See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247335272

The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative commitment

on employee withdrawal

Article  in  Journal of Vocational Behavior · February 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.006

CITATIONS READS

135 2,664

1 author:

Mark Somers
New Jersey Institute of Technology
46 PUBLICATIONS   2,233 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

marketing nursing as a profession View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Somers on 06 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 75–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative

commitment on employee withdrawal
Mark John Somers *
New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers-Newark, School of Management, NJIT, Newark, NJ 07102, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In a sample of 288 hospital nurses, commitment profiles were compared to turnover inten-
Received 19 June 2008 tions, job search behavior, work withdrawal (absenteeism and lateness) and job stress. Five
Available online 18 October 2008 empirically-derived commitment profiles emerged: highly committed, affective–norma-
tive dominant, continuance–normative dominant, continuance dominant, and uncommit-
ted. Results indicated that the most positive work outcomes were associated with the
Keywords: affective–normative dominant profile which included lower turnover intentions and lower
Organizational commitment
levels of psychological stress. There were no differences among the commitment groups for
Work attitudes
Employee withdrawal
lateness, and unexpectedly, the continuance–normative dominant group had the lowest
Job stress levels of absenteeism. It was suggested that future research focus on the combined influ-
Commitment profiles ence of commitment on work outcomes.
Person-centered research Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Research on commitment to organizations spans over four decades and remains an area of interest to both researchers
and practitioners. Commitment was initially defined and studied as a unidimensional construct tied either to one’s emo-
tional attachment to an organization (cf. Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974) or to the costs associated with exit (cf.
Becker, 1960). As work in this area progressed, these views of commitment converged and a new, multidimensional dimen-
sional framework was adopted based on three distinct but related forms of commitment: affective, continuance and norma-
tive (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The affective dimension of commitment refers to an emotional attachment to and involvement
with an organization while continuance commitment denotes the perceived costs of leaving an organization (Meyer & Allen,
1991). Normative commitment is a newer addition to the commitment typology and is viewed as felt responsibility to sup-
port and remain a member of an organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
Most commitment research has focused on testing its antecedents and/or consequences, and as such, is variable-centered.
That is, studies are characterized by an emphasis on estimating the level of relationship between each form of commitment
and hypothesized antecedents and consequences (cf. Sinclair, Tucker, Cullen, & Wright, 2005; Wasti, 2005). As might be ex-
pected, these studies focused on testing process models of commitment using variable-centered methodologies such as
regression analyses and structural equation modeling (cf. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). When consid-
ering outcome variables, it has been noted that variable-centered research is not concerned with the concurrent influence of
AC, CC and NC on work outcomes (Wasti, 2005), a potentially interesting area of research that has been overlooked (Gellatly,
Meyer, & Luchak, 2006). This idea was introduced with the concept of a commitment profile which Allen and Meyer (1990)
defined as the relative level on each of the three components of commitment for each employee. Refinements and clarifica-
tions and a theoretical framework to drive empirical testing (cf. Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) have not had much of an effect

* Fax: +1 973 596 3074.

E-mail address: somers@adm.njit.edu

0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.006
76 M.J. Somers / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 75–81

on fomenting research on this topic, and it remains an under-researched area. This study examined the combined influence
of AC, CC and NC on employee retention (turnover intention and job search behavior), withdrawal behavior (absenteeism
and lateness) and psychological stress to identify patterns of commitment that are either beneficial or detrimental to orga-
nizations (cf. Allen & Meyer, 1990).

