hm. a."
goguvbh

.2“
t.

63 90 .. :I
,In-.:»I(L

 

. 2

.. c .2

émfirifiefi

2:5 nnv
.

.
.. .13..
:..»v..l...lb¢.
s. i
. .3 ‘
3W.» 5L
.!.b.u~h..9
v:..

6..
. . Jr.

it“... ".3...
:17: t

i t ”Thu?!
. 54)::
1

fi. fir. nfia. an».
E...

—’—-—nv

. . u!.l.| A

. ‘
,y‘, . r». ‘n‘n‘t. .. iv. . . . . . A I. ,J.‘
m. Tuning: Endgdfia. .i fix 7. 9.9.3 23:»? - . ‘

u . A i: 13...;

t . i...mk& u Emmfuwfir

.m

 

 

ulnj'illjglmalmmmmmm

01026 2172

 

‘ LIBRARY
Michigan State

University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

“Organizational Commitment in a
Voluntary Organization

presented by

David John Whitney I

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MA degree in Psychologv

913a&\toaa&

Major professor

DatnglembelefliL.

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

_ -._..—__——— *- —-- -u—«fi—fi‘>m
_-..- m——— c——-——_- -—<W -—-- '—
-

 

‘ 4_+k4

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove We checkom from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or More date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

‘ U: i a ”2350:
' a:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Ie An Afflrmetlve Action/Equal Opportunity lnetltulon
mm-DJ

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION

By

David John Whitney

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1993

Major Professor: Dr. Michael K. Lindell

ABSTRACT
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION
By

David John Whitney

The present study examined the antecedents and consequences
of affective and continuance organizational commitment in voluntary
organizations. Affective and continuance commitment were
hypothesized to be differentially related to turnover intentions,
attendance and perceived effort. A model of organizational
commitment was proposed which hypothesized the relationship
between antecedents, commitment, individual level outcomes, and
group performance. Additionally, the study examined the
appropriateness of a proposed classification system for the
antecedents. Two hundred four members of Michigan's Local
Emergency Planning Committees served as subjects. Results provide
evidence for the generalizeability of findings pertaining to
organizational commitment conducted in traditional work settings,
although the voluntary nature of the organizations used in the
present study led to some unique findings. Although the results
failed to support the proposed classification system for the
antecedents of organizational commitment, limited support was
provided for the proposed model. Future research directions are

discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Despite success in past academic endeavors, I approached my
Master's thesis with more than a bit of self—doubt and trepidation.
Luckily for me, I selected a chairperson who unhesitatingly provided
needed encouragement and positive reinforcement. For this, I feel
deeply indebted to Dr. Michael K. Lindell. Mike's imaginative
theoretical incites combined with his supportive interpersonal style
greatly influenced the current form of this document. The remaining
members of my thesis committee -- Dr. Steve Kozlowski and Dr. Neal
Schmitt -- provided essential criticisms and suggested improvements
which I feel have not only helped in the production of this thesis, but
will likely prove invaluable to my future research.

I continue to enjoy a high degree of both financial and emotional
support from my parents and sisters. For this I feel very
undeserving, but thankful nonetheless.

Two important friends at MSU deserve special recognition. I'd
like to thank AJ Alejano for her untiring patience and unquestioning
moral support. The smiles you have brought to me have made even
the worst of times bearable. Finally, I'd like to thank Dennis Devine
for the many gripe sessions, laughs, and general acceptance of my

weirdness.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OFTABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LISTOFFIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Definition of Organizational Commitment . . . . . . 2
Outcomes of Organizational Commitment . . . . . . 3
Developments in the Organizational
Commitment Construct . . . . . . . . . 6
Antecedents of Organizational Commitment . . . . . 11
Organizational Commitment and
Voluntary Organizations . . . . . . . . . 14
Local Emergency Planning Committees. . . . . . . 16
The Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
MEIHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Respondents and Procedures . . . . . . . . . .41
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Data Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Scale Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Factor Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Regression Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Affective vs. Continuance Commitment . . . . . . 75
Tests of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

iv

 

DISCUSSION .

Study Results . . . .
Theoretical Implications
Practical Implications
Study Limitations . .
Future Research Directions.

LIST OF REFERENCES .

APPENDIX A: Scales used in the study .

.89

. 89
.97
.100
.101
.103

.106

.113

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Antecedents Arranged by
Steer's (1977) Categories

Table 2: Hypothesized Antecedent Categories
Table 3: Hypotheses and How They Are Tested
Table 4: Reliability Estimates .

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and
Variable Intercorrelations .

Table 6: LISREL Estimates for Lambda X and Phi Matrices
for a Three-Factor Model of Antecedents to
Organizational Commitment

Table 7: Principal Components Factor Analysis for
the Antecedent Variables

Table 8: Comparisons of the Relationships between the
Antecedents and Affective Commitment

Table 9: Comparisons of the Relationships between the
Antecedents and Continuance Commitment

Table 10: Hypothesis 2 - Regression Results .
Table 11: Hypothesis 2 — Further Regression Results .
Table 12: Hypothesis 2 - Still More Regression Results

Table 13: Hypothesis 5 - Hierarchical Regression Results

vi

Page

27
31
52

60

61

63

64

68

69
72
73
74

80

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1: A Model of the Proposed Research . . . . . . 35
Figure 2: The Revised Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

vii

The construct of organizational commitment has often been
examined in traditional work organizations. In this context, research
has examined a wide variety of antecedents. Research has also
determined that organizational commitment can help increase
attendance, reduce turnover, and even increase perceptions of
expended effort. Although these outcomes would be desired in any
organization, research appears to have neglected examination of
organizational commitment in voluntary organizations. These
organizations are increasingly important to our society, yet their
members cannot be assumed to be influenced by the very same
factors that influence motivation in members of traditional work
organizations. For example, by their very nature voluntary
organizations do not provide extrinsic rewards in the form of
monetary compensation. The influence of motivational factors may
be very different, therefore, upon members of volunteer
organizations than for compensated employees. The present study
examines the antecedents to and consequences of organizational
commitment for organizations composed of volunteer members.
Additionally, a model of organizational commitment is tested which
relates the antecedent variables to organizational commitment, which
in turn is predicted to be related to both individual and group-level
outcomes. As a part of this model a new classification scheme is
developed and tested for the antecedents of organizational
commitment, based upon the theoretical connection between the

variables.

