Organizational Commitment: A Further

Moderator in the Relationship Between Work

Stress and Strain?
Klaus-Helmut Schmidt
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universität Dortmund

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

In recent years, a growing interest in the relations between organizational

commitment of employees and their experiences of job strain can be noted.
Besides main effects on these consequences, two competing hypotheses have
postulated moderating effects of commitment on the relationship of work
stress to measures of strain. According to the first hypothesis highly com-
mitted employees experience the adverse effects of stress more than less
committed employees, whereas according to the second hypothesis commit-
ment operates as a buffer in the stress-strain relationship. Data from 506
staff members of a municipal administration provided evidence in favor of the
buffer hypothesis. The effects of high stress on the burnout dimensions of
exhaustion and depersonalization were reduced with increasing commitment
to the organization.
Keywords: affective organizational commitment, buffer effect, burnout, job satisfaction

During the past two decades, organizational commitment has emerged as

a central concept in the study of work-related attitudes and behavior (Allen
& Meyer, 1990; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In general terms the concept can be
defined as a psychological link or bond between the employee and his or her
organization. Although early work in the area was characterized by various
unidimensional views of the construct, organizational commitment is now
widely recognized as a multidimensional work attitude (for an overview, see
Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Furthermore, most modern theoretical ap-
proaches share the assumption that the affective dimension represents one of
the basic components of the construct. Affective commitment refers to the

Klaus-Helmut Schmidt, Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universität Dortmund.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Klaus-Helmut Schmidt,
Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universität Dortmund, D-44139 Dortmund, Ardeystr. 67,
Germany. E-mail: schmidtkh@ifado.de

26
International Journal of Stress Management Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
2007, Vol. 14, No. 1, 26 – 40 1072-5245/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.1.26
 Organizational Commitment 27

identification with, involvement in, and emotional attachment to the organi-

zation.
Since the development of adequate instruments for measuring affective
commitment (Mowdy, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Allen & Meyer, 1990) numer-
ous studies have examined both its antecedents, correlates, and conse-
quences. Meta-analyses of these studies suggest that among the antecedent
variables considered, certain task characteristics (like skill variety, auton-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

omy), perceived organizational support, the various forms of organizational

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

justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional), and transformational

leadership exhibit the strongest positive relations to affective commitment.
For another group of variables, often classified as correlates of commitment
(like job satisfaction, job involvement), relatively strong positive correlations
have been established as well. Finally, with regard to the consequences of
commitment, not only turnover and withdrawal cognitions have been found
to correlate negatively with affective commitment, but also measures of
absenteeism. In-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior, on
the other hand, show positive, albeit weak, associations with commitment
(see Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky,
2002).
In recent years, the set of consequences of commitment has been ex-
panded by indicators of job strain and well-being. Meyer and Herscovitch
(2001) substantiated the claim of corresponding relations with the strong
emotions which, in their view, constitute the core of affective commitment.
These positive emotions are expected to exert a direct influence on a wide
range of measures of strain and well-being because the strain measures
themselves have strong emotional roots (see Warr, 1990). Meyer et al. (2002)
provided the first empirical evidence in favor of this assumption. On the basis
of five independent samples, their meta-analysis revealed a statistically
significant estimate of the true correlation of ⫺.21 between affective com-
mitment and various indicators of strain. In consideration of the rather small
database underlying this meta-analytic finding, Meyer et al. (2002) have
stressed the need of paying more attention to the strain consequences of
commitment in future research.

