 I
0
u
■|
E
0 1
e e
t
1
e
,0
N
(5
N
's
&
e
.2
1
c
0 1
E
£
>s
“a.
0
€o> IS
1/3
SC V I > 0 U «S E 3 0 ‘S S
o
& 1 £ O
>« V 3 ■g
N
■5 8
0 CQ 0 V V
£
E
V 1
£ <u I a
■5 > c
0 <3 (3
0 «> c V <
g 0 v> 3 3
V 1
3 c
E
4>
I s
T3 3 3 'i
Cf
0
Q O. a 3
■§
Q 00 _c '§
c
B
'3 1
O’ e 1 c 0
CD -z fS
g
S
0
Z ?
i
0
3
in
1
te: «
< u z <
■§
OQ
V) §
D Z
0 0
LS. Z
‘0
J
c
0 '£ c 1
a.
’w
0
—i 0 U S CJ A.
CD Wiener, 1982 X X X X X X X X X
■D X
—i Mowday, Porter, Steers, 1982 X
O X X X X X X X X X X
o.
c Angle & Perry, 1983 X X X X X X
a Werbel & Gould, 1984 X X X X X X X X X X X X
o
Q Stumpf & Hartman, 1984 X X X
■—Di Meyer & Alien, 1984 X X X X X
O
Bateman & Strasser, 1984 X X X X X X X
CD
Reichers, 1985 X X X X
Q.
O ’Reilly & Chatman, 1986 X X X X X X X X
Reichers, 1986 X X X X X X X X X
Eisenberg, 1986 X X X X X X X X
■CDD Meyer & Allen, 1987 X X X X X X X X
DeCotiis & Summers, 1987 X X X X X X X X X
(/) Pierce & Dunham, 1987 X X X X X X

(/)
Luthans, Baack & Taylor, 1987 X X X
CD
VO
■C—D
D
i
O
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■CDD
C/)
W Employee Commitment
o' Literature Review Summary
o
o Diane F. Coble
o Who Does W hat To W'hom To get whot Outcoinw'

■oD
cq'
31
3
3-
" Reference
CD
—J
Eisenberg, 1990
CD
T3 Calcjwell, Chatman & O ’Reilly, 1990
—J
O
Q. Meyer, Bobocel & Allen, 1991
Q
a Meyer & Allen, 1991
o Mueller, 1992
3
T3
—J
Gregersen, 1993
O
Schein, 1994
H u n t& Morgan, 1994
CD
Q. Reichheld. 1996
Hackett, 1996
Meyer & Allen, 1997
T3
Corporate Leadership Council
CD
Shepherd & Matthews, 2000
(/) Beck & Wilson, 2000

(/)
NiehofF, 2000
VO
o
91
U0U3PJSUBS/J33J^V
9D ucuiiojjdc|/<C iÛ 3npojc}
dii|suo!ie;3Jdnuiiuoj
suoitcziueSjoîiudpeov
suo^FziireJfjo lyojd-uofsi
s u o ijB Z !ir e 8 jo l y o j j j o j
Trjo/AueduioDsn^®N
iudiuifuiuio^fBOJiAâg
)U91U)IIUIU03 |9 U |p n ) I |lV
3DUBnU|JU03/A|3AllBin3|B3
o
o
<N
o
o
o
o
<N
Cu
A
ppe
ndixD 92
Fielding Institutional Review Board

H O D Subcommittee
Request For Review o f Proposed Research

C O V E R PAG E FO R M HR-1
Researcher’s Name; Diane Ferry Coble
Em ail address: drcoble@aoi.com
Phone: (440) 937-6301 home

(2 1 6)68 9 -17 7 5 office
Dissertation Chairperson: Marie Farrell
Program: HOD
T itle o f Proposed Research: Employee Commitment, Attachment and Confidence

in the Early Years o f Employment
Project is:
X Dissertation
Pilot Study
Assessment
Other
Project involves:
Prospective data collection
X Analysis o f archival or existing data set
Submission date. September 1 ,2003
Review by KA Assessor or Dissertation Chair: “ 1 have read this application and find that
it meets the Fielding Research Ethics Guidelines and that it is ready for review by the
Institutional Review Board.”
Dissertation Chair Signature: ^\(\ Dale:
approved
Fielding Graduate Institute
Institutional Review Board
I>ate m l n
93
i'h o m iL s I'. H i'ir ric h

l-lxi'ciiljvt' Vici- I’rosHionl
lliiin a n llrsmircds
August 25, 2003
1‘ickling (iraduatc Institute