2
Definition Qf Organizational Commitment

The search for attitudinal influences upon an individual's
behavior in an organizational setting has long occupied the interest of
Industrial/Organizational psychologists. An impressive history of
research has elucidated a connection between individuals'
commitment to an organization and their subsequent behavior
expended toward satisfying the goals of the organization (Angle &
Perry, 1981; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989;
O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974;
Steers, 1977). Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) define
organizational commitment as "the strength of an individual's
identification with and involvement in a particular organization"
(p.604). Porter et al., (1974) further indicate several factors
characterizing organizational commitment including: a) a strong
belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, b) a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization,
and c) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization.
These components of organizational commitment can be abbreviated
as identification, performance, and affiliation.

The construct of organizational commitment should be clearly
differentiated from the concept of organizational citizenship
behavior. These latter behaviors are composed of actions which are
not formally prescribed, yet are desired by an organization.
Examples include helping others, punctuality, and volunteering for
things that are not required. Additionally, organizational citizenship

behaviors include those actions that a person may refrain from doing

3
which are considered negative to the organization, such as finding
fault with other employees or expressing resentment. Perhaps the
best way to delineate the difference between organizational
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior is to invoke the
three basic behavior types essential to a functioning organization
(Katz, 1964). According to Katz (1964), (a) people must be induced to
enter and remain in the system; (b) they must carry out specific
requirements in a dependable fashion; and (c) there must be
spontaneous and innovative activity that goes beyond role
prescriptions. This third type of behavior suggested by Katz clearly
refers to citizenship behaviors. Considering Porter, Steers, Mowday
and Boullian's (1974) definition of organizational commitment,
commitment would be concerned with the first two of Katz' basic

types of behavior essential to a functioning organization.

f Or nizaional Commitment

Researchers have examined the connection between an
individual's organizational commitment and a variety of subsequent
behaviors including turnover, attendance, job search activities, and
performance. According to‘ Mathieu and Zajac (1990), when used as
an antecedent, organizational commitment has most often been used
to predict withdrawal behaviors. The relationship between
organizational commitment and attendance, for example, has often
been investigated. McFarlane-Shore, Newton, and Thornton (1990)
found a correlation of r = .33 between organizational commitment

and attendance intentions for workers in a university setting. Angle

4
and Perry (1981), however, found a near zero relationship between
organizational commitment and attendance. In a recent meta-
analysis of over 200 articles pertaining to organizational
commitment, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) concluded the relationship
between organizational commitment and attendance has a weak but
positive correlation (r = .102). Research examining the relationship
between turnover and organizational commitment has generally
indicated a stronger relationship. Porter et al. (1974), for example,
employed the use of psychiatric technician trainees to investigate the
relationship between organization commitment and turnover. As
hypothesized, these investigators found organizational commitment
was a better predictor of turnover than such variables as satisfaction
with work or pay. Rusbult and Farrell (1983) utilized a longitudinal
design in their study of job satisfaction, commitment, and turnover of
professional technical workers. These researchers found the process
of declining commitment was the most important process of change
in influencing turnover decisions. In the Mathieu and Zajac (1990)
meta-analysis impressive negative correlations were found between
organizational commitment and two turnover-related intentions:
intention to leave one's job (r = -.464) and intention to search for job
alternatives (r = -.599). Analyses of studies utilizing actual turnover
measures were somewhat less impressive, however, with a
correlation between organizational commitment and turnover of r = '-
.277. This smaller correlation for the actual turnover measure as
opposed to the behavioral intention measures may be due to the

influence of uncontrollable obstacles such as economic realities, non-

5
work factors (e.g. family obligations), lack of available work
alternatives, etc. Even so, organizational commitment has proven to
be an extremely useful predictor of organizational turnover.

What little research that has been done examining the
relationship between organizational commitment and performance
has not been quite as promising. Steers (1977) examined the
antecedents to and consequences of organizational commitment in
two samples: hospital employees and laboratory researchers. In the
hospital sample, immediate supervisors rated performance according
to work quality, work quantity, promotion readiness, and overall
performance. The commitment - performance relationship for the
hospital employees was marginal for work quantity (r = .11) and
promotion readiness (r = .10), and trivial for the other two measures.
In the sample of laboratory researchers, supervisor ratings of overall
job performance served as the only measure of performance. As
with the hospital employees, commitment was statistically unrelated
to global performance, ( r = .05). Mathieu and Zajac's (1990) meta-
analysis provided further indication of a lack of a strong commitment
- performance relationship. Those studies utilizing performance
ratings as the criterion found a correlation of .135 between
commitment and performance.

The reasons for these low correlations between commitment and
performance may be similar to those accounting for low correlations
between commitment and turnover. As noted earlier, the correlation
of commitment with actual turnover is substantially lower than its

correlation with turnover intention because uncontrollable obstacles

6

intervene between intentions and behavior. Similarly, obstacles may
intervene between intentions to work hard and actual performance,
thus resulting in a lower correlation between commitment and actual
performance than a measure of the commitment - intention to
perform relationship (McFarlane-Shore et. al., 1990). This
explanation is supported by Mathieu and Zajac's (1990) finding that
the correlation between commitment and performance shrunk to r =

.054 when output measures were used as the performance measure.

