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

net/publication/286926248

Manual for Organisational Commitment Scale.

Book · January 2002

CITATIONS READS
2 11,671

3 authors, including:

Upinder Dhar Prashant Mishra

Shri Vaishnav Vidyapeeth Vishwavidyalaya Indian Institute of Management Calcutta
760 PUBLICATIONS 633 CITATIONS 70 PUBLICATIONS 485 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Prashant Mishra on 02 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Manual
For
Organisation Committment Scale

Upinder Dhar Director, Prestige Institute of Management

and Research, 2 Education and Health Sector,
Scheme 54, Indore 452010

Prashant Mishra Assistant Professor, Prestige Institute of

Management and Research, 2 Education and
Health Sector, Scheme 54, Indore 452010

D. K. Srivastava Associate Professor, National Institute of

Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Vihar Lake,
Mumbai 400087
INTRODUCTION
There is nothing less than a revolution taking place in the way work is
organised and managed these days all over the world. Organisations are
adopting practices that until recently would have been rejected as
impracticable, idealistic or downright unthinkable. People are trusted, listened
to, and work groups are left to organise their own workloads while management
hierarchies are being flattened. Artificial distinctions, both vertical and
horizontal, are being removed. Control systems are being simplified and
bureaucracies dismantled. Responsibility for action is being pushed downward.

The results are increased productivity and improved quality, and decrease in
defective output, absenteeism, employee turnover and formal grievances.
Innovation and change have become a way of life. But what can be the
reasons behind all this? Researches in the past have shown that it is result of
the commitment shown by the workers towards the organization. Commitment
which is encapsulated by the phrase "giving all of yourself while at work", is
concerned with the level of attachment and loyalty to an organisation. It is
the commitment which helps the organisations in ensuring that demands to
compete through high quality are met with a workforce willing to display the
motivation, flexibility and belief in product or service that produces high
performance. Commitment has been defined as a state of being in which an
individual becomes bound by his actions and through these actions to beliefs as
to sustain the activities and his own involvement (Salanick, 1977).
Commitment represents a set of feelings more closely connected to the
individual desire to stay attached to a particular work situation (Porter et al,
1974). According to Martin et al (1987) commitment entails using all of
one's time constructively, not neglecting details, making an extra effort, getting
it right first time, accepting change, willingness to try something new, making
suggestions, co-operating with others, developing one's talent/abilities, not
abusing trust, being proud of one’s abilities, seeking constant improvements,
enjoying one’s job and giving loyal support where needed. In other words,
a committed workforce is one that is pulling together, with everyone doing
his/her best, and getting satisfaction from the common effort. People feel they
belong to the organisation and are excited by their jobs and have confidence in
management. The sense of belongingness to the organisation has been
recognised as one of the most powerful forces that binds people together.
Managers create this by ensuring that the workforce is simultaneously informed
and involved in sharing the success. The sense of excitement about the work is
built through pride, trust, accountability and finally confidence in management
which is enhanced by attention of authority, dedication and competence. Walton
(1985) reported the performance of two very similar plants in order to clarify
the difference between management by control and Management by
commitment. He noted that the one managed by commitment was superior
on every measure of comparative performance from straight economics to
absenteeism, employee turnover and safety.

1
These are just a few examples of how important organisational commitment
can be for an organisaiton's performance. Despite its intuitive appeal,
commitment is a complex phenomenon. Interest has been focused on four main
issues. These are: the focus or target of commitment; the definition and
measurement of commitment; the cause of variation in commitment and the
consequences of commitment. The picture is made more complex by the
presence of two rather different theoretical streams, one concerned with
commitment as an attitude and the other with commitment as behaviour.
The concept of organizational commitment has always been an area of interest
for social scientists and different researchers have tried to explain the concept in
their own way. Moore and Feldman (1960) explained organisational
commitment as performance and acceptance of the behaviours appropriate to
an industrial way of life. Another definition given by Porter et al (1979)
explained organisational commitment as the relative strength of an
individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organisation,
whereas Buchanan (1974) viewed commitment as a partisan affective
attachment to the goals and values of an organization, and to one's role in
relation to the goals.