2. Theoretical framework and empirical research

The combined or concurrent influence of AC, CC and NC on work outcomes has received surprisingly little attention de-
spite repeated calls for research on this topic. Perhaps this was because early studies were not guided by theory, and there
was no empirical base to draw upon with regard to likely results. A few studies have taken a variable-centered approach by
using moderated regression to test interactions between AC, CC and NC and work outcomes (e.g., Somers, 1995). Although
sparse in number, these studies opened a window to explore the notion of commitment profiles. Defined as the relative lev-
els of commitment for each employee, commitment profiles represent distinct groupings of commitment in organizations
(Sinclair et al., 2005).
Studying commitment variables in terms of their relative levels for individuals opens up a new perspective in that the
combined influence of AC, CC and NC is examined in relation to work outcomes; that is, the possibility that certain patterns
of commitment might change the dynamics of the relationship between any given form of commitment and work outcomes
is explicitly tested. Although it was initially hypothesized that the beneficial influence of affective commitment is attenuated
by NC and CC (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), empirical findings indicate that NC (alone and in conjunction with CC) enhances
the positive relationship between AC and important work outcomes such as employee turnover, work withdrawal behavior,
and citizenship behavior (Gellatly et al., 2006; Wasti, 2005).
Studies of commitment profiles based on some or all of the three component model have included a wide array outcome
variables ranging from resistance to change (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Swailes, 2004) to job performance (e.g., Sinclair
et al., 2005). Based on commitment theory and research, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) suggest limiting outcome variables
to two main classes: focal and discretionary. Focal variables include those associated with withdrawal from the organization
while discretionary variables are extra-role activities that benefit the organization such as citizenship behavior.
More importantly, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) developed a theoretical framework for codifying patterns of commit-
ment in organizations. Eight commitment profiles were derived based on the relative levels of AC, CC and NC ranging from
highly committed (High AC, CC and NC) to uncommitted (low AC, CC and NC). Six commitment profiles lie between these two
anchors. Specifically, three commitment profiles reflect attachment that is driven primarily by one form of commitment (i.e.,
affective dominant, continuance dominant, and normative dominant) and three commitment profiles are characterized by
high levels of commitment of two forms of commitment (i.e., affective–continuance dominant, affective–normative domi-
nant, and normative–continuance dominant).
This framework offers a better alternative to the pure exploratory model that characterizes most prior research. Further, it
can be used to derive propositions about the concurrent influence of commitment on work outcomes. Meyer and Herscovitch
(2001) reasoned that the affective dominant profile would have a greater (positive) influence on employee retention and cit-
izenship behavior than would the continuance dominant and normative dominant profiles. Further, based on prior research
and commitment theory, they proposed that continuance and normative commitment (either individually or conjointly)
would attenuate the positive influence of affective commitment on these outcome variables.
Empirical testing of these propositions is sparse. The few studies that are available indicate that the combined influence of
AC, CC and NC on work outcomes is more complex than Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) thought. To date, findings indicate
that the combined influence of various combinations of commitment has a stronger influence on work outcomes than does
an affective dominant profile. That is, CC and/or NC exhibited an additive rather than an attenuating effect. More specifically,
Wasti (2005) using a cluster analytic methodology, identified six commitment profiles which were labeled: highly commit-
ted, non-committed, affective dominant, continuance dominant, affective–normative dominant, and neutral. Wasti (2005),
thus, was able to replicate five of the eight profiles hypothesized by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001). A second sample within
the same study reproduced six of eight commitment profiles excluding the normative dominant and AC–CC dominant pro-
files. With regard to the combined influence of AC, CC and NC on employee retention, Wasti (2005) found that the highly
committed and AC–NC dominant groups had the lowest intention to leave indicating the combined influence of AC, CC
and NC exceeds that of the affective dominant profile. This pattern held for other work outcomes as well including loya-
tly/boosterism, altruism toward colleagues and work withdrawal.
Gellatly et al. (2006) produced similar results using a different methodology. Profiles were formed by using median splits
on each commitment variable to assign employees to the eight commitment profiles proposed by Meyer and Herscovitch
(2001). Results indicated that the affective dominant profile had the strongest influence on employee withdrawal and on
citizenship behavior when compared with continuance dominant and normative dominant profiles. However, the combined
influence of affective and normative commitment (affective–normative dominant profile) was greater than that of the affec-
tive dominant profile for both intention to remain and citizenship behavior.
This preliminary work raises some important questions about commitment profiles in organizations. At the most basic
level, the number and nature of commitment profiles is not clear. Further, the combined influence of AC, CC and NC on work
outcomes remains an important and under-researched topic area (Wasti, 2005). This study is focused on three outcome vari-
 M.J. Somers / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 75–81 77