TWO THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

In addition to these direct influences, two theoretical perspectives have

ascribed to commitment the function of moderating the relation between
work-related stress and strain and well-being at work. Although both per-
spectives refer to the relationship between work-related stress and experi-
enced strain and health outcomes, they posit opposite directions of the
 28 Schmidt

moderating effect of affective commitment. According to the first view,

presented by Mathieu and Zajac (1990), highly committed employees expe-
rience the adverse effects of work stress more than less committed employ-
ees. The former should suffer more from stressors because of their high
investment in and identification with the organization. Thus, commitment
should increase the vulnerability of employees to the psychological threat
posed by high work stressors (see Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). On the other
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

hand, because of their greater detachment from the organization, employees

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

with a weaker affective commitment are expected to experience stress as less

threatening.
By way of contrast, the second view holds that organizational commit-
ment buffers the effects of work stress on strain and health outcomes. This
hypothesis has its roots in the widely shared notion of affective commitment
as a psychological bond or link of the individual to the organization (Meyer
& Herscovitch, 2001). This bond gives employees a sense of stability,
security, and belonging that makes them more resistant to any kinds of work
stressors. Thus, in this view, organizational commitment is hypothesized to
be a protective resource (Kobasa, 1982). In a social psychology context,
Antonovsky (1979) argues in a similar vein that organizational commitment
is a crucial resource that enables individuals to resist the effects of stressful
events in their environment. Accordingly, an increase in this resource should
reduce, not enhance the adverse effects of those events. Commitment would
then operate similarly to other hypothesized moderators of the stress-strain
relationship as social support (Cohen & Wills, 1985) or control at work
(Karasek, 1979; Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey, & Parker, 1996).
Empirical tests of these competing hypotheses are quite rare. Only two
such studies were found. The first one was conducted by Begley and Czajka
(1993) during adverse organizational changes (closing units, tightening bud-
gets) in a hospital. A measure of work stress that indicated the extent to
which participants felt stressed by these changes was analyzed in combina-
tion with Mowdy et al.’s (1979) measure of affective commitment to predict
a three-outcome composite of job displeasure (job dissatisfaction, intent to
quit, work-related irritation). Results of hierarchical moderated regression
analyses revealed significant main effects of stress and commitment on job
displeasure, with a positive sign for stress and a negative one for commit-
ment. In addition, a significant effect for the interaction between stress and
commitment did emerge, the form of which clearly confirmed the stress-
buffering function of commitment. Stress increased job displeasure more for
those low in commitment.
The second study was conducted by Siu (2002) among white-collar and
blue-collar workers in Hong Kong, and blue-collar workers in China. In all
three samples, the measure of stress combined diverse sources of work-
related stress like long working hours, conflicting job tasks, lack of social
 Organizational Commitment 29

support, underutilization of skills, and incompatible home/work demands.

The outcome variables considered included both job satisfaction and indica-
tors of mental and physical well-being. As in Begley and Czajka’s (1993)
study, the affective commitment to the organization was measured with the
instrument designed by Mowdy et al. (1979). In addition to the expected main
effects of work stress on all indicators of strain, results of hierarchical
regression analyses showed that commitment was significantly and positively
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

related to job satisfaction, and to mental and physical well-being in Hong

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

Kong white-collar and China blue-collar workers. In the Hong Kong blue-
collar sample, only job satisfaction was subjected to a similar main effect of
commitment. Furthermore, the results provided at least partial support to the
notion of commitment as stress buffer. Commitment was found to interact
significantly with work stress to determine job satisfaction in the Hong Kong
white-collar sample and physical well-being among Hong Kong white-collar
and blue-collar workers.
Whereas the findings of both studies are consistent with the hypothesis
that affective commitment serves to buffer the effects of stress and incon-
sistent with the hypothesis of a sensitizing action, the evidence thus far falls
short of being fully convincing. First, the database is rather small, so that the
issue of generalizability across geographic regions (and cultures) and types of
organizations is quite unclear; the claim of a general role of commitment as
a buffer for the consequences of work-related stress needs far more studies
(Meyer et al., 2002). Second, generalizability across methodological varia-
tions is unclear. For example, in Begley and Czajka’s (1993) study a very
specific measure of work stress was used, and in both studies affective
commitment was assessed by means of the same instrument. To establish the
hypothesis on the construct level, more studies are needed which demonstrate
invariance of the findings across different methods.