Developments in the organizational eommitment constroet

Criticism has been levelled against much of the early work on

 

organizational commitment for failing to recognize that the construct
may be multi-dimensional. O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) suggested
that three factors may determine an individual's attachment to an
organization: compliance, identification, and internalization. O'Reilly
and Chatman define compliance as involvement for specific, extrinsic
rewards; identification as involvement based on a desire for
affiliation; and internalization as involvement based on congruence
between individual and organizational values. These three factors of
organizational attachment are reminiscent of Alderfer's (1969) ERG
theory of work motivation. Alderfer views the individual as
possessing three basic needs: existence, relatedness, and growth.
Existence needs, which parallel O'Reilly and Chatman's compliance
factor of commitment, involve material needs such as pay.
Relatedness needs, similar to the concept of identification, are needs

that deal with maintaining interpersonal relationships, such as with

7

co-workers. Finally, growth needs are manifested in the individual's
attempt to seek opportunities for unique personal development. We
will return to Alderfer's theory later in this paper in relation to the
categorization of antecedents to organizational commitment.

O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) administered twenty-one items
thought to represent the dimensions of compliance, identification,
and internalization to eighty-two office workers. These items were
either created by the authors or taken from previous studies
examining organizational commitment. An example of an item for

each of the hypothesized dimensions is presented below:

Compliance: "How hard I work for the organization is directly
linked to how much I am rewarded"

Identification: "I am proud to tell others I am part of this
organization."

Internalization: "The reason I prefer this organization to others is
because of what it stands for, its values."

Factor analysis of the twenty-one items identified three
independent factors each of which was consistent with the authors'
hypothesized factor structure.

O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) also asked subjects to complete a
short questionnaire assessing their participation in in-role behaviors
("I do what my boss says without complaint") and extra-role
behaviors ("I help new people even though it's not required").
Finally, turnover intentions and actual turnover were examined. The
authors used these measures to examine the pattern of relationships
between the hypothesized dimensions of commitment and subjects'

behavioral self-reports. Results indicated differences between the

8
dimensions in how they related to the behavioral self-report
measures. The internalization dimension of commitment was shown
to be significantly related to both intra-role and extra-role behaviors,
and negatively related to both intentions to quit and actual turnover.
Identification was shown to be related to extra-role behavior,
turnover intentions, and turnover. Commitment based on
compliance, however, was not found to be significantly related to
intra- or extra- role behavior or turnover, but did demonstrate a
negative relationship with intent to remain. The authors conclude
that there are strong links between pro-social behaviors and
commitment based on identification or internalization, but no such
link for commitment based on compliance.

Support for most of O'Reilly and Chatman's (1986) findings was
provided by Vandenberg and Sec (1991). These authors used
confirmatory factor analysis to compare items from the commonly
used Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) (Mowday,
Steers, & Porter, 1979) with the internalization and compliance scales
of O'Reilly and Chatman (1986). Their findings indicated compliance
and internalization do appear to tap different dimensions of the
commitment construct, since both possessed significant associations
with the OCQ but did not possess a significant relationship with one
another. It is important to note Vandenberg and Seo (1991) chose
not to include O'Reilly and Chatman's concept of identification in their
study. They provide several reasons for this omission. First, the
items used by O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) to measure identification

do not accurately reflect the definition these authors provided for

9
identification. Secondly, and even more convincing, Vandenberg and
Seo defended their decision to omit identification based on Caldwell,
Chatman, and O'Reilly's (1989) admission that the current
measurement of identification is not representing a unique construct
and requires major revision.

Other investigations have also sought to go beyond the Porter et
a1 (1974) conceptualization by conceiving of organizational
commitment as a multi-dimensional construct. Meyer and Allen
(1984), for example, noted research on organizational commitment
has examined two different types of commitment: continuance and
affective. Continuance commitment was seen in terms of Becker's
(1960) theory that commitment resulted from the accumulation of
side bets. Side bets are anything of value the individual has invested
in an organization that would be lost if an individual were to leave
the organization. This threat of loss results in commitment to the
organization. It is obvious continuance commitment is very similar
to O'Reilly and Chatman's conceptualization of compliance. Meyer
and Allen point out that a second way that researchers have
conceptualized commitment is as an emotional orientation to an
organization. This type of commitment was termed affective
commitment, and can be viewed as a composite of O'Reilly and
Chatman's internalization and identification dimensions.

Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, and Jackson (1989)
reexamined the organizational commitment-performance
relationship employing the use of the concepts affective and

continuance commitment. Meyer et al. hypothesized that employees

10
with a high degree of affective commitment desire to remain in the
organization and are willing to exert considerable effort for the goals
of the organization because of their emotional attachment.
Employees' with high continuance commitment, on the other hand,
are willing to work hard and stay with the organization only to
obtain financial or other tangible rewards. These employees,
hypothesized Meyer et al (1989), would do no more than is explicitly
required to remain a part of the organization. Ninety managers in a
food service organization were administered affective and
continuance commitment scales. Performance was measured by a
composite of six supervisor effectiveness ratings (public relations,
administration practices, preparation of reports and verbal
communication, following of operational policies, and conducting of
routine job tasks), as well as ratings of overall performance and
promotability. Correlations were utilized to examine the
commitment-performance relationships. A positive correlation was
found between affective commitment and each of the performance
measures. However, only overall performance and promotability
comparisons with affective commitment reached significance.
Correlations between continuance commitment and the three
performance measures, on the other hand, were all significantly
negative. This finding led Meyer and his associates to conclude that
the consequences of an employee's commitment for an organization
is dependent upon the nature of that commitment. Employees high
in affective commitment seem likely to translate that commitment

into high performance. This is not true for employees high in

1 1
continuance commitment, whose commitment motivates them to
remain in the job but fails to motivate performance beyond

minimum requirements.

