Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1997 hy Che American Psychological Association, Inc.

1997, Vol. 82, No. 4, 539-545 0021-9010/97/$3.00

Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment as Longitudinal

Predictors of Job Performance: A Study of Scientists and Engineers

Robert T. Keller
University of Houston

A study of 532 scientists and engineers from 4 industrial research and development
organizations showed that as hypothesized, the scientist-engineer distinction had a moder-
ating effect on the relationships between job involvement and 1-year-later job-performance
ratings and on counts of patents and publications. Scientists had stronger relationships
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

between job involvement and each of the performance measures taken 1 year later than
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

did engineers. No moderating effect was found for the scientist—engineer distinction on
the relationships between organizational commitment and the performance measures.
Moreover, no moderating effect was shown for an interaction term of job involvement
and organizational commitment on the performance measures. Implications are discussed
for theory building of the construct of job involvement and for the differential management
of scientists versus engineers.

Job involvement and organizational commitment have
received increasing interest by organizational researchers
in recent years, due to their importance for understanding
and predicting such outcomes as turnover and absenteeism
(Blau, 1986; Blau & Boal, 1989; Brown, 1996; Huselid &
Day, 1991). Relatively limited research exists, however,
on the ability of job involvement and organizational com-
mitment to predict job performance (Meyer, Paunonen,
Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989). Mathieu and Zajac
(1990), moreover, noted the need for longitudinal, cross-
organizational research designs to advance the knowledge
in this area. The present study was designed to address
these shortcomings in the literature, as they particularly
relate to the prediction of job performance. The main
purpose of this study is to examine the links between job
involvement and organizational commitment constructs
with job performance, for scientists and engineers.
The sociological construct of cosmopolitan—local la-
tent social roles (Flango & Brumbaugh, 1974; Gouldner,
1957,1958) and the insight it contributes into job involve-
ment-performance and organizational commitment-per-
formance relationships are of value here because of the
present study's sample of scientists and engineers. This
A grant from the Center for Innovation Management Studies,
Lehigh University, partially supported this research. I thank De-
niz S. Ones, John E. Mathieu, and James S. Phillips for their
helpful comments and suggestions.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Robert T. Keller, Department of Management, University of
Houston, Houston, Texas 77204-6283. Electronic mail may be
sent via Internet to keller@uh.edu.
sample is of particular interest to organizational psycholo-
gists because of the growing importance of knowledge
workers to the workforce. Gouldner saw three basic
themes as underlying the cosmopolitan-local construct:
reference-group orientation (knowledgeable peers or su-
periors in the hierarchy), loyalty to one's organization,
and the commitment one has to the values of a profession
(Flango & Brumbaugh, 1974; Gouldner, 1957). Although
Gouldner developed his conceptualization of the construct
with college faculty, a logical application of the construct
has been to scientists and engineers involved in research
and development (R & D) work due to their differential
education and orientations (Allen, 1977).
Earlier research has found that scientists tend to be
cosmopolitans, whose primary loyalty is to their scientific
field or professional peer community outside their com-
pany, whereas engineers tend to be locals, who have a
primary identification with their employing company, its
goals, and superiors in the hierarchy (Allen, 1977; Ritti,
1968; Stahl, McNichols, & Manley, 1979). (These au-
thors called for future research to distinguish between
scientists and engineers, although they have often been
lumped together in previous research.) On the basis of
these findings, one would expect scientists' job perfor-
mance to be more motivated by job involvement and the
contribution of the task to the scientific community and
engineers' job performance to be influenced to a greater
extent by organizational commitment and the local reward
system. Hence, the present research investigated the scien-
tist-engineer distinction as a moderator of the ability of
job involvement and organizational commitment to pre-
dict job performance over time. No prior study was found
that made a similar investigation.