ables that are consistent with commitment theory and prior research: employee withdrawal including turnover intentions
and job search behavior, work withdrawal including absenteeism and lateness, and psychological stress at work.
Hypothesis 1. There are eight commitment profiles in organizations that include: highly committed, affective dominant,
continuance dominant, normative dominant, AC–CC dominant, AC–NC dominant, CC–NC dominant, and uncommitted.
The eight commitment profiles proposed by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) are best viewed as an implied hypothesis sub-
ject to empirical test. Although there are methodological problems with using median splits to assign employees to each of
the eight commitment groups such as stressing small samples (Wasti, 2005), the most serious problem with this approach is
that it fails the test of falsefiability; that is, these eight groups are formed on an a priori basis. Empirical testing using cluster
analysis suggests that these eight profiles might not be present in every sample (cf. Wasti, 2005). Hypothesis 1, thus, tests
the efficacy of the Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) typology of commitment profiles.
Hypothesis 2. Highly committed employees and those with an AC–NC dominant profile have the strongest intentions to
remain and the lowest levels of job search behavior.
Affective commitment was hypothesized to have the strongest influence on turnover intentions based on its definition as
an emotional attachment to an organization. Further, NC and CC are expected to attenuate the influence of AC on turnover
intentions. Specifically, as CC is associated with the perceived high cost of exiting an organization (that is, feeling compelled
to remain or ‘‘trapped”) it does not represent a desire to remain a member of the organization while the sense of moral obli-
gation stemming from NC is seen as weakening the emotional ties generated by AC (cf. Gellatly et al., 2006). Recent findings,
however, indicate that NC alone and in conjunction with CC enhance rather than attenuate the diminished turnover inten-
tions associated with AC (Gellatly et al., 2006; Wasti, 2005). Thus, using Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) typology, highly
committed employees and those with an AC–NC dominant profile had the weakest turnover intentions. These findings
are consistent with commitment theory in that it is plausible that the sense of obligation to the organization stemming from
high levels of NC combines with the emotional bonds associated with high levels of AC to result in a stronger intention to
remain with the organization than that which results from high levels of AC alone (e.g., AC dominants). Further, it appears
that when both AC and NC are high, high levels of CC act to enhance one’s sense of integration into the organization, thereby
diminishing turnover intentions. These propositions are tested in Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3. Highly committed employees and those with an AC–NC dominant profile have the lowest incidence of work
withdrawal behavior.
Work withdrawal represents disengagement from the organization. It, therefore, should be negatively associated with the
emotional ties characteristic of affective commitment and the sense of obligation generated from normative commitment. As
such, the AC–NC dominant profile is expected to be associated with lower incidences of work withdrawal than is the AC
dominant profile. The influence of continuance commitment on work withdrawal behavior is not as clear. A CC dominant
profile should be associated with high incidences of work withdrawal behavior as employees are not emotionally committed
to the organization, but cannot leave without incurring high costs. However, it is not clear if, as is the case with turnover
intentions, high levels of CC when combined with high levels of AC and NC act to diminish incidences of work withdrawal.
The one available study indicates that highly committed employees had the lowest levels of work withdrawal behavior
(Wasti, 2005) suggesting that high levels of CC have the same influence on work withdrawal as they do with respect to turn-
over intentions when AC and NC are also high. This proposition is tested in Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4. Employees with an AC–NC dominant and an AC dominant profiles have the lowest levels of job stress.
Unlike the other outcome variables in this study, job stress is psychological rather than behavioral. It is likely that
employees who are integrated into their organizations experience lower levels of job stress. Thus, the strong emotional
attachment characteristic of high levels of affective commitment should result in decreased job stress. There is some empir-
ical support for this proposition in that Wasti (2005) found that the AC dominant profile had low levels of job stress. It is not
clear if the influence of AC on job stress is enhanced or attenuated by the other forms of commitment. Given that a sense of
moral obligation is more likely to lead to psychological integration into an organization than is the perceived cost of leaving,
it is hypothesized that NC enhances the influence of AC on job stress.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Participants were 288 staff nurses from large hospital in the southern region of the United States. All participants were
full-time employees and were drawn from each of the hospital’s three shifts. The study was sponsored by management and
was conducted on-site during normal working hours using a self-report questionnaire. Participation was voluntary and 100%
of those nurses asked to complete the survey agreed to do so. The sample as 92% female with a mean age 39.1 years, an aver-
age organizational tenure of 9.01 years. It was 63% white, 32% black with 71% of the sample holding a bachelor’s degree or
higher.
78 M.J. Somers / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 75–81

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Organizational commitment

Affective, continuance and normative commitment were measured with Allen and Meyer’s (1990) scales (a = .83, .68, and
.85 respectively). Responses were along 5-point Likert type scales for each commitment measure.

3.2.2. Employee retention: turnover intentions and job search behavior

Turnover intentions were measured with Bluedorn’s (1982) scale (a = .95). Items were measured using 7-point Likert type
scales with higher scores indicating less likelihood of turnover. Job search behavior was measured with a scale developed
and validated by Kopelman, Rovenpor, and Milsap (1992). Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they engaged
in 12 job search behaviors during the last six months. Items were scaled along a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from never
to very frequently (a = .91).