THE CURRENT STUDY

The purpose of the present study was to broaden the database for the
notion that affective commitment acts as a buffer for the consequences of
work-related stress. We used a measure of quantitative and qualitative
workload, which covered stressors which are well established in the organi-
zational stress literature (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). Furthermore, the study
extended the spectrum of potential strain outcomes that might be sensitive for
the moderating effects of commitment. Specifically, in addition to job satis-
faction the burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion and depersonaliza-
tion were included as outcome variables. These dimensions are considered as
core symptoms of burnout (Green, Walkey, & Taylor, 1991). Whereas
 30 Schmidt

burnout was initially assumed to result from emotionally charged interactions

in human service professions, such as social work, health care, and teaching,
there is now sufficient empirical evidence of burnout outside the human
services (see Bakker, Demerouti, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003). Fi-
nally, in the current study a different measure of affective commitment was
applied.
Within this conceptual framework, two hypotheses were tested.
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.

Hypothesis 1: In line with the theoretical reasoning of Meyer and

Herscovitch (2001), affective commitment was expected to exert a direct
beneficial influence on all strain outcomes considered.

Hypothesis 2: Besides this main effect, affective commitment was also

expected to exert a moderating effect on the relationship between work
stress and strain which, in view of the few findings summarized above,
should correspond with the stress buffering function of commitment.

METHODS

Participants and Procedure

Participants were staff members of a municipal administration in a

middle-sized city in Germany. A total of 506 staff members completed a
questionnaire (response rate 78%) that included the scales described below.
The questionnaire was administered in small groups of about 15 persons
during normal working hours. The mean age of the sample was 43.2 years
(SD ⫽ 9.6). Participants’ average tenure in their present positions was 17.7
years (SD ⫽ 11), and 54.5% were women. The majority (70%) worked on a
full-time basis.

Measures

Main Predictor Variables

Work stress. A measure of work stress was derived by combining the

items of the quantitative workload (four items) and qualitative workload (five
items) subscales of a job analysis instrument developed by Prümper,
Hartmannsgruber, and Frese (1995). The items for measuring quantitative
workload address aspects like “time pressure” and “excessive amount of
work,” whereas the items of the qualitative workload scale consist of state-
 Organizational Commitment 31

ments referring to “high demands on concentration” and “high complexity of

tasks.” Each item asks respondents to indicate the extent to which the
respective statement applies to one’s own job on a five-point scale ranging
from 1 (totally incorrect) to 5 (totally correct). A summary measure of work
stress was defined as the mean of the item scores. The internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) of the stress measure was .85 for the present sample.
Organizational commitment. For the measurement of organizational
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

commitment, Allen and Meyer’s (1990) 8-item affective commitment scale

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

was used in a German translation by Schmidt, Hollmann, and Sodenkamp

(1998). This scale reflects the affective attachment to and involvement in the
organization and is highly correlated with Mowdy et al.’s (1979) commit-
ment measure (see Allen & Meyer, 1990). The scale has a seven-point
response range (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”), and a total score
was obtained by averaging the item scores. Typical items are, for example, “I
really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own,” and “I would be
very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.” The
internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the resulting commitment measure
was .86.

Outcome Measures

Burnout. The two burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion (nine

items), and depersonalization (five items) were measured by the Maslach
Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1981, 1986) in a German translation
by Büssing and Perrar (1992). Emotional exhaustion refers to feelings of
being overextended and drained by the emotional demands of one’s work.
Depersonalization is characterized by a detached, callous, indifferent, and
cynical attitude toward other persons one has to interact with at work.
Exemplary items are “I feel emotionally drained from my work” (exhaustion)
and “I have become more callous toward people since I took this job”
(depersonalization). Each item is scored on a seven-point intensity rating
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very strong). The internal consistency
of the exhaustion scale was a ⫽ .90, that of the depersonalization scale was
a ⫽ .76.
Job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was assessed by means of a
seven-item scale using Kunin’s (1955) faces. The items address the satisfac-
tion with various job facets, namely colleagues, supervision, task content,
physical working conditions, organization and management, opportunities
for professional development, and pay. The instrument was developed by
Neuberger and Allerbeck (1978) who also give a description of its psycho-
metric properties. A measure of overall job satisfaction that covers a seven-
 32 Schmidt

point range was obtained by means of averaging the item scores. The internal
consistency of this measure was ␣ ⫽ .75.