Aoteeeoeots of organizational commitment

Considering the impact organizational commitment can possibly
have on the performance and tenure of an organization's employees,
the immediate question becomes, what are the antecedents of
organizational commitment? Fortunately, a great deal of research
has examined this very question. Steers (1977) organized research
on the antecedents of organizational commitment into three
categories: personal characteristics, job characteristics, and work
experiences. Personal characteristics are variables that are
particular to the individual, such as age, education, and need for
achievement. Variables considered job characteristics include job
challenge, task identity, and opportunity for feedback. Finally, the
nature and quality of work experiences include group attitudes
toward the organization, perceptions of personal importance to the
organization, and opportunity for rewards. Steers (1977) provided
support, consistent with previous research, that all three categories
of antecedents were in fact related to organizational commitment.
However, in his samples of both hospital employees and scientists,
work experiences provided the strongest associations with
commitment. The importance of work experience variables was
confirmed in a study by Dornstein and Matalon (1989). These

researchers formed five categories of antecedent variables including

12
individual characteristics, role-related characteristics, structural
characteristics, work experience and extra-organizational factors.
Two hundred fifty technical army personnel served as subjects. Once
again, the work experience category exhibited the strongest
relationship with organizational commitment, as measured according
to the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire of Mowday, Steers,
and Porter (1979).

In their recent meta-analysis Mathieu and Zajac (1990)
examined research on 26 proposed antecedents of organizational
commitment. Unlike most of the earlier studies, Mathieu and Zajac
(1990) define organizational commitment in terms of both affective
and continuance commitment. Antecedent variables included in
their meta-analysis, therefore, were taken from studies which
measured either affective or continuance commitment. The authors
grouped the antecedents into five categories: personal
characteristics, role states (such as role ambiguity, role conflict), job
characteristics, group/leader relations (such as group cohesiveness,
leader consideration), and organizational characteristics (such as
organizational size). This classification is simply an expansion of
Steers' (1977) original antecedent categorization of personal, job, and
work experience variables. In particular, Steers' work experience
category has been transformed into two categories: group/leader
relations and organizational characteristics. Likewise, job
characteristics have been broken down into job characteristics and
role states. Those variables which exhibited the largest relationships

to organizational commitment included: age (r = .201), perceived

1 3
personal competence (r = .630), salary (r = .182), protestant work
ethic (r = .289), skill variety (r =.207), challenge (r = .349), job scope
(r = .503), task interdependence (r = .220), leader-initiating
structure (r = .289), leader communication (r = . 454), leader
consideration (r = .335), participative leadership (r = .386), role
ambiguity (r = -.218), role conflict (r = -.271) and role overload (r = -
.206). Mathieu and Zajac (1990) suggested that relationships
between the antecedents and organizational commitment may in
some cases be moderated by yet unknown variables. Further
research, therefore, was encouraged despite the large number of
previous investigations.

Meta-analysis combines the results of individual studies in order
to determine whether differences among study outcomes might be
due to statistical artifacts. Thus, meta-analytic techniques are useful
only when several studies have examined the relationship between
the same set of variables. In the Mathieu and Zajac (1990) review,
several possible antecedent variables were not included because
there were too few studies examining the antecedent - organizational
commitment relationship to allow meta-analytic investigation. These
"neglected" variables include an individual's interests outside the
focal organization. Randall (1988) hypothesized outside interests
may adversely affect commitment to an organization. Over 450
employees at a large university completed questionnaires assessing
interests outside of work and commitment to the university (as
measured by the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire of

Mowday, Porter, and Steers, 1979). Results indicated no relationship

14
between organizational commitment to the focal organization and
effort devoted to hobbies, and religious or other organizations. This
suggests one's interests outside of an organization do not interfere
with organizational commitment at work. A serious qualification,
however, was found by Randall (1988). Those employees with
outside jobs did experience lower levels of organizational
commitment. Furthermore, as the perceived importance of the
outside job increased, the organizational commitment to the focal
organization decreased. Thus, according to the results of this study,
conflicting demands between an individual's primary and secondary

jobs can be expected to be detrimental to organizational commitment.

niz i l ommim nt & volunt r or anizations

The vast majority of the studies discussed above examined
subjects who were gainfully employed in mostly private
organizations in rather traditional positions: nurses, managers,
researchers, etc. Published research examining organizational
commitment in voluntary organizations appears to be non-existent.
This current paucity of research addressing antecedents and
consequences of organizational commitment in voluntary
organizations should be rectified. Voluntary organizations are of
great import to American society. With the current trend to reduce
governmental spending the importance of voluntary organizations in
providing necessary social, ecological, and educational services is
likely to increase. Yet despite their obvious importance, voluntary