3.2.3. Work withdrawal

3.2.3.1. Absenteeism and lateness. Single item, self-report measures were used for absenteeism and lateness. Respondents
were asked how many days they missed work during the past six months and many times they were late for work during
the past six months.

3.2.4. Job stress

Job stress and carry-over work stress were assessed with Warr’s (1990) scales. Carry-over stress refers to work related
stress that persists outside of the workplace (a = .59 and .78 respectively). Job stress was measured with 12 items using a
6-point Likert type scale. Carry-over stress was measured with four items along a 5-point Likert type scale.

3.3. Data analyses

3.3.1. k-Means clustering

Commitment profiles were formed using k-means clustering. The algorithm groups cases so as to maximize similarity
within clusters and dissimilarity among cluster centers.

3.3.2. Post-hoc analyses

MANOVA was used to test for differences among outcome variables across clusters. A significant multivariate F statistic
indicates that study variables differed across clusters. ANOVA with Tukey’s b post hoc comparisons was then used to identify
where statistically significant differences were present among commitment groups.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics

Means, standard deviations and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 1.

4.2. Derivation of commitment profiles

Profiles derived from k-means clustering are presented in Table 2. Five profiles were identified and were labeled highly
committed, continuance dominant, affective–normative dominant, continuance–normative dominant, and uncommitted.
Thus, five of the eight a priori profiles proposed by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) were replicated in this study. Hypothesis
1 was partially supported. Somewhat surprisingly, an affective dominant profile did not emerge.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Affective commitment 3.29 .72 —
2 Continuance commitment 3.31 .60 .18 —
3 Normative commitment 3.59 .79 .72 .24 —
4 Intent to remain 5.14 1.36 21 .10 .18 —
5 Job search 1.70 .61 .20 .07 .17 .29 —
6 Job stress 2.88 .55 .13 .06 .12 .06 .15 —
7 Carry-over stress 3.01 .85 .11 .11 .06 .19 .12 .09 —
8 Absenteeism 3.32 8.17 .02 .03 .01 .03 02 .05 .02 —
9 Lateness 1.06 2.81 .05 .01 .06 .03 .01 .01 .07 .38 —

Correlations in bold p < .01; in italics p < .05.

 M.J. Somers / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 75–81 79

Table 2
Mean levels of AC, CC and NC for commitment profiles.

HC CC AC–NC CC–NC LC
n 75 44 55 82 32
Affective commitment 4.07 3.07 3.41 3.16 2.06
Continuance commitment 3.60 3.40 2.59 3.57 3.06
Normative commitment 4.39 2.91 3.82 3.79 2.16

Note: HC, highly committed; CC, continuance dominant; AC–NC, affective–normative dominant; CC–NC, continuance–normative dominant; LC, low
commitment.

Table 3
Mean values of outcome variables across commitment profiles.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 F Post hoc

HC ACNC CCNC CC LC
Turnover intentions 5.45 5.61 5.06 4.86 4.42 6.00** 1, 2 > 3, 4, 5 3 > 4,5
Job search 1.60 1.66 1.66 1.70 2.07 3.65** 1,2,3,4 < 5
Absenteeism 4.35 5.07 1.18 3.49 3.17 2.40* 1,2 > 3
Lateness 1.12 1.56 .67 1.31 .78 1.02 n.a.
Job stress 3.03 2.76 2.92 2.81 2.70 3.25* 2,5 < 1, 3
Carry-over stress 3.02 2.72 3.10 2.96 3.32 3.03* 2 < 1,3,5 4 < 5
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