539
 540 KELLER
Definitions of the job involvement construct have
ranged from the degree to which one is engaged in one's
present job, to the degree to which one is engaged in
carrying out the specific tasks in the present job environ-
ment, to the degree of importance that work plays in one's
life (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-
Romero, 1994). The last definition has sometimes been
called work centrality. The present research applied the
widely used Lodahl and Kejner (1965) conceptualization
of involvement in the present job and the importance of
work in general.
Most of the prior work on job involvement has focused
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
on its ability to predict turnover and absenteeism, with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
special interest on the interaction between job involve-
ment and organizational commitment as a predictor
(Brown, 1996; Huselid & Day, 1991). The interaction
hypothesis avers that someone who is both involved in
one's job and committed to one's company will tend to
stay with their company and to have low absenteeism
(Blau & Boal, 1987). Support for this interaction hypoth-
esis has been found by field studies of turnover, turnover
intentions, and absenteeism (Blau, 1986; Blau & Boal,
1989; Martin & Hafer. 1995; Mathieu & Kohler, 1990).
Huselid and Day (1991), however, cautioned that these
prior results regarding turnover might be an artifact of
linear statistical techniques being used with a binary de-
pendent variable. On the other hand, Steel and Rentsch
(1995) found job involvement to predict low absenteeism
over a 70-month period for U.S. government employees.
Conspicuous by its relative absence has been research
on the relationship between job involvement and job per-
formance. The earlier literature on scientists, however, has
generally shown a cosmopolitan loyalty or orientation to
a scientific field to be a good predictor of scientific pro-
ductivity, such as publications in journals (Allen, 1977;
Ritti, 1968; Stahl et al., 1979). Cosmopolitan scientists
see the work of science to be of paramount importance
and are highly involved in their work of doing science.
Therefore, it is logical to expect that job involvement will
be a good predictor of job performance for scientists.
Organizational commitment definitions generally have
focused on an affective commitment, which refers to an
identification with the employing organization; a continu-
ance commitment, based on the costs of leaving the orga-
nization; and a normative commitment, whereby the em-
ployee feels an obligation to remain with the organization
(Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Meyer, Allen, &
Gellatly, 1990). The literature review and meta-analysis
by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found the affective (or atti-
tudinal) form of organizational commitment, as often
measured by the Organizational Commitment Question-
naire (OCQ) of Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian
(1974), to be the better predictor of other variables. (The
OCQ was used in the present research.) That is, Mathieu
and Zajac found that the withdrawal behaviors of turnover
and absenteeism were best predicted by affective organi-
zational commitment, whereas the relationship with job
performance was generally weak. Also, Becker, Billings,
Eveleth, and Gilbert (1996) studied a recent graduating
class from a university and found that overall commitment
to an organization was not correlated with job perfor-
mance, although commitment to a supervisor was related
to performance.
In a study directly targeted to job performance, how-
ever, Meyer et al. (1989) found that affective commitment
correlated positively with job performance among first-
level managers, whereas continuance commitment corre-
lated negatively with job performance. Job satisfaction
was not correlated with performance in this study. Note
that managers are usually considered to have a local orien-
tation of loyalty to their employing organization rather
than to an outside profession. The literature that shows
engineers to have a local orientation would also suggest
that organizational commitment, especially the affective
component, would be a good predictor of job performance
for this occupational group (Allen, 1977; Ritti, 1968;
Stahl et al., 1979). Corroborating findings, moreover,
come from a study of managerial perceptions of employee
organizational commitment, which found that affective,
commitment was positively related to ratings of promot-
ability and potential but that continuance commitment was
negatively related to promotability and potential (Shore,
Barksdale, & Shore, 1995).
The variables of job involvement, organizational com-
mitment, and job satisfaction have been found to be con-
sistently correlated in prior studies to the extent that ques-
tions of discriminant validity have been raised (Ma-
thieu & Zajac, 1990). Hence, Brooke, Russell, and Price
(1988) and Mathieu and Fair (1991) conducted analyses
of these three variables on large and diverse samples of
hospital employees, bus drivers, and engineers. Both sets
of analyses found discriminant validity for the three vari-
ables and concluded that they assess three distinct con-
cepts. Both these analyses and other prior studies, how-
ever, have found consistently significant correlations
among the three variables, and there have been prior
claims that the variables lack discriminant validity. Hence,
the present research included a measure of job satisfac-
tion, to examine whether job involvement and organiza-
tional commitment could explain unique variance in job
performance above that of job satisfaction. Tenure in the
organization was also included as a control variable, in
case longevity had any effects on job performance.
In summary, the present research investigated whether
the scientist-engineer distinction moderates the validities
of job involvement and organizational commitment in lon-
gitudinally predicting job performance:
 JOB INVOLVEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Hypothesis 1: The scientist-engineer distinction will mod-
erate the predictive validities of job involvement and orga-