Statistical Analyses

The main and interaction effects of work stress and organizational

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

commitment were examined by means of hierarchical moderated regression

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

analyses performed separately for each strain measure. In the first step, the
biographical variables (age, gender, tenure, working time) were introduced to
control for their potential influences on the relationships under examination.
In the second step, work stress and commitment were jointly added to the
equation to examine their unique main effects. Finally, an interaction term
computed as the cross-product of work stress and commitment was intro-
duced. The test for the interaction effect is based on the variance explained
by the cross-product over and above that accounted for by the main effects
of stress and commitment. In order to eliminate nonessential correlations
between the interaction term and its constituent variables, all predictors were
standardized prior to calculating the cross-product term and conducting the
analyses (see Aiken & West, 1991).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of all study variables are

presented in Table 1. Some of the biographical variables were significantly
related to both work stress and the burnout dimension of depersonalization.
The association of stress and organizational commitment was only weak and
nonsignificant. As expected, work stress was positively correlated with both
dimensions of burnout and negatively related to job satisfaction. Commit-
ment was also significantly correlated with all indicators of strain, but with an
inverse pattern of signs. All strain measures were significantly intercorre-
lated. However, all variables of the present study showed lower levels of
intercorrelations than their respective scale reliabilities which suggests that
empirically distinct, yet related, constructs were assessed.

Regression Analyses

The results of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses are sum-

marized in Table 2. The biographical variables accounted for a statistically
 Organizational Commitment 33

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Scale Intercorrelations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age 43.19 9.62 —
2. Gendera 1.45 0.50 .18** —
3. Organizational
tenure 17.72 10.99 .66** .13** —
4. Working timeb 1.71 0.46 .05 .54** .15** —
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

5. Work stress 3.11 0.68 .09* .01 .12** .06 —

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

6. Commitment 4.58 1.29 .07 .05 .08 .06 .05 —

7. Exhaustion 2.64 1.02 .01 .08 .09* .13** .56** ⫺.22** —
8. Depersonalization 2.24 0.92 ⫺.12**
.23 ⫺.02
**
.23 **
.27 ⫺.20** .53** —
**

9. Job satisfaction 4.74 0.92 .03 ⫺.01 .02 ⫺.08 ⫺.24** .45** ⫺.50** ⫺.36** —
Note. N ⫽ 506.
a
Gender (1 ⫽ female, 2 ⫽ male). b
Working time (1 ⫽ half-time, 2 ⫽ full-time).
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

significant proportion of variance in both burnout dimensions. The entry of

work stress and commitment in Step 2 contributed a highly significant
amount of variance to the prediction of all indicators of strain. In all final
regression equations, both stress and commitment had significant beta
weights, with signs corresponding to expectations. More important, however,
the introduction of the two-way interaction between stress and commitment
in Step 3 added a significant amount of incremental variance to the prediction
of both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. For both burnout di-
mensions, this interaction accounted for an additional proportion of variance

Table 2. Results From Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analyses Predicting Emotional

Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Job Satisfaction
Emotional exhaustion Depersonalization Job satisfaction
Regression steps
and effect tested ␤ ⌬R 2
␤ ⌬R 2
␤ ⌬R2
Step 1
Age ⫺.10* .02* ⫺.19** .10** .01 .01
Gendera .07 .20** .02
Organizational tenure .09 .06 .02
Working timeb .07 .11* ⫺.10*
Step 2 ** **
Work stress .58** .37 .26** .11** ⫺.24** .28**
Commitment ⫺.26 ⫺.20** .43**
Step 3 ** **
Interaction ⫺.11 .02 ⫺.10** .02** .02 .00
R2 .41 .23 .29
F 46.46** 21.19** 28.67**
Note. N ⫽ 506.
a
Gender (1 ⫽ female, 2 ⫽ male). b
working time (1 ⫽ half-time, 2 ⫽ full-time).
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
 34 Schmidt