InstilulioiKil Review Board
2112 Santa Barbara Street
Santa Barbara, ( ’aiifoniia 93105
Dear Sir/Madam:
riiis letter w ill serve as my aiilhori/.ation for access to b'mployee Opinion

Survey tiata for years I W 9 , 2001 and 2002, as requested by Diane ( oble. Diane is
Senior Vice President and Director o f Employee Relations at and has custodianship
o f these data. As such, she is familiar with the protocols for using archival data and will
appropriately manage the access and usage o f this information within the scope o f her
research. I understand the intent o f the project and the intended application o f the survey
data.
■fhc.se ilala are held within the .security o f our electronic data .storage cnvironmenl and Ihe
Human Resources Department. Diane has the neccs.sary access to these venues and
uiuier.staiKls tlie security procedures in place to safeguard Ihe confuicntialily o f lhe.se
materials. We have agreed that I must authorize any additional rccpiests for inlormation
oulsitle the parameters in>ted above.
Any questions or concerns can be directed to me at (216) 689-0220.
Regards,
riiomas E. fh^frich
T Id 1/jm
cc; Diane Doble
94
,ggy CoHins
From: mfarrell4147@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 8:33 AM
To: dfcoble@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: HOD IRB Application for Exemption-Diane Coble
Hi Diane: O.K. consider this email, if possible, as a sign off as you will be using a
secondary data set. I am somewhat uncomfortable with this as I like to review these in
detail (to prevent unnecessary redrafts). So in the future, let's discuss each part of
your work so that everyone is comfortable with the steps we are taking. All the best,
Marie Farrell
> Hi Marie,
> I received this reminder from Peggy re: my application. Per an
> earlier
> email that I sent, Dottie indicated that only you need to sign off, not my
> entire
> Committee.
>
> I hope this reaches you in time. The I R B meeting is on Tuesday,
> September
> 2nd.
>
> Thanks for your h e l p !
> Diane
95
D. Coble - IRB Application 1
1 Dissertation Overview
2
3 The objective o f my dissertation is to explore the nature o f commitment for new
4 entrants to an organization. 1 am interested in understanding what contributes to
5 commitment, and how commitment operates over the early years o f employment.
6 The outcomes o f this inquiry have several implications and opportunities for
7 organizations that wish to improve performance through more effective use o f human
8 resources. First, by understanding what drives or contributes to commitment, an
9 organization can invest and engage in activities that foster high commitment. In addition,
10 by examining whether and how commitment changes over the early years o f
11 employment, organizations can be more precise in otTering differentiated retention
12 strategies as new hires progress in the employment experience.
13 The archival data 1 intend to use were collected by a financial services
14 organization for the purposes o f obtaining employee feedback on various aspects o f the
15 organization. Surveys were conducted in 1999, 2001 and 2002. The survey instrument
16 was provided to employees in paper and pencil format, although in the 2002 survey cycle,
17 an external vendor delivered the survey via electronic means. The sample population
18 included all employees, and participation was strictly voluntary. Responses were
19 transmitted to the external vendors for compilation and analysis. This collection method
20 maximized confidentiality and anonymity.
21 Results o f the survey were reported confidentially to the executive management
22 team, and none o f the reports included employee groups o f less than twenty-five
23 respondents. This approach supported the organization’s desire to maintain
96
D. Coble - IRB Application 2
24 confidentiality and anonymity. A ll data relating to the surveys were maintained and
25 secured in the Human Resources department o f the organization.
26 1 believe this research is exempt from the full application procedure administered
27 by the Institutional Review Board. The material 1 intend to use in my research is archival
28 data that was not collected for the purposes o f this particular research. No additional data
29 w ill be collected, nor w ill any alterations or adjustment be made to the archival material.
30 A letter o f authorization from the organization in which this study w ill he
31 conducted is included in the Appendix section o f these materials.
97
A
ppe
ndixE
Demo g r a p h i c s of Sample
Gender Mean N Std. Deviation