nizational commitment for 1-year-later measures of job per-
formance. Namely, job involvement at Time 1 will predict
job performance at Time 2 for scientists but not for engi-
neers, whereas organizational commitment at Time 1 will
predict job performance at Time 2 for engineers but not
for scientists.
Hypothesis 2: The interaction term of job involvement and
organizational commitment at Time 1 will predict job per-
formance at Time 2 for scientists and engineers. That is,
both high job involvement and high organizational commit-
ment at Time 1 will predict job performance at Time 2.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Method
Participants and Procedures
All the scientists and engineers of four corporate R & D
organizations engaged in applied research and product or pro-
cess development from the chemicals, energy, electronics, and
scientific instruments industries were invited to participate in
the study. Questionnaires were obtained from 532 scientists and
engineers for whom Time 1 and Time 2 data were available,
representing a response rate of 91% of those invited to partici-
pate at Time 1; 3.1% of those who had completed a question-
naire at Time 1 had left by Time 2. No supervisory personnel
were included—only those who engaged almost exclusively in
scientific or engineering R & D. The average age of the partici-
pants was 33 years; 82% of the participants were men, and 18%
were women. All participants held a baccalaureate degree, and
72% held graduate degrees. For the scientists (n = 250), the
demographics were 79% men, 34 years average age, and all
held a graduate degree. Regarding the engineers (n = 282),
83% were men, 31 years was the average age, and 43% held a
graduate degree.
The same data collection procedures were used for all four
R & D organizations. Participants completed the questionnaire
during normal business hours, on site, at each organization, in
groups that ranged from 30 to 70 participants each. Only the
researcher was present, and the researcher and the management
of each organization guaranteed the confidentiality of all infor-
mation provided by the respondents. Only summary information
was reported back to the organizations.
Measures
I measured job involvement with six items from the Lodahl
and Kejner (1965) scale (a = .78), selected on the psychomet-
ric analysis of Hunt, Osborn, and Martin (1981). These items
focused on one's involvement in the present job and the impor-
tance of work in general. A 5-point response scale, ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) was used.
Organizational commitment was assessed with six items from
Porter et al.'s (1974) OCQ, chosen on the analysis of Mowday,
Steers, and Porter (1979). These items targeted affective com-
mitment (a = .76). The same 5-point response scale mentioned
above was used here.
I measured job satisfaction with the 20-item Minnesota Satis-
faction Questionnaire (MSQ), developed by Weiss, Dawis, En-
541
gland, and Lofquist (1967). An overall satisfaction measure
was computed from the 20 items (a = .88); the same response
scale mentioned above was also used for the MSQ. Tenure in the
organization was obtained from the participants' questionnaires.
Job-performance ratings were obtained from the immediate
supervisor of each scientist and engineer, 1 year after the inde-
pendent variables were measured. Because of the time lag
needed to transform R & D activities into patents, prototypes,
publications, and so on, 1 year was deemed an appropriate
time interval between the independent and dependent variables
(Bergh, 1993), and it corresponded with the annual perfor-
mance reviews of the R & D organizations. Supervisors rated
each participant on the following five criteria: quality of perfor-
mance, quantity of performance, ability to get along with other
employees, dependability, and total performance. These criteria
were similar to what the organizations studied used internally.
A 5-point response scale, ranging from very low (1) to very
high (5), was used. A factor analysis of the five performance
criteria indicated that the only clear factor that existed with an
eigenvalue greater than 1.0 before rotation was Job Performance
(a = .91).
Because supervisory performance ratings are subject to judg-
mental biases (Casio, 1991) and R & D performance is complex
and multidimensional in nature (Allen, 1977), other dimensions
of performance or productivity of R & D work for each partici-
pant were also collected from company records 1 year after the
independent variables were measured. These dimensions were
the number of patents obtained or applied for in the past 5 years
and the number of publications published or in press in the past
5 years. (The 5-year period is used by the R & D organizations
for merit review.) For the 28 participants with less than 5 years
of R & D work experience, their yearly averages for patents
and publications were multiplied by 5.
In industrial R & D organizations, patents are rewarded more
than publications, because patents are more directly tied to com-
mercial success. Publications, however, are rewarded as a proxy
for technological innovation. The rewards are through the nor-
mal merit review system rather than a bonus or stipend per
patent or publication; however, each organization keeps records
on patents and publications produced by each scientist or
engineer.
Results
Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, and
a correlation matrix of all the variables, including job
satisfaction and tenure, which were included as control
variables. Correlations among the independent, moderator,
and control variables had a median value of .10 and a
maximum value of .38, with a maximum variance-infla-
tion factor less than 2; hence, multicollinearity was not a
severe problem that would preclude interpretation of the
regression analyses (Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1983).
(The dependent variables had a median correlation of .16
and a maximum correlation of .25.)
The distributions for patents and publications were
skewed; hence, they were converted by a logit transforma-
tion before the regression analyses were conducted (Co-
 542 KELLER