Organisational commitment is a job attitude, and a well researched area

in organizational behaviour (Brooke et al, 1988). Organisational
commitment is defined as a state in which an employee identifies with a
particular organization and its goals, and wishes to maintain membership in
the organisation (Blue and Boal, 1987). The research evidence demonstrates
negative relationships between organisational commitment and both
absenteeism and employee turnover (Angle et al,1983; Pierce et al, 1987).
Furthermore, studies demonstrate that individual's level of organisational
commitment is a better indicator of employee turnover than the far more
frequently used job satisfaction as a predictor(Hom et al,1979; Mowday et al,
1982). Organisational commitment is probably better predictor because it is
more global and enduring response to the organisation as a whole than is job
satisfaction (Porter et al, 1974).

An employee may be dissatisfied with his or her particular job and consider it
a temporary condition, yet not be dissatisfied with the organisation as a whole.
But when dissatisfaction spreads to the organization itself individuals are more
likely to consider resigning. The social fabric of an organisation is seen as a
stress ground which consists of an institutionalized social framework of
functions, authority, sanctioned norms, communication lines and the
interaction pattern of groups and individuals within this framework. In an
organizational set up, a good relationship between the management and the job
seekers is essential. The employees’ feelings and attitudes may change
according to the treatment given to them by their superiors.

A favourable social framework fosters employee loyalty towards the

organization. Social framework of the organization which covers a wide variety

2
of organizational factors is a major influencing variable on organizational
commitment having two aspects viz., co-operative and authoritarian. In the co-
operative social framework the worker is treated as an important person. On
the other hand, in authoritarian one he is neither consulted nor considered as an
important entity, but just treated as an obedient worker. Virtually, it is
expected that the worker would be commited to the organisation if there
prevails a social framework. According to Harold et al (1981), the
organisational commitment is found to be associated with organisational
adaptablity, turnover and tardiness rate but not with operating costs or
absenteeism.

Kanungo (1982) described organisational commitment as general attitude

towards an organisation as a whole, whereas Salanick (1977) proposed two
approaches to the understanding of commitment. In prospective view, it is
conceived as an individual's psychological bond to the
organisational/social system and typically a function of individual's loyalty and
beliefs in its values. In retrospective view, the commitment results as individual
becomes bound to the behavioural acts that are chosen voluntarily. Hrebiniak
and Alutto (1972) reported an inverse relationship between job dissatisfaction
and commitment, where a lack of relationship between satisfaction and
commitment was observed by Grusky (1964) and Sillito (1971). Sheldon (1971)
reported in a study of rewards and commitment that there is anomaly in the
relationship between occupational positions and commitment to the organsation
and that the reward recognition system was not operating as expected. O'Reilly
III et al (1986) noted that basis for one's commitment may be related to
positive manifestations of involvement such as voluntary participation and
contribution beyond those narrowly required roles of the job as well as reduced
tendency to leave the organisation.

Apart from these, studies on organisational commitment have accorded a

number of predictors. Increased commitment has been positively associated
with improved communications and feedback improved promotional and
advancement opportunities equitable compensation, more group cohesion,
longer tenure in organisation, older age, and increased job satisfaction (Grusky,
1966; Lee,1971; Hall et al,1972; Hrebiniak et al,1972; Marsh et al,1977;
Steers,1977; Angle et al 1978; Koch et al 1978; Stevens et al,1978; Brief,
1980). The commitment is found to be positively related to both age and
tenure (Angle et al, 1981; Brown,1969; Hall,1977; Morris et al, 1981;
Sheldon,1971). Personality factors like achievement motivation and sense of
competence are related to commitment (Koch, 1974; Morris et al,1981;
Ratondi,1976; Steers, 1977; Steers et al, 1977). Buchanan (1974) argued that
organisational experiences have the greatest impact on organisational
commitment of the workers. Since there are very few scales available to
measure organisational commitment in Indian context, the present work was
undertaken to develop and standardise a measure for the same.

3
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE
After extensive review of relevant literature, a number of items were
developed. Then all these items were closely scrutinized with the help of
experienced executives from business organisations and academic experts in
behavioural area to finally select eight items constituting the complete scale.
The 8 items were written down carefully with usual precautions regarding
wordings, precision, and structural and emotional load of the items. (Table l ).
All items had 5 response alternatives. The items were translated into hindi in
consultation with a few judges to have a Hindi version of the scale also (Table
1a).