organizations are often neglected by researchers. Voluntary

1 5
organizations are faced with many of the same problems in meeting
their goals as other organizations. Compounding these problems,
however, is the fact that sufficient staffing (i.e., volunteers) may not
always be available. Even when sufficient staffing is available,
volunteers are likely to be motivated by factors different than non-
volunteers. Volunteers, unlike their paid counterparts, do not join or
remain in their organization for remuneration purposes. According
to Pearce (1983) members often join and remain in a voluntary
organization because they are attracted to its activities. Pearce
(1983) also found volunteers are more likely than traditionally
compensated workers to have high intrinsic satisfaction. Working
conditions within a voluntary organization tend to differ from other
organizations as well. Typically, voluntary organizations have less
aversive working conditions, and supervision within these
organizations is not often emphasized. Finally, the behaviors of
volunteers may be very different from paid workers. For example,
Mahoney and Pechora (1980) found volunteers act primarily in
accordance with their own values. This finding suggests volunteers
may be less likely to conform to role-prescriptions. Would not the
dynamics of a volunteer relationship with a particular organization
have a different effect on one's commitment to the organization than
would a traditional employment relationship? Specifically, would the
antecedents to organizational commitment be different for
volunteers? Furthermore, would organizational commitment have a
similar impact on turnover and performance in voluntary

organizations, or would it possess an even greater (or lesser) impact

1 6

upon actual behavior? It would seem that the only thing that is clear
among this multitude of questions is that an investigation into the
causes and effects of organizational commitment in voluntary
organizations is warranted.
Loeal Emergency Planning Committees

A prime example of volunteer organizations that have
experienced great difficulty in reaching their goals are Local
Emergency Planning Committees (Lindell & Meier, in press). In
order to promote local preparedness for chemical emergencies, the
United States Congress passed the Emergency Preparedness and
Community Right to Know Act as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA Title III). This
act required the EPA to identify the most dangerous industrial
chemicals, so-called Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHSs). An
accidental release of any EHS in significant quantities has the
potential to do catastrophic harm to life and property (US
Environmental Protection Agency, 1988). Such an accidental release
may occur for a variety of reasons, including train derailment,
industrial plant explosion, or improper or faulty storage. SARA Title
111 required industries to inform communities of hazardous materials
on site. In order to coordinate this information, as well as plan
emergency response to a chemical release from one of the industrial
plants, SARA Title III stipulated the formation of both state and local
committees. At the local level these committees are referred to as
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). Specifically, the

function of the LEPC is to evaluate available resources for preparing

1 7
for and responding to a potential chemical accident (National
Response Team, 1987). The deadline for submission of a
comprehensive emergency response plan was given as October 17,
1988. After this time, LEPCs were expected to submit updated plans
on an annual basis. Comprehensive emergency plans were expected
to address information submitted by each facility manufacturing,
storing, transporting, or utilizing Extremely Hazardous Substances
(Lindell & Meier, in press).

Ninety-seven Local Emergency Planning Committees were
formed in the state of Michigan. Despite the mandated deadline of
October 17, 1988 for submission of comprehensive emergency
response plans, by May, 1990 only one-third of Michigan's LEPCs had
done so (Lindell & Meier, in press). This low rate of compliance
stands in contrast to Drabek's (1986) emphasis on the importance of
comprehensive emergency response plans. Based on his extensive
review of disaster research, he contended that when disaster
demands have been anticipated and response functions assigned
prior to the disaster, less confusion exists concerning performance
responsibilities and channels of communication. Lindell and Meier
(in press) indicate the critical question to be addressed is exactly
what constitutes an effective emergency planning process and what
factors influence the deveIOpment of comprehensive emergency
plans. One such factor that may have an important impact in the
achievement of these plans is organizational commitment. The
present study was designed to examine the antecedents of

organizational commitment in these important voluntary

l 8
organizations, as well as the impact of individuals' organizational
commitment upon their subsequent effort expended and turnover
intentions. Finally, the present study will examine the impact of an
individual's perceptions of effort expended, attendance and
intentions to turnover upon the achievement of the LEPC's goals.

It is important to understand that the members of the Local
Emergency Planning Committee are volunteers in a rather distinctive
way. Some members, in fact, may be assigned by local government
officials to participate in the activities of the LEPC. For the purposes
of this study, however, all LEPC members were considered
volunteers based on three reasons. First, although some LEPC
members may be assigned to participate in the LEPC, work that
constitutes an LEPC member's full-time job is not lessened and is
expected to be completed in addition to LEPC membership. Secondly,
appraisals of work performance in a member's full-time job is not in
any way based upon performance as an LEPC member. Finally, LEPC
members perform LEPC duties without direct extrinsic reward such
as pay or additional benefits.

Before investigating what factors may contribute to
organizational commitment and performance in LEPCs, it is important
to first examine several problems that these organizations face. The
first of these problems is the complexity of planning for all possible
chemical emergencies within the community. Since SARA Title 111
requires planning for emergencies before they happen, LEPCs must
deal with major uncertainties about the type and quantity of toxic

chemical, the timing and location of the release, and the location of

1 9

the areas affected (Lindell & Perry, 1992). This uncertainty about
the agent-generated demands of a chemical emergency is
compounded by the response-generated demands of coordinating the
actions of different agencies and different levels of government (city,
county, state, and federal).

Secondly, disaster planning is frequently considered
unimportant (relative to other concerns) by local and state
governments concerned about today's demands from constituents for
public safety, health and social services. Budgetary constraints have
resulted in extremely limited funding. Thus, expensive equipment
such as computers which might prove helpful in the planning process
frequently cannot be afforded by the LEPC. The limited funding can
itself serve to cause the public to think of the LEPC's activities as
unimportant. Another reason disaster planning can be considered by
some as unimportant are beliefs that planning is not justifiable.
Those sharing this belief may feel "No one can prepare for disaster",
or, at the other end of the spectrum, "There is no real threat". If the
public feels that LEPC's efforts are not worthwhile, opportunity for
individual and group reward by recognition is unlikely. The public's
perception may in turn influence the LEPC members to consider
their endeavors unimportant.