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable M SD

1. Job involvement 18.71 3.60 —

2. Organizational
commitment 23.28 4.33 .33*
3. Job satisfaction 76.02 10.59 .17* .38** —
4. Tenure 5.85 4.74 -.06 .09* .10*
—
5. Scientist-engineer" 1.53 0.41 -.23* -.06 .10* -.05 —
6. Job performance 17.45 3.89 .23* .06 .11* .04 .04 —
7. Patents 1.81 3.02 .20* .10* .09* .02 -.15** .16** —
8. Publications 3.17 4.60 .24* .02 .02 .04 -.21** .11* .25** —
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. N = 532 (250 scientists and 282 engineers).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

* 1 = scientist; 2 = engineer.
* / > < . 0 5 . **n < .01.

hen & Cohen, 1983). The results of the moderated regres-
sion analyses are presented in Table 2, including full-
equation standardized regression coefficients for indepen-
dent variables entered simultaneously without a predeter-
mined order of entry. Also reported in Table 2 are R2
increments to dependent variables and related F values
from a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses.
Separate regression analyses were conducted for each
moderator variable. Each variable was tested with two
regression analyses: one without the variable and one with
the variable added as the last step of the regression.
The direct effects of the independent and control vari-
ables in Table 2 show that job involvement was a signifi-
cant predictor of the dependent variables of job-perfor-
mance ratings and counts of patents and publications,
which were all measured 1 year later, in terms of the
standardized regression coefficients and unique variance
explained (R2 increments). Neither organizational com-
mitment, nor job satisfaction, nor organizational tenure
had a significant relationship with any of the dependent
variables.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the scientist-engineer vari-
able would be a moderator of the predictive validities of
job involvement and organizational commitment for the
1-year-later measures of R & D performance. That is, I
hypothesized that job involvement at Time 1 would pre-
dict the performance measures at Time 2 for scientists,
whereas organizational commitment at Time 1 would pre-
dict the performance measures at Time 2 for engineers.
The moderated regression results for R2 increments in
Table 2 show no moderator effects for organizational com-
mitment; however, job involvement does show significant
moderator effects in the standardized regression coeffi-
cients and unique variance explained for all three perfor-
mance measures of job-performance ratings and counts
of patents and publications at Time 2. Hence, Hypothe-