Sample: The scale was administered on 600 executives working in various

organisations. The incomplete scales were rejected and a final sample of 500
subjects was used for statistical treatment to determine the reliability and
validity of the scale.

Reliability : The reliability of the scale was determined by split half reliability
co-efficient, corrected for full tength, on a sample of 500 subjects (22-55
years). The scale was first divided into two equivalent halves on the basis of odd
and even items and simple correlation was calculated. From the reliability of
the half test, the reliability of the whole test was then estimated by
Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula. The reliability co-efficient of the whole
scale was found to be 0.6078.

Validity : Checking the validity of an attitude scale is often very difficult

largely due to the lack of a proper criterion whose relation with the attitude in
question is fully known in all aspects. This is why Vernon (1952) asserted
that one may claim that when reasonable precautions are taken in constructing
the test, and in obtaining co-operation from the testees , the validity should
be good. And there is a large measure of scattered evidence supporting
this conclusion. The two most important factors that affect validity of a test
are: (i) the internal consistency of the test and (ii) the scoring of responses
and the certainty that a given response represents either favourable or
unfavourbale attitude towards the issue involved (Murphy et al, 1937).

Careful steps were taken for securing honest co-operation of the subjects. The
correlations between the eight items are given in table 2. It shows that the
double criteria of low inter-item correlation and high item-total correlation are
met adequately by the OC scale (Tables 3, 4 and 5). According to Garret
(1981), the index of reliability is sometimes taken as a measure of validity. The
correlation co-efficient gives the relationship between obtained scores and their
theoretical true counterparts. The index of reliability measures the
dependability of the test scores by showing how well obtained scores agree
with their theoretically true values. The Index of Reliability of this scale is as
high as 0.7796. It is thus reasonable to assume that the OC scale yields data

4
 that are scientifically as accurate as is possible and the scale is acceptably
valid.

The collected data were further subjected to factor analysis and two factors were
identified. These are (1) Concern for the Organisation and (2) Identification with
the Organisation. Factor 1 is measured by items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, whereas factor
2 is measured by items 4, 6 and 8 (Table 6).

Factor 1 : Concern for the Organisation

This factor is contributed by five variables or items with a total factor load of
3.364 and has covered 30.2 percent of the total variance.

Factor 2 : Identification With the Organisation

This factor is contributed by three variables or items with a total factor load of
1.9237 and has covered 16.8 percent of the total variance.

Norms: Norms for the scale are available on a sample of subjects belonging to
the age range of 22 to 55 years. These norms should be regarded as reference
point for interpreting the organisational commitment scores. However, norms
are based on the sample drawn from a wide cross section of executives from
the country. The users of this scale would be well advised to develop their own
norms based on their own samples. An individual with very high score i.e.,
above M+1 may be considered to have high level of organisational
commitment. The low score i.e., below M-1 would indicate people who have
low level of organisational commitment. The scores lying within M+1 and M-
1 represent individuals with optimum level of organisational commitment
(Table 7).

USES OF THE SCALE

Like other scales of this nature, its primary and proper usefulness lies with
work on large groups, whether for research, survey purposes or for comparison
of populations. The scale can be successfully used for screening out individuals
with very low organisational commitment which has a direct bearing on
organisational and individual performance. The scale is likely to be useful to the
behavioural scientists as well as HRD facilitators. It gives a quick measure of
organisational commitment level of an individual for experimental and
counseling purposes especially when subject can spare only few minutes or so.
It is self administering and does not require the services of a highly trained
tester. It is perfectly suitable for group administration as well as individual
testing.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING

1. The instructions printed on the response sheet are sufficient to take care of the
questions that are asked.

5
2. No time limit should be given for completing the scale. However, most of
the respondents should finish it in about five minutes, though there may
always be a few individuals who would take much longer time.
3. Before administering the scale, it is advisable to emphasize orally that
responses should be checked as quickly as possible, and sincere cooperation
is required for the same. The respondents should be told that the results of the
scale help in self-knowledge and that responses would always remain strictly
confidential.
4. It should also be emphasized that there are no right or wrong answers to the
statements. The statements are designed to have differences in individuals’
reactions to various situations. The scale is meant to know the difference in the
perception of individuals and is not meant to rank them as good or bad, right
or wrong, desirable or undesirable.
5. It should be duly emphasized that all the statements have to be responded by
putting the number according to one's agreement or disagreement, and no
statement is to be left unanswered.
6. It is not desirable to tell the subjects the exact purpose for which the scale is
used. If the subject is of ' inquisitive type' vague answers should be given.
However, the actual purpose can be disclosed after the subject has filled up the
scale.
7. Though the scale is self administering, it has been found useful to read out
the instructions printed on the response sheet to the subjects.
8. Manual scoring is done conveniently. No scoring key or stencil is provided.
9. Each item or statement should be awarded the same score as rated except
items 6 and 8. In the case of items 6 and 8 the rated scores should be reversed
i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 should be reversed as 5,4,3,2 and 1 respectively. The sum of
scores of all the eight items is the OC-score.

LIMITATIONS AND CAUTIONS

In all the tests of this nature, the subjects do manage to get some insights into
what its purpose is. As such, there is always the factor of social desirability
and faking. The scale is purported to measure organisational commitment
of which the subject is aware and is ready to respond regarding it. Though it is
a useful instrument for measuring organisational commitment, it cannot be
considered as a direct substitute of other tangible evaluation tools.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The cooperation and help rendered by a large number of persons including the
subject experts and respondents of the scale is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

6
Angle, H. and Perry, J. (1983). Organisational Commitment : Individual and
Organisational Influence. Work and Occupations, May,123-46.

Angle, H.J. and Perry, J.L. (1981). An Empirical Assesment of Organisational

Commitment and Organisational Effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26,1-14.

Blauner, R.(1964). Alienation and Freedom. Chicago : University of Chicago

Press.

Blau, G.J. and Boal, K.R. (1987). Conceptualising How Job Involvement
and Organisational Commitment Affect Turnover and Absenteeism. Academy
of Management Review, April, 290.

Brief, A.P. and Aldag, R.J. (1980). Antecedents of Organisational Commitment

in Hospital Nurses. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 7,210-21.

Brooke Jr.,P.P., Russell, D.W. and Pierce, J.L. (1988). Discriminant

Validation of Measures of Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement and
Organisational Commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, May, 267-286.

Buchanan, B.(1974). Building Organisational Commitment : The

Socialisation Of Managers in Work Organisations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 19,533-46.

Cole,R.E. (1979). Work,Mobility and Participation. Berkeley : University

of california Press.

Garret. Henry E.(1981). Statistics in Psychology and Education. Bombay :

Vakil, Fellers and Simons Pvt.Ltd.

Goldthorpe,J.H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, D. and Platt, J. (1971). The

Affluent Worker: Political Attitudes and Behaviour. London : Cambridge
University Press.

Hall D.T. and Schneider, C.P. (1972). Correlates of Organisational

Identification as a Function of Career Pattern and Organisation Type.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,555-72.

Hom, P.W., Katerberg, R. and Hulin, C.L. (1979). Comparative Examination

of Three Approaches to the Prediction of Turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, June,280-290.

Hrebiniak,L.G. and Alutto,J.A. (1973). Personal and Role Related Factors in

the Development of Organisational Commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17, 555-572.

7
Koch,J. and Steers,R.M.(1978). Job attachment, Satisfaction and Turnover
Among Public Sector Employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12,119-
28.

Lee,C.(1971). An Empirical Analysis of Organisational Identification.

Academy of Management Journal, 14, 213-26.

Likert,R.(1967).The Human Organisation : Its Management and Value.

NewYork : McGraw Hill.

Lincoln,J.R. and Kalleberg,A.L. (1985). Work Organisation and Workforce

Commitment. American Sociological Review, 50,738-60.

Martin, J.(1978). The Sociology of Power. New Delhi : Ambika

Publication.

Martin,B. and Fryer (1975).The Differential Worker ? In Martin Blumer

ed.Working Class Images of Society. London: Kegan Paul.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982). Organisation Linkages
: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover.
NewYork: Academic Press.

Murphy, G., Murphy L. B. and Newcomb, T.M.(1937). Experimental Social

Psychology. New York: Harper & Bros.

O'Rielly,C.A. and Chatman, J.A.(1986). Organisational Commitment and

Psychological Attachment : The Effects of Compliance, Identification and
Internalisation on Prosocial Behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71,492-99.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974).
Organisational commitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover among Psychiatric
Technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-9.