4.3. Differences among commitment profiles

MANOVA indicated that there were significant differences among the commitment groups for turnover intentions, job
search behavior, absenteeism and both job stress variables (Wilks’ k = .771; F = 2.85, p < .01). These findings are a necessary
condition for testing Hypotheses 2–4 which were examined in more detail with post hoc ANOVA analyses.
Follow on ANOVA analyses with Tukey’s b post hoc comparisons are presented in Table 3. Results supported Hypothesis 2
for turnover intentions in that the AC–NC dominant and highly committed groups had the strongest intention to remain.
However, these results did not hold for job search behavior where the only significant difference was observed between
the uncommitted group and all other commitment groups. Hypothesis 2, thus, was partially supported.
A more detailed analysis of job search behavior indicated that the three most frequent search behaviors for the entire
sample included reading a book about new jobs and careers, talking to family and friends about job change, and reading
employment ads. Further, the mean frequency of these behaviors was slightly above the ‘‘rarely” anchor on the response
scale indicating that most respondents were not actively seeking to leave the organization. Restriction of range, thus, likely
played a role in the findings for job search behavior.
Hypothesis 3 was not supported in that no difference between the commitment groups was observed for lateness. Fur-
ther, and contrary to expectations, the CC–NC dominant group had the lowest level of absenteeism which was significantly
different from highly committed employees and those with an AC–NC dominant profile who, unexpectedly, exhibited the
highest levels of absenteeism.
Hypothesis 4 was also partially supported. As an AC dominant group did not emerge, it was necessary to test this hypoth-
esis with only the AC–NC dominant profile which behaved as hypothesized. Specifically, these employees exhibited the low-
est levels of job stress and carry-over stress, although for the job stress variable there was no difference between the AC–NC
dominant group and employees with the lowest levels of commitment. Aside from this anomaly, results were as expected.
In order to compare the results for the AC–NC dominant group and the AC dominant group for job stress, the AC dominant
group was formed using median splits (cf. Gellatly et al., 2006) and mean levels of job stress and carry-over stress were com-
pared for the AC–NC dominant group and the AC dominant group. Mean levels of the AC dominant group (n = 14) were 2.76
and 3.03 for job stress and carry-over stress, respectively. A t-test indicated that there were no differences between the two
groups for either job stress or carry-over stress (t = .286 and t = 1.85 df = 58; p > .05) although the difference for carry-
over stress approached statistical significance (p < .07) with a very small sample for the AC dominant group.

5. Discussion

Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) typology was formally tested in this study and findings provided strong but not unequiv-
ocal support. Specifically, five of the eight commitment profiles were reproduced using empirical clustering methods (the AC
dominant, AC CC dominant and NC dominant profiles did not emerge in this study). Results are consistent with prior work in
that Wasti (2005) was able to reproduce five of the eight groups with one sample (NC dominant, CC–NC dominant and
80 M.J. Somers / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 75–81