Table 2
Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses

Job performance Patents Publications

Variable ft AR 2 F P AR 2 F ft AR 2 F

Job involvement (A,) .22** .09 9.67** .17** .07 8.19** .20** .10 15.03**
Organizational commitment (AJ .04 .00 1.11 .07 .01 2.74 .04 .00 0.82
Job satisfaction .06 .00 2.11 .05 .01 2.40 .03 .00 1.15
Tenure .05 .00 0.86 .07 .01 2.40 .05 .00 1.20
Scientist-engineer (Bi) .04 .01 3.29 -.12** .02 3.96» -.16** .03 6.70**
A, X A 2 .06 .00 0.99 .07 .01 1.94 .03 .00 1.51
A, X B, .35** .07 7.02** .24** .04 5.53* 27** .08 10.27**
A 2 X fi, .06 .01 2.86 .03 .01 2.66 .09* .01 3.55
Adjusted multiple R2 .32 .24 .34
Overall F 10.92** 744»» 9.83**

Note. {3 is the standardized regression coefficient; no predetermined order of entry was used. Regression coefficients for the linear terms excluded
the interaction terms, and those for the interaction terms came from their addition as a last step in the equation. AR 2 and F values were derived
from hierarchial regression analyses. N = 532 (250 scientists and 282 engineers). Patents and publications were converted by logit transformation
before analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
V < .05. * * p < .01.
 JOB INVOLVEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
sis 1 was not supported for organizational commitment
but was supported for the moderator effects for job
involvement.
Hypothesis 2 predicted a moderator effect for the inter-
action of job involvement and organizational commit-
ment, so that this interaction term would predict the per-
formance variables at Time 2. No such moderator effects
were found, however, for any of the three performance
variables; hence, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
I conducted regression analyses also without the 28
participants who had less than 5 years of R & D work
experience, because these participants had their yearly
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
averages for patents and publications multiplied by 5.
These results were essentially unchanged from those with
the 28 participants included in the analyses.
The significant moderated regression effects for the sci-
entist-engineer interaction with job involvement were
further investigated by conducting separate sets of regres-
sions for the scientist and engineer subgroups. These re-
sults were plotted for 1 standard deviation above and be-
low the mean of the within-group regression equations
for job involvement and each of the three performance
measures (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Peters, O'Connor, &
Wise, 1984). Figure 1 depicts the nature of the moderator
effect of the scientist-engineer distinction for job-perfor-
mance ratings. The figures for patents and publications
are similar to Figure 1 and are not included. These figures
show the substantial motivating relationships between
high job involvement and R & D performance for scien-
Scientists
High
Engineers
•8
Low
Job Involvement
Figure 1. The relationship between job involvement and job
performance for scientists and engineers. The numbers 15 and
22 are one standard deviation above and below the mean (17.45)
for the 5-item job performance scale for scientist and engineer
subgroups.
543
lists, as predicted in Hypothesis 1. Engineers, however,
show relatively little such relationship between job
involvement and the performance measures. Note that
these relationships for scientists held across three perfor-
mance measures from separate sources, with relatively
little overlap in measurement.
Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to investi-
gate the scientist-engineer distinction as a moderator of
the validities of job involvement and organizational com-
mitment to longitudinally predict job-performance mea-
sures. Job performance has been a relatively neglected
dependent variable in the nomological networks of job
involvement and organizational commitment, and the nor-
mative implications of performance relationships are evi-
dent. As hypothesized, job involvement was a stronger
predictor of job-performance ratings and counts of patents
and publications for scientists than for engineers. Because
these results were consistent across three different, 1-
year-later performance measures that were from sources
separate from that of the independent variables and ex-
plained unique variance separate from that of organiza-
tional commitment, and after the inclusion of job satisfac-
tion and tenure as control variables, one may have confi-
dence that the results are robust.
These results extend the prior research on job involve-
ment in that relatively little of the existing research in-
cluded performance as a dependent variable, focusing in-
stead on turnover and absenteeism (Huselid & Day, 1991;
Steel & Rentsch, 1995). Because the present study found
the job involvement-performance relationship to hold for
scientists rather than engineers, the results suggest that
job involvement is especially important for knowledge
workers who are cosmopolitan and have internalized pro-
fessional norms (Allen, 1977). Other such cosmopolitans
may be physicians, attorneys, or college professors, who
seek the recognition of knowledgeable peers in their pro-
fessional community outside their organization, rather
than hierarchical rewards from superiors (Flango &
Brumbaugh, 1974). The present results can be of value
in theory building of the job involvement construct be-
cause they extend the nomological network of dependent
variables to performance measures, separate out the ef-
fects of job satisfaction, tenure, and organizational com-