Male 3.9288 4660 0.7115
Female 3.9911 9076 0.6766
Missing 3.6682 196 0.7954
Total 3.9657 13932 0.6917
Age Mean N Std. Deviation

18-24 years of age 3.9168 848 0.7501
25-39 years of age 3.8988 5958 0.7123
40-54 years of age 4.0290 5484 0.6585
55-59 years of age 4.1076 973 0.6332
60 years or over 4.0221 425 0.6515
Missing 3.6702 206 0.7681
Total 3.9663 13894 0.6922
Work Schedule Mean N Std. Deviation

Full-time 3.9680 12139 0.6973
Part-time less than 20 hours per week 3.8357 164 0.6731
Part-time 20 or more hours per week 3.9565 1435 0.6550
On-Call/Occasional 3.9565 49 0.6186
Missing 3.9468 152 0.7227
Total 3.9650 13939 0.6928
Ethnicity Mean N Std. Deviation

African American 3.9599 1392 0.6626
Asian American 3.9990 414 0.6922
Caucasion/White 3.9752 11184 0.6879
Latino/Hispanic 4.0625 297 0.6685
Native American 3.9642 78 0.8054
Biracial/Multiracial 3.8044 150 0.7070
Missing 3.6877 387 0.8170
Total 3.9663 13902 0.6918

Research Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES:

A Study of the Ways in Which Tenure, Work Group, and Job

DIANE FERRY COBLE

in partial fulfillment of the

HUMAN AND ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS

Marie P. F a r r e ^ , Ed.D., M.P.H.

^'rederick Steier, Ph.D.

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Diane Ferry Coble

This study explored employee commitment in the context

of organizational influences, specifically the ways in

which employee commitment differs according to employee

tenure, work group and job level. Employee commitment is

reported to be an important part of an employee's

organizational experience as it leads to high performance,

retention and high productivity. These outcomes are

essential to the survival and competitiveness of an

organization and contribute to retaining valuable human

Commitment is a multidimensional construct and

describes a phenomenon wherein a person activates his or

her cognitive and emotional processes to make decisions

about organizational membership. The focus of this study

was affective or emotionally activated commitment and the

ways in which this form of commitment differs according to

an employee's tenure, work group or job level.

according to these organizational factors; and the

implications for organizations are also discussed.

Diane Ferry Coble

Chapter One The Study 1

Chapter Two Literature Review 16

Chapter Three Methods 38

Chapter Four Findings with Analysis, Interpretation

Chapter Five Summary, Conclusions

Table 1 Respondents by Tenure 41

Figure 1 Organizational Influences, Employee

The last two decades of the 20^^ century ushered in a

radical change in the relationship between employees and the

organizations for which they work. Dramatic shifts in the

global economy coupled with a dramatically changing workforce,

brought about many changes in the ways in which employees and

employers interact (Kim, Emmett & Sikula, 2001). Demands for

cost efficiencies, innovation and agility, in terms of

responding to the ever-changing marketplace, required

organizations to change the way they did business.

Sophisticated business strategies and complex technologies were

brought to bear, and organizations were pressed to maximize the

use of all their resources, including the human resources they

employed (Tulgan, 2002). It was vital to the organization's

viability to explore ways to bind employees to an organization

and inspire them to high levels of performance, and do so as

early in the employment experience as possible. The purpose of

this study is to examine employee commitment in the context of

organizational influences, specifically, as employees tenure,

work in groups and progress in job level.

In the early 1980s, the quest for cost efficiency

influenced companies to eliminate jobs and consolidate

operations. This led to mass lay offs, worker dislocation and

the disruption of income and careers, even for long-service

employees. The notion of "lifetime employment" no longer

existed, causing a fissure in the trust between employee and

employer (Patch, 1992). Furthermore, as the century came to a

close, massive corporate bankruptcies, assumed to be brought

about by corruption and wrong-doing, resulted in lost jobs and