Pierce, J.L. and Dunham, R.B. (1987). Organisational Commitment: Pre-

employment Propensity and Initial Work Experiences. Journal of
Management, Spring,163-78.

Roberts,K.H.(1978). The Working Class. London : Longman.

Salanick,G.R.(1977). Commitment and the Control of Organisational Behaviour

and Belief.In B.M.Staw and G.R.Salanick eds. New Directions In
Organisational Behavior. Chicago : St.Clair Press.

8
Steers,R.M. (1977). Antecedents and Outcome of Organisational
Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22,46-56.

Steers,R.M. and Spencer,D.G. (1977). The Role of Achievement Motivation

in Job Design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,472-79.

Vemon, P.E (1952) Assessment of Psychological Qualities by Verbal Methods,

Industrial Relation Research Board report No.83. London.

Walton, Richard E.(1985). From Control to Commitment in the Workplace.

Harvard Business Review, 63,76-84.

9
Table 1 : List of Final Items (English) of the Scale
1. I feel bad if this organisation is making loss.
2. I am contributing to the achievement of goals of this organisation.
3. I donot like somebody tarnishing the image of this organisation.
4. I have been working even on holidays in this organisation.
5. An employees should be concerned about the image of his/her organisation.
6. I do not stay back in the organisation after office hours even if required.
7. I am committed to the welfare of my organisation.
8. I donot like the goals of this organisation.

Table 1a : List of Final Items (Hindi) of the Scale

Table 2 : Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Item-No 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 0.1655 0.2943 0.1572 0.34 0.1479 0.265 0.1784
2 * 0.333 0.092 0.292 -0.0187 0.2975 0.1986
3 * * 0.208 0.368 0.1868 0.315 0.1627
4 * * * 0.091 0.2158 0.1513 0.0176
5 * * * * 0.2236 0.072 0.2012
6 * * * * * 0.025 0.3267
7 * * * * * * 0.1351

Table 3 : Correlation Matrix of Individual Items and Odd-Even Totals

Odd item ‘r’ with odd-
total
1 0.6979
3 0.7080
5 0.7257
7 0.6548
Even ‘r’ with even -total
Item
2 0.4451
4 0.5774
6 0.6603
8 0.6202

Table 4 : Correlation Matrix of Individual Items and Item Total

Item No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
‘r’ with 0.5589 0.4813 0.6165 0.4741 0.6086 0.4296 0.5303 0.4950
Total

Table 5 : Correlation Scores between odd-even totals and item-totals

Odd total - Even Total 0.3251
Odd Total - Item 0.8097
Total
Even total - Item Total 0.8182

Table 6 : Showing Rotated Factor Matrix

10
 Items / Variables Factor 1 Factor 2
Var 001 0.7077 0.0848
Var 002 0.7198 -0.0495
Var 003 0.6867 0.1122
Var 004 0.2597 0.3680
Var 005 0.6379 0.1605
Var 006 -0.09820 0.8548
Var 007 0.6119 0.0005
Var 008 0.0592 0.7009

Table 7 : Norms of the Scale

Mean Score 31.21
Standard Deviation 4.54
Normal Range 27- 36
High OC 37 and above
Low OC 27 and below

11
 OC-Scale (English Version)

Upinder Dhar, Prashant Mishra and D.K. Srivastava

Please provide the following information :

Name (Optional) : ___________________________________

Age : ___________Years Sex : Male / Female

Organisation : ______________________________________

Designation : ___________________ Experience : ________

Instructions : Read the following statements and respond by writing an

appropriate number in the brackets against each statement to indicate how you
generally feel. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time
on any one statement, but give the answer which describes your feeling /
opinion. Please do not leave any statement unanswered. The alternative
responses are :

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

1 I feel bad if this organisation is making loss. ( )

2 I am contributing to the achievement of goals of

this organisation. ( )

3 I donot like somebody tarnishing the image of this

organisation. ( )

4 I have been working even on holidays in this

organisation. ( )

5 An employee should be concerned about the image

of his/her organisation. ( )

6 I do not stay back in the organisation after office

hours even if required. ( )

7 I am committed to the welfare of my organisation. ( )

8 I donot like the goals of this organisation. ( )

12
View publication stats

13