AC–CC dominant were missing) and six of eight with a second sample (NC dominant and AC–CC dominant were missing)
using k-means clustering, the same method used in this study.
At this point, it is not clear why commitment profiles are inconsistent across organizations; that is, why a given commit-
ment group is present in one study but not in others. Sample characteristics (e.g., industry, profession) are obvious factors to
consider. With respect to this study, the strong service element associated with nursing practice might lead to a melding of
AC and NC so that nurses see emotional attachment and duty as almost inseparable. As a result, the AC dominant profile
might not have emerged. Indeed, Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) assignment algorithm indicated that less than 5% of the
sample fell into the AC dominant group (14 of 288). Other industries and professions might produce different patterns of
commitment and codifying them should help increase our understanding of how employees become attached to their
organizations.
In this regard, variable-centered research has offered an AC centric view of commitment. That is, the consensus from com-
mitment research is that AC results in beneficial attachment to organizations while CC is potentially problematic and det-
rimental to organizations. Casting commitment as a profile by examining the levels of AC, CC and NC for each employee
(Allen & Meyer, 1990) offers a more holistic view of the concept that moves away from an AC centric model based on the
relative predictive efficacy of AC, CC and NC in relation to work outcomes. Findings from this study coupled with the few
others that are available (Gellatly et al., 2006; Wasti, 2005) consistently indicate that the combined influence of commitment
on outcome variables is greater than that of any given form.
The magnitude of this combined influence seems to vary by the work outcomes under consideration with the effects
ranging from moderate to modest. In this study, as was the case with prior research, NC alone and in conjunction with
CC clearly augmented the influence of AC on turnover intentions; that is, AC–NC dominants and highly committed employ-
ees were less likely to leave the organization. A far more modest result was observed for job search behavior, where the sole
difference among the commitment groups was between uncommitted employees and the four other commitment profiles.
Work withdrawal behaviors also produced weaker results than did turnover intentions. No differences were observed
across commitment profiles for lateness. Further, the highest levels of absenteeism were observed for the AC–NC dominant
group and the lowest levels were observed for the CC–NC dominant group. These findings are anomalous in that they are not
consistent with commitment theory and are contrary to Wasti’s (2005) results in which lower levels of work withdrawal
were observed for employees with an AC–NC dominant profile.
The most likely explanation for this finding seems to be with the measure of absenteeism used in this study. Voluntary
and involuntary absences are critical factors in health care settings and it was not possible to distinguish between these two
forms of absenteeism. In hospitals, absences by nurses put pressure on nursing staff and affect continuity of care so that a
high level of voluntary absences can be interpreted as poor citizenship behavior. Conversely, involuntary absences due to
factors such as illness or family emergency are not likely to be related to commitment. Factoring out the proportion of vol-
untary and involuntary absences across the seven commitment profiles identified in this study might have produced differ-
ent results so that this finding is best viewed as a potential artifact and treated accordingly.
Finally, commitment affected psychological well-being at work with the combined influence of AC and NC resulting in the
lowest levels of job stress and carry-over stress. As the level of overall and carry-over stress was significantly higher for
highly committed employees than it was for those with an AC–NC dominant profile, it appears that high levels of CC mitigate
the beneficial influence of AC and NC.
Interestingly, combined influence of AC and NC was considerably stronger for carry-over stress than it was for general
work stress with the difference approaching statistical significance in relation to an AC dominant profile based on a very
small sample (n = 15). A likely explanation for the difference between general work stress and carry-over stress comes from
the nature of the attachment characteristic of AC–NC dominants within the context of this sample. AC generates acceptance
of and support for the hospital’s goal of high quality patient care and NC is likely to foster the perception that one’s duty has
been met in meeting those goals. Thus, nurses with an AC–NC dominant profile are more likely to leave the hospital thinking
that they have done all they can for their patients, a perception that might not be as strong for nurses in the other commit-
ment groups.
Taken as a set, these findings suggest that commitment processes might be more complex than previously thought. Spe-
cifically, it appears that the relative levels of commitment for each employee affect how the more general psychological state
of commitment is experienced. For example, when AC and NC are high, the potentially negative effects of CC are attenuated
possibly because employees do not feel stuck in their organizations, but rather invested in them.
Commitment profiles, thus, seem to be an excellent vehicle for gaining a better understanding of the dynamics among AC,
CC and NC in relation to work outcomes. Future studies are best directed toward exploring the combined influence of com-
mitment on outcome variables especially those associated with employee retention and citizenship behavior (cf. Gellatly
et al., 2006; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). In so doing, it is important to continue to explore how the level of one form of com-
mitment might affect how other forms are experienced so that both the processes driving commitment to organizations and
the outcomes associated with commitment become clearer. Finally, research in this area is predicated on a sound typology of
commitment profiles and further empirical testing to establish the generalizabilty and stability of Meyer & Herscovitch’s
(2001) eight-cell typology is desirable.
The notion of a commitment profile also has implications for management practice in that the issue of capturing patters
of attachment that are beneficial or detrimental to organizations becomes salient (cf. Allen & Meyer, 1990). Very preliminary
findings indicate that the AC–NC dominant profile offers the most benefits to organizations with respect to employee reten-
 M.J. Somers / Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 75–81 81

tion, employee well being as defined by lower levels of stress, and citizenship behavior, and this study provides additional
support for turnover intentions and stress. Potential negative effects of CC seem to be mitigated when AC and NC are also
high at least for employee retention. As such, building beneficial patterns of commitment to organizations probably extends
beyond affective commitment.
Findings from this study must be viewed with some caution as it has several limitations. All data are self-report so that
there are no objective indicators of absenteeism or lateness. Further, as noted earlier, it was not possible to distinguish be-
tween voluntary and involuntary absences. In addition, turnover intentions and job search behavior served as surrogates for
actual employee turnover which was not measured. The study also used a survey design so that it is not possible to draw
causal inferences. Finally, the sample was drawn from a restricted occupational group which might have increased the sal-
ience of normative commitment as nursing is a helping profession grounded in a sense of duty to patient well-being. As such,
the findings might not generalize to occupations where work is viewed in more instrumental terms.

References

Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Becker, H. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32–42.
Bluedorn, A. (1982). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects and meaning. In S. Barcharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 75–128).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gellatly, I., Meyer, J., & Luchak, A. (2006). Combined effects of the three commitment components on focal and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and
Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 331–345.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
474–487.
Kopelman, R., Rovenpor, J., & Milsap, R. (1992). Rationale and construct validity evidence for the Job Search Behavior Index: Because intentions (and New
Year’s resolutions) often come to naught. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 269–287.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Towards a general model. Human Resources Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.
Sinclair, R., Tucker, J., Cullen, J., & Wright, C. (2005). Performance differences among four commitment profiles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1280–1287.
Somers, M. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16, 49–58.
Swailes, S. (2004). Commitment to change: Profiles of commitment an in-role performance. Personnel Review, 33, 187–204.
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193–210.
Wasti, S. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 290–308.

View publication stats