A third source of possible problems experienced by LEPCs stems
from the fact that they are voluntary organizations. The majority of
LEPC members possess outside jobs which place their own demands

upon on the individual. Members are likely to experience role

20
conflict, therefore, as they attempt to balance LEPC work with their
full-time occupation and other responsibilities.

A fourth difficulty in achieving LEPC goals stems from the nature
of the goals themselves. These organizations are preparing plans for
emergency response in the event of a chemical accident. Of course,
these accidents are (thankfully) rare events. This would provide
members with an outcome evaluation of their work in only those
rare incidents when an accident occurs. Even then, however,
external factors prevent LEPC members from drawing clear
conclusions about the effectiveness of their emergency response
plan. For example, the number of injuries resulting from an
accidental chemical release will be affected not only by the quality of
emergency response plans, but also by the location of the spill, the
time of the spill, and wind patterns. The members of the LEPC,
therefore, are unable to receive unequivocal outcome feedback from
their work. The only sort of feedback that LEPCs can hope to achieve
is process feedback, as they accomplish each of the several tasks
required by federal mandate.

Each of the above difficulties experienced by members of the
LEPC demonstrate the unique character of these organizations. LEPCs
certainly do not fit the mold of the organization typically examined
by psychologists. Local Emergency Planning Committees are public,
as opposed to private organizations. As has been stated repeatedly,
LEPCs are composed of volunteers. And, although they may share
some commonalities with the highly researched quality circles and

autonomous work groups (Barrick & Alexander, 1987; Ledford,

21
Lawler, & Mohrman, 1988), LEPCs are in fact very different. Quality
circles were created in order to improve production efficiency in the
work place. Although participation in quality circles is largely
voluntary, its members meet on company time to discuss what is
essentially company business. LEPCs are similar to autonomous work
groups in that both are responsible for directing their own efforts.
However, like quality circles, the purpose of the autonomous work
group is to improve conditions for work for which the employee is
paid.

Since the Local Emergency Planning Committees themselves are
unique, the factors influencing the members of the LEPC are likely to
be quite different from the influence on other, highly researched,
organizations. The variables examined in this study - the
antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment - have
in fact often been examined in the typically researched private
organization with paid employees. However, little evidence has been
provided concerning the generalizability of previous findings of
organizational commitment to voluntary organizations. Local
Emergency Planning Committees provide a unique sample for which
to examine the generalizability of previous research on
organizational commitment.

Previous research (Lindell & Meier, in press; Lindell & Whitney,
in press) on factors affecting performance of Local Emergency
Planning Committees has resulted in several important findings for
our consideration of antecedents of commitment in these

organizations. First, Lindell and Meier (in press) investigated the

22
relationship between the staffing and structure of Michigan LEPCs
and planning outcomes (whether plans were submitted and
vulnerable zones computed, and the degree of completion and
satisfaction with emergency planning activities). Results indicated
slightly over one-third of the Michigan LEPCs had incorporated
subcommittees in their structure. A significant positive relationship
was found between possession of subcommittees and performance (r
= .29). Those LEPCs with subcommittees were more likely to have
submitted plans and to have conducted hazard analyses than those
without them. One possible explanation for this finding provided by
Lindell and Meier is that assignment to subcommittees for which
they are best qualified may enhance LEPC members' perceptions of
the meaningfulness of their work and responsibility for its outcomes.
As has been previously discussed, perceptions of meaningfulness is
often a major antecedent of organizational commitment. A second
finding by Lindell and Meier pertained to a significant relationship
between community support and emergency planning outcomes (r =
.48). As was stated above, one problem faced by LEPC members is
the little opportunity for intrinsic or extrinsic reward as a result of
their service. LEPCs that receive a fair amount of support from the
local community, however, may enable their members to gain a
sense of pride in their volunteerism, thus increasing their affective
commitment to the organization. Finally, Lindell and Meier (in press)
found a significant relationship between emergency planning
outcomes and recency of evacuation experience (r = .45). This

finding was in keeping with the finding by Kartez and Lindell (1987,

23
1990) that in jurisdictions with disaster experience, a significantly
greater number of anticipatory arrangements for dealing with
problems were adopted than in jurisdictions without disaster
experience. Evacuation experience may increase one's affective
commitment to the LEPC by increasing perceptions of the importance
of emergency planning. In each of these cases increased
commitment, in turn, may yield higher individual performance.
Perceptions of community support, evacuation experience, and
possession of subcommittees within the LEPC, therefore, were
considered particularly important antecedents to organizational
commitment.

A note must also be made concerning the impact of a previous
finding by Lindell and Meier (in press) on an expected outcome of
organizational commitment. Contrary to the assumption that
turnover is an inherently bad occurrence, Lindell and Meier found
only a weak relationship (r = .04) between a measure of turnover
and an outcome measure of plan completion. However, the turnover
measure used by Lindell and Meier consisted of the LEPC chair's
interpretation of "the extent turnover limited progress" rather than a
measure of actual turnover. Further examination of the relationship
between turnover and performance in LEPCs is warranted. An
important point for consideration of the findings by Lindell and
Meier (in press) is that their study was conducted at the organization
level of analysis, using LEPC chairmen as knowledgeable informants.
The proposed study will for the first time examine factors affecting

individual LEPC members' perceptions and subsequent behaviors.

