Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) observed that, to develop a comprehensive theory of relationship

marketing, understanding is needed of why consumers choose to engage in relational behaviour with a
supplier. They suggested that various influences are important motivators, including personal, social and
institutional influences

Garbarino and Johnson (1999) offer a further refinement to the ‘commitment-trust’ theory. They
suggest that commitment and trust are important in predicting future behaviour of high relational (loyal
and consistent) customers, but satisfaction is a more important indicator for low relational (occasional
and transactional) customers. Thus commitment and trust are likely to be important in relationships that
are characterised by mainly high relational customers

Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) describe these as “attitudinal commitment focuses on the processes
by which people come to think about their relationship with the organisation … ..Behavioural
commitment, on the other hand, relates to the process by which individuals’ become locked into a
certain organisation and how they deal with the problem”

Shore, Lynn M.,Wayne, Sandy J.

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 78(5), Oct 1993, 774-780
The social exchange view of commitment (R. Eisenberger et al, 1986) suggests that employees'
perceptions of the organization's commitment to them (perceived organizational support [POS])
creates feelings of obligation to the employer, which enhances employees' work behavior. The
authors addressed the question of whether POS or the more traditional commitment concepts of
affective commitment (AC) and continuance commitment (CC) were better predictors of employee
behavior (organizational citizenship and impression management). Participants were 383 employees
and their managers. Although results showed that both AC and POS were positively related to
organizational citizenship and that CC was negatively related to organizational citizenship, POS was
the best predictor. These findings support the social exchange view that POS creates feelings of
obligation that contribute to citizenship behaviors. In addition, CC was unrelated, whereas AC and
POS were positively correlated, with some impression management behaviors. (PsycINFO
Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Thomas E. Becker , Robert S. Billings, Daniel M. Eveleth and Nicole L. Gilbert

Previous research has found that employee commitment and job performance are largely
unrelated. However, prior work has not distinguished among individual foci (targets) and bases
(motives) of commitment. We found, as expected, that commitment to supervisors was
positively related to performance and was more strongly associated with performance than was
commitment to organizations. Further, internalization of supervisors' and organizations' values
was associated with performance but identification with these foci was not.

. Job satisfaction is an enormous area; however, to be concise a satisfying job typically has three
properties: z It has intrinsically enjoyable features:

Mathieu & Zajac (1990) found that the strongest correlation with commitment were obtained for job
characteristics, particularly job scope (enrichment). Z

It provides an opportunity for growth and development. Z

 It makes employees feel effective in their roles (that they can positively influence organisational
outcomes). A positive relationship between job satisfaction and commitment, using a variety of
satisfaction and commitment measures, has been consistently reported in the literature (Balfour &
Wechsler, 1990, 1991; Cook & Wall, 1980; Green et al, 1996).

Sharma and Bajpai [18] assert that employees are regarded as committed to an organization if they
willingly continue their association with the organization and devote considerable effort to achieving
organizational goals. The high levels of effort exerted by employees with high levels of organizational
commitment would lead to higher levels of performance and effectiveness of both the individual and
the organizational levels