of 2%. By way of contrast, job satisfaction failed to reflect such an interaction

effect.
The specific form of the interaction effects of work stress and organiza-
tional commitment on two of the strain measures considered was analyzed
with the method recommended by Aiken and West (1991). Accordingly,
values of the predictors were chosen two standard deviations and one
standard deviation above and below the means. Then, for both dimensions of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

burnout, simple regression lines were generated by inserting these values into
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the regression equation. The resulting plots are depicted in Figure 1. It is

evident from the figure that work stress and commitment had a quite similar
interactive influence on both strain measures, the form of which confirms the
hypothesized buffer function of commitment. For employees with very low
and low levels of commitment the adverse impact of work stress was much
more pronounced than for employees with high and very high levels of
commitment. In other words, the effects of high stress on emotional exhaus-
tion and depersonalization were dampened and perhaps even eliminated with
increasing affective commitment to the organization.
With the findings shown in Figure 1, the obvious question arises whether
commitment has not only the potential of mitigating the adverse effects of
work stress on strain, but indeed may even eliminate them. Simple slope
analyses were performed to answer this question (see Aiken & West, 1991).
Whereas the significant interaction terms of the regression analyses indicate
that the regressions of the criterion variables on work stress differ signifi-
cantly across levels of commitment, simple slope analyses allow to determine
whether for a specific level of commitment the regression of the criterion
variables on work stress is significantly different from zero. The results of
these analyses revealed that the regressions of exhaustion on work stress were
significantly different from zero at all levels of commitment, even at very

Emotional Exhaustion Depersonalization

5.0 Very low 4.0
commitment (-2)
Low Very low
commitment (-1) 3.5 commitment (-2)
4.0
Low
High commitment (-1)
3.0
commitment (+1)
3.0 Very high
commitment (+2) 2.5 High
commitment (+1)
2.0
2.0 Very high
commitment (+2)

1.0 1.5
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Work stress Work stress
Figure 1. Interaction effects of work stress and organizational commitment on emotional
exhaustion and depersonalization.
 Organizational Commitment 35

high levels (␤ ⫽ .36, t ⫽ 4.76, p ⫽ ⬍ .01). The same was true for the
regressions of depersonalization on work stress at very low, low, and high
levels of commitment. However, at very high levels of commitment the
corresponding regression was not significantly different from zero (␤ ⫽ .06,
t ⫽ 0.76, ns). With this level of commitment, thus, the adverse effects of
work stress on depersonalization were indeed eliminated.
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.

DISCUSSION

The present study examined the moderating effects of affective organi-

zational commitment on the relation between work stress and strain in
addition to main effects. In the literature, two competing hypotheses on the
moderating effects have been posited. According to the first one, employee’s
affective commitment to the organization should sensitize for the adverse
effects of stress on strain and related outcomes (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In
contrast, according to the second hypothesis commitment exerts a buffer
function for this relationship (Antonovsky, 1979; Kobasa, 1982; Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001).
The results of the present study add to the quite limited evidence on the
contrasting hypotheses (Begley & Czajka, 1993; Siu, 2002). They show that
commitment to the organization is a valuable personal resource which exerts
beneficial influences on strain and well-being in two ways. First, all outcome
variables reflected a significant direct influence of commitment, with nega-
tive signs for the burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion and deperson-
alization and a positive sign for job satisfaction. That is, affective commit-
ment reduces strain and promotes well-being in a direct way. The effect sizes
observed were, on average, somewhat higher than the meta-analytical find-
ings reported by Meyer et al. (2002). In addition to this direct influence
commitment also exerted a moderating influence on the stress-strain rela-
tionship, the form of which corresponded to the hypothesized buffer function.
The strength of relations between high work stress and emotional exhaustion
and depersonalization decreased with increasing affective commitment. Only
for job satisfaction this interaction failed to reach significance, although the
sign of the corresponding ␤-weight signifies a similar form of interaction.
A possible reason for the different interactive influences on the burnout
variables, on the one hand, and job satisfaction, on the other hand, may be
that job satisfaction, as an affective response to the job situation, is more
susceptible to short-term affective events in the work environment than
indicative of long-term strain states, which are reflected in the burnout
variables. This conception is in line with recent studies on the impact of
various events at work on well-being. In this research, it was consistently
 36 Schmidt