24

The present study

Due to the wealth of antecedents to organizational commitment
that have been examined in the literature, it was impractical to
attempt an inclusion of all possible antecedents in the present study.
Rather, an attempt was made to include only those variables that
met with one of three initial criteria. The first criterion was that the
antecedent was shown to relate to organizational commitment in
previous research over a variety of settings. These variables were
included only if they would demonstrate variance across the sample
of Local Emergency Planning Committees. In order to fulfill the first
criterion, antecedents which correlated above .200 in the Mathieu
and Zajac (1990) meta-analysis were examined. Fourteen
antecedents correlated above .200, including: age, perceived
personal competence, protestant work ethic, challenge, job scope,
task interdependence, leader initiating structure, leader
consideration, leader communication, participative leadership, skill
variety, role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload. Of these
variables, job challenge, job scope, skill variety, and participative
leadership were excluded based on the expectation that there would
exist little variance across LEPCs for these variables. The antecedent
"perceived personal competence" was measured as job-related self-
efficacy in the present study since the variables are very similar
theoretically.

The second criterion for inclusion in the present study as a

possible antecedent was that the variable had been previously

25
shown to relate to performance measures in Local Emergency
Planning Committees. The second criterion was met by three
variables Lindell and Meier (in press) found to be important
determinants of LEPC performance: subcommittee structure,
community support, and evacuation experience. Unlike the proximal
antecedents which have demonstrated strong empirical or theoretical
relationships to organizational commitment, the variables suggested
by the Lindell and Meier (in press) study have not previously been
shown to be empirically related to organizational commitment.
Moreover, these variables are distinctly different in character from
variables reviewed by Mathieu and Zajac (1990). Whereas the
proximal antecedents are related to the processes within an
organization, the distal antecedents refer to contextual factors in
which the LEPC is embedded. Indeed, these community and
organizational characteristics may act to influence the proximal
antecedents. Despite these differences between proximal and distal
antecedents, both types of antecedent variables were expected to
contribute to the prediction of organizational commitment.
Therefore, no distinction between these variables were made
concerning their hypothesized relationships with organizational
commitment.

The third criterion for inclusion of antecedent variables in the
present study was necessitated by a strong theoretical implication, as
will be explained below. The variables included in the present study
due to this third criterion are identification with organizational goals

and perceived reward opportunity.

26

Once each of the antecedent variables had been selected by
meeting one of the above three criteria, they were subjected to one
final criterion before inclusion in the present study: ability to
promote change. Although this criterion precludes examination of
enduring personality variables in the present study, this was deemed
necessary due to the practical goal of the present research - which is
to identify factors that increase commitment to voluntary
organizations. Since selection is often impractical in such
organizations, little practical significance will result from
investigation of enduring personality variables. Based upon this
criterion, two variables were excluded: protestant work ethic and
age.

Table 1 provides a listing of the antecedents examined in the
present study arranged according to Steers' (1977) theoretical
categories of personal characteristics, job characteristics, and work
experiences. Despite the usefulness of Steers' (1977) categorization
of antecedents, a new attempt was made to order the antecedents
not according to which aspect of the work environment they affect
(i.e. person, job, or work) but rather based upon an understanding of
why the antecedents relate to organizational commitment. It was
thought that a re-categorization of the antecedents of organizational
commitment according to theoretical similarities might be more
useful for future research. In order to achieve this new
classification, each of the several antecedents was initially examined
individually to determine possible ways in which the variable could

be linked theoretically to commitment. In many cases previous

27

Table l

Antecedents arranged bg Steers' (1977) categories

 

Personal

.Job

Work

 

Goal Identification

 

 

Leadership Variables
Role Ambiguitg

Role Conflict

Subcommittee
Membership

 

Communitg Support

Evacuation Experience

Job-related
Sel f-effi cacg

Perceived Upportunitg
for Reward

 

 

 

28
research has suggested a possible reason why a certain antecedent is
associated with commitment. For those remaining antecedents that
previous researchers have empirically but not theoretically linked to
organizational commitment, a possible explanation was provided by

the present author.

Commpnity Support: The relationship between community support

and organizational commitment seems likely to result from the
probability that community support is in itself rewarding, especially
in a voluntary organization. Therefore, lack of reward opportunities
may cause decreased organizational commitment as one searches for
activities more rewarding of effort.

Evaepation Experience: Experience with previous evacuations may
affect organizational commitment in two ways. First, experience with
natural or technological hazards raises one's awareness of importance
of emergency planning (Kartez & Lindell, 1990), thus causing one to
identify with LEPC goals. Secondly, experience with natural or
technological hazards can be expected to raise one's perceptions of
competence in dealing with further emergencies.

Goal Identification: Identification with an organization's goals should
increase organizational commitment since acceptance of
organizational goals increases one's willingness to remain with the
organization as well as one's willingness to exert effort on behalf of
the organization.

Leaoet Communication: Leaders who provide more accurate and

timely types of communication enhance the work environment and

29
thereby increase employees' commitment to the organization
(Bruning & Snyder, 1983). This accurate, timely communication may
be seen as increasing congruence between the individual's
perceptions and organizational goals.
W: Leaders who possess a high regard for the
comfort, well-being, and contribution of his or her subordinates are
likely to persuade workers to accept organizational goals.
Leader—initiating Stroetore: Leaders who clearly define their own
goals as well as fully explicate what is expected of subordinates will
allow subordinates to reduce feelings of ambiguity and conflict, and
increase perceptions of competence.
Pereeiveo Qpportonity for Reward: Lack of reward opportunities
causes one to search for activities more rewarding of effort, thus
decreasing organizational commitment.
Iloo-relates! Self-efficaey: Social learning theory posits that the
extent to which people believe they possess the necessary skills and
abilities to accomplish a goal in the face of adversity affects
subsequent attitudes and behavior toward the accomplishment of the
goal (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy toward one's job refers
specifically to those beliefs pertaining to skills and abilities necessary
for adequate job performance (Jones, 1986). Perceptions of
competence, therefore, should increase organizational commitment.
Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict: According to Steers and Porter
(1987), role ambiguity and role conflict interfere with the

establishment of a clear sense of direction in which to allocate one's

30

efforts. Lack of clear role knowledge may decrease one's perceptions
of competence in the organization.
MW: Creation of a subcommittee structure
within a voluntary organization may increase organizational
commitment for two possible reasons. First, the subcommittee
structure has the potential to decrease role stress by maximizing the
effectiveness of the limited amount of time members have available
to allocate to LEPC activities. Secondly, a subcommittee structure may
increase in perceptions of the meaningfulness of work by increasing
responsibilities for outcomes (Lindell & Meier, in press).