mitment from job involvement, and focus on a particular
type of employee who may be responsive to job involve-
ment (Paullay et al., 1994). In addition, the sociological
construct of cosmopolitan-local latent social roles adds
theoretical richness and understanding to the construct of
job involvement.
No support was found for the hypothesized moderator
effects of the scientist-engineer variable on the relation-
 544
ship between organizational commitment and job perfor-
mance measures, or for a moderator effect from an inter-
action term of job involvement and organizational com-
mitment. Hence, for the present sample, the distinction
between scientists and engineers was most important for
the job involvement-performance relationship.
Job involvement was found to have direct effects with
the performance variables. Consistent with the preponder-
ance of prior research, organizational commitment and
the control variable of job satisfaction were not related
to any of the performance measures (Becker et al., 1996;
Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), nor was tenure. These results
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
highlight the salience in the present study of job involve-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ment as a predictor of R & D performance measures.
The results of this study have some important normative
implications for the management of scientists and engi-
neers in R & D organizations. We are reminded again not
to lump scientists and engineers together, because they
have different goals, reference groups, and responses to
motivating factors. For example, the prior literature has
found that scientists generally have a cosmopolitan refer-
ence group of knowledgeable, professional peers, rather
than the local hierarchy and organization that tend to be
the reference group for engineers (Allen, 1977; Ritti,
1968). It has been a while since this distinction has been
made in the literature, but the present results show the
importance of this point. In keeping with the cosmopoli-
tan-local distinction, job involvement was found to be
much more of a motivator for R & D performance for
scientists than for engineers. These results suggest that
managers of R & D organizations should remember to
differentiate between scientists and engineers because of
their different motivational responses.
The present results also suggest some implications for
the selection of R & D scientists. Prior research into the
Big Five personality factors has shown conscientiousness
(i.e., achievement striving, responsible, and persistent) to
be a good predictor of job performance across several
occupations (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993). The
achievement-striving facet of Conscientiousness is a com-
monly used Big Five measure; moreover, it overlaps with
job involvement in their common emphasis on high career
investment and devotion to work (Costa & McCrae,
1992). Hence, it is possible that job involvement, or its
achievement-striving aspect, could become a useful selec-
tion basis for R & D scientists when the potential for high
job involvement exists and if similarities with respect to
job involvement occur across R & D jobs.
The present research used a longitudinal-predictor de-
sign, as suggested by prior research (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990), with a 1-year lag between the measurement of
independent and dependent variables. Research and devel-
opment work, however, tends to be sporadic, with a time
lag between activity and results that is difficult to predict.
KELLER
Hence, the optimum time lag may have been more or less
than that used in the present research (Allen, 1977; Bergh,
1993). Future research in R & D settings should use
multiple time lags to examine the effects of time on per-
formance measures. The use of multiple performance
measures in the present study would also be recommended
for future research because measures may have different
optimum time lags. In addition, the present data do not
allow for a determination of the direction of causality. It
is possible that job involvement and performance may
have a reverse or reciprocal causation or that an unmea-
sured variable may be at work.
In summary, this study found job involvement to be a
stronger predictor of 1-year-later job performance mea-
sures for R & D scientists than for engineers. The scien-
tist-engineer distinction was not found to be a moderator
of organizational commitment-job performance relation-
ships, and no moderating effect was found for an interac-
tion term of job involvement—organizational commit-
ment, on the performance measures.
References
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technol-
ogy transfer and the dissemination of technological informa-
tion within the R & D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K,, & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Consci-
entiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of
the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 78, 715-722.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L.
(1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implica-
tions for job performance, Academy of Management Journal,
39, 464-482.
Bergh, D. D. (1993). Don't "waste" your time! The effects
of time series errors in management research: The case of
ownership concentration and research and development
spending. Journal of Management, 19, 897-914.
Blau, G. J. (1986). Job involvement and organizational commit-
ment as interactive predictors of tardiness and absenteeism.
Journal of Management, 12, 577-584.
Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involve-
ment and organizational commitment affect turnover and ab-
senteeism. Academy of Management Review, 12, 288-300.
Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1989). Using job involvement and organi-
zational commitment interactively to predict turnover. Journal
of Management, 15, 115-127.
Brooke, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discrimi-
nant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involve-
ment, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 139-145.
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organiza-
tional research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin,
120, 235-255.
Brown, S. P. & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychologi-
cal climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358-368.
 JOB INVOLVEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Casio, W. F. (1991). Applied psychology in personnel manage-
ment (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, }., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The Revised NEO Per-
sonality Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory: Profes-
sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Orga-
nizational commitment: The utility of an integrative defini-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-380.
Flango, V. E., & Brumbaugh, R. B. (1974). The dimensionality
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of the cosmopolitan-local construct. Administrative Science
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Quarterly, 19, 198-210.
Gouldner, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an
analysis of latent social roles—I. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 2, 281-306.
Gouldner, A. W. (1958). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an
analysis of latent social roles—II. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 2, 444-480.
Hunt, J. G., Osborn, R. N., & Martin, H. J. (1981). A multiple
influence model of leadership (Tech. Rep. No. 520). Alexan-
dria, \4\: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences.
Huselid, M. A., & Day, N. E. (1991). Organizational commit-
ment, job involvement, and turnover: A substantive and meth-
odological analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 380-
391.
Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measure-
ment of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49,
24-33.
Martin, T. N., & Hafer, J. C. (1995). The multiplicative interac-
tion effects of job involvement and organizational commit-
ment on the turnover intentions of full- and part-time employ-
ees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 310-331.
Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. (1991). Further evidence for the
discriminant validity of measures of organizational commit-
ment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 76, 127-133.
Mathieu, J. E., & Kohler, S. S. (1990). A cross-level examina-
tion of group absence influences on individual absence. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 75, 217-220.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-
analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of
organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108,
171-194.
545
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and
continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of
measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged rela-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710-720.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V, Gellatly, I. R., Coffin, R. D., &
Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job
performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. M. (1979). The mea-
surement of organizational commitment. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1983). Applied
linear regression models. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994).
Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure
job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 79, 224-228.
Peters, L. H., O'Connor, E. J., & Wise, S. L. (1984). The speci-
fication and testing of useful moderator variable hypotheses.
In T. S. Bateman & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Method and analysis
in organizational research (pp. 128-139). Reston, W
Reston.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T, & Boulian, P. V.
(1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and
turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Ritti, R. (1968). Work goals of scientists and engineers. Indus-
trial Relations, 7, 118-131.
Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Managerial
perceptions of employee commitment to the organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1593-1615.
Stahl, M. J., McNichols, C. W, & Manley, T. R. (1979). Cos-
mopolitan-local orientations as predictors of scientific pro-
ductivity, organizational productivity, and job satisfaction for
scientists and engineers. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, EM-26, 39-43.
Steel, R. P., & Rentsch, J. R. (1995). Influence of cumulation
strategies on the long-range prediction of absenteeism. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 38, 1616-1634.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V, England, G. W, & Lofquist, L. H.
(1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Question-
naire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Rela-
tions Center.
Received September 6, 1996
Revision received February 27, 1997
Accepted March 1, 1997 •