found that specific events have an influence on how people feel at work and
this, in turn, determines job satisfaction (see Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996;
Weiss, 2002).
The present results broaden the empirical foundation of both the main
and interaction effects of commitment. Furthermore, they show that both
effects become evident with other outcome measures and other measures of
work stress than used in previous studies. Thus, the main and interaction
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

effects of commitment are not bound to specific indicators of strain and work
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

stressors, but exhibit at least some degree of invariance across methodolog-

ical variations. A task of future research will be to map out the scope of
validity even more precisely. Finally, going beyond Begley & Czajka’s
(1993) and Siu’s (2002) observations, the simple-slope analyses show that
commitment has not only the potential to mitigate the adverse influences of
work stress on strain, but can even (at least in the burnout dimension of
depersonalization) eliminate them.
As in previous studies, the current findings show that work stress is not
significantly related to commitment (see Begley & Czajka, 1993; Siu, 2002).
This observation is counterintuitive at first glance and has important theo-
retical implications for an understanding of the mechanisms which underlie
the observed buffering effect of commitment. The absence of a correlation
between work stress and commitment implies that highly committed employ-
ees do not cope with stressors by actively and directly limiting their exposure
to them. Such active and direct coping efforts should become manifest in a
significant negative correlation between work stress and commitment. It is,
therefore, more likely that the buffering effect of commitment is because of
appraisal processes which influence individual’s responses to work stress (see
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). As result of these appraisal processes, highly
committed employees may experience stress as less threatening and disturb-
ing because commitment gives them a sense of stability, security, and
belonging (see Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).

Limitations

The present study is, of course, not without limitations that need to be
considered. First, the cross-sectional design does not allow firm conclusions
about the direction of causality. Therefore, the current findings await further
empirical examination in longitudinal studies. Second, since both the predic-
tor and criterion variables were assessed by self-reports, the results might be
contaminated by common method variance or a self-report bias (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003). However, the impact of a self-report
bias or common method variance would mainly be reflected in inflated main
 Organizational Commitment 37

effects which, in turn, impair the chances of detecting significant interaction

effects (Aiken & West, 1991). This fact gives the interactions between work
stress and affective commitment additional weight. Nevertheless, future
research could gain in methodological clearness and practical significance by
considering more objective criterion measures which, like absenteeism or
work performance, for example, are largely immune against the chronic
common method influences of self-report measures.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Furthermore, it might be argued that the incremental variance explained

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

by the interaction terms is rather low. However, Evans (1985) concluded that
moderator effects are so difficult to detect that even those explaining as little
as one percent of the total variance should be considered important. More-
over, Champoux and Peters (1987) reviewed much of the relevant literature
and reported that field study interactions typically account for about 1–3% of
the variance (see also McClelland & Judd, 1993). Thus, the additional
amount of variance explained by the interaction in the current study (2% in
each dimension of burnout) is not only statistically significant but also
theoretically and practically relevant.
Finally, although the present study adds to the small evidence base of
previous studies, it was conducted with a small sample consisting of only one
kind of job holders. Clearly, future research should study larger samples
covering a wider range of jobs and should examine whether findings gener-
alize across different work settings and professions (see Donald et al., 2005).

Implications

From a theoretical perspective, the present findings reveal largely ne-

glected functions of organizational commitment as a protective resource
which has the potential to reduce strain directly and by way of buffering the
effects of work-related stress. Thus, a new facet can be added to the existing
knowledge on commitment as an important antecedent of other work-related
variables (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). From a practical perspective, the findings
reveal a further starting point for interventions which aim at the prevention
or reduction of strain at work. Creating work environments in a way that
employees feel affectively committed to their organization is a promising
option for practitioners which can be used in analogy to the well-established
stress buffers of social support (Cohen & Wills, 1985) and control at work
(Wall et al., 1996).
With respect to the enhancement of affective commitment of employees,
the most effective antecedents of commitment may help to derive specific
measures. Consequently, perceived organizational support can be assumed to
have the strongest beneficial impact on the development of employees’
 38 Schmidt

affective commitment to their organization. This conclusion is in accord with

Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa’s (1986) argument that orga-
nizations that want affectively committed employees must demonstrate their
own commitment by providing a supportive work environment. In line with
this argument, Donald et al. (2005) have recently demonstrated among a large
sample of a broad range of occupations that commitment from the organi-
zation to the employee is a significant predictor of individual work perfor-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

mance. Therefore, organizations and managers interested in promoting com-

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

mitment and performance of their employees can find guidance in the

growing organizational support literature.
Perceived organizational support has been found to be affected by a
variety of human resource management policies and practices which contrib-
ute to the employees’ experiences of being treated in a fair and solicitous way
by the organization (see overview by Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, &
Lynch, 1997). These practices include, for example, family-oriented actions,
developmental training and promotion plans, procedural justice in perfor-
mance appraisal decisions, or fair compensation and distribution of benefits.
In addition, managers themselves have many opportunities to strengthen
those experiences in their day-to-day interactions with their employees. As
recently shown (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, &
Rhoades, 2002), perceived supervisor support is a significant determinant of
organizational support.
The findings of the current study suggest that investments in strength-
ening employees’ affective commitment to their organization are not limited
to that aim but, at the same time, have both direct and indirect effects on
employees’ experienced strain and well-being at work. In conclusion, the
affective commitment of employees offers a new and promising avenue of
stress management that merits further attention in both research and practice.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1–18.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E. D., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2003).
A multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organiza-
tions. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 16 –38.
Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment
on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational change. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 552–556.
 Organizational Commitment 39

Büssing, A., & Perrar, K.-M. (1992). Die Messung von Burnout. Untersuchung einer deutschen
Fassung des Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-D) [The measurement of burnout exami-
nation of a German version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-D)]. Diagnostica, 38,
328 –353.
Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size, and power in moderated regression
analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243–255.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 82–108.
Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., & Robertson, S. (2005). Work
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

environments, stress and productivity: An examination using ASSET. International Jour-

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

nal of Stress Management, 12, 409 – 423.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
812– 820.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500 –507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36, 305–323.
Green, D. E., Walkey, F. H., & Taylor, A. J. W. (1991). The three-factor structure of the
Maslach burnout inventory. Journal of Behavior Science and Personality, 17, 57– 65.
Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunette & L. M. Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 571– 650). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for
job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–306.
Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 707–717.
Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology,
8, 65–78.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 2, 99 –113.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (2nd ed.), Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analyis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376 –390.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace. Toward a general
model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299 –326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, corre-
lates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52.
Mowdy, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224 –247.
Neuberger, O., & Allerbeck, M. (1978). Messung und Analyse von Arbeitszufriedenheit.
Erfahrungen mit dem “Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen (ABB)” [Measuring and analysis of
 40 Schmidt

job satisfaction. Experiences with the “work description questionnaire (ABB)”]. Bern:
Huber.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. Y. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 –903.
Prümper, J., Hartmannsgruber, K., & Frese, M. (1995). KFZA. Kurzfragebogen zur Arbeit-
sanalyse [KFZA - A short questionnaire for job analysis]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie, 39, 125–132.
Schmidt, K-H., Hollmann, S., & Sodenkamp, D. (1998). Psychometrische Eigenschaften und
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Validität einer deutschen Fassung des “Commitment”-Fragebogens von Allen und Meyer
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(1990). [Psychometric properties and validity of a German version of Meyer and Allen’s
(1990) questionnaire for measuring organizational commitment]. Zeitschrift für Differen-
tielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 19, 93–106.
Siu, O. L. (2002). Occupational stressors and well-being among Chinese employees: The role
of organizational commitment. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 527–
544.
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S. K. (1996). The demands-control model
of job strain: A more specific test. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 69, 153–166.
Warr, P. B. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193–200.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.