Next, the theoretical relationships of each antecedent to
organizational commitment were themselves examined. Antecedents
with similar theoretical relationships were grouped together. The
resulting three category classification is found in Table 2. The new
classification of antecedents provides a theoretical tie between
antecedents and commitment. The first two categories --
organizational goal identification and job-related self-efficacy -- are
hypothesized to be related to affective commitment. The third
category of antecedents -- perceived opportunity for reward -- is
expected to be related to continuance commitment. Note that within
an antecedent category, proximal and distal variables have been
identified.

Both "identification with organizational goals" and "perceived
opportunity for reward" have long been considered essential
ingredients to organizational commitment. "Goal identification" is

equivalent to O'Reilly and Chatman's (1986) "internalization", while

31

Table 2

Hypothesized Antecedent Categories

l——— Affective Commitment ——l

to nti n an ace
Commitment

 

Organizational Goal
Identification

Job-related
Self-effi cacg

Perceived Upportunitg
for Reward

 

mm: amt-ma-
Goal Identification

Leader Communication

Leader Consideration

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Distal “laced-98'

Evacuation Experience

Subcommittee

 

 

Structure

Job-related
Self-efficacg

Leader-initiating
Structure

Role Ambiguitg
Role Conflict

Evacuation Experience

Subcommittee
Structure

Perceived Opportunity
for Reward

Communitg Support

 

 

 

 

32
"reward" is the same as their "compliance". The importance of job-
related self-efficacy is at first glance more difficult to relate to
organizational commitment because it does not correspond to O'Reilly
and Chatman's (1986) concept of "identification", which refers to a
desire for affiliation. However, self-efficacy is rooted in the idea that
the individual contributes effort and talents to accomplish tasks
which in turn benefit the organization. Bandura (1977) proposed
that the extent to which a person believes that he or she possesses
the necessary skills and abilities to accomplish a goal in the face of
adversity is closely bound to the effort expenditure and level of
accomplishment of that person. Considering the "willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization" component of the
definition of organizational commitment (Porter et al., 1974), job-
related self-efficacy is likely to have a very important role in the
determination of organizational commitment.

Several comments need to be made concerning these new
antecedent categories. First, several antecedents fall into more than
one category. Evacuation experience, for example, falls both into the
organizational goal identification category as well as the perceived
opportunity for reward category. This dual placement reflects the
potential for multiple psychological impacts an antecedent may have.

A second comment concerning the hypothesized antecedent
categories is their apparent similarity to the components of
Alderfer's (1969) ERG theory. The category "identification with
organizational goals", for example, is similar to Alderfer's relatedness

needs in that both are concerned with identification with entities

33
other than oneself. The category "perceived reward opportunity",
like Alderfer's existence needs, is concerned with satisfaction of
material needs. Finally, both Alderfer's growth needs and the
antecedents that compose the "job-related self-efficacy" category in
the proposed classification are concerned with factors affecting the
individual's capabilities. Therefore, despite the apparent novelty of
the proposed classification system, it shares commonalities with a
theory that has been previously used to explain work motivation.
Alderfer conceptualized his need categories along a continuum, with
existence needs as the most concrete and growth needs as the least
concrete. Alderfer hypothesized abstract needs would be fulfilled
only after satisfaction of the concrete needs. Thus, growth needs
would exert importance only after existence and relatedness needs
are satisfied. Further, if abstract needs are unfulfilled, the individual
will place greater desire in concrete needs. Thus, those who are
incapable of fulfilling relatedness needs will become more desirous
of satisfying existence needs. How does this relate to organizational
commitment? It would suggest that individuals who remain
committed to an organization despite lack of fulfillment of their
relatedness or growth needs will place great emphasis in existence
needs. These are the people who remain committed solely due to the
extrinsic reward for their service. In the term used by Meyer and
Allen (1984), these people experience continuance commitment. In a
voluntary organization such as an LEPC these people would not have
the opportunity to achieve great extrinsic reward, and would thus be

likely to turnover quickly or reduce their effort if they cannot

34
terminate membership. On the other hand, those individuals who
have fulfilled their existence needs and subsequently attempt to
satisfy relatedness or growth needs are likely to remain committed
to the organization due to affective reasons. It is these individuals
who are expected to be most highly motivated to achieve
organizational goals.

Figure l graphically depicts the hypothesized model, which
consists of seven distinct propositions. The first two hypotheses are
concerned primarily with the proposed antecedent categories.

H1: Variables within a category of

antecedents (e.g., goal identification, job

related self-efficacy, and perceived

opportunity for reward) will be sufficiently

related to one another, and sufficiently

unrelated to other antecedent variables, to

form separate factors.
This hypothesis examines whether the arrangement of antecedent
variables in the proposed classification system, which was based
upon the grouping of antecedents according to theoretical similarity,
will receive empirical validation.

The second hypothesis is concerned with the underlying

construct that is believed to be measured by each of the three

categories (goal identification, job-related self-efficacy, and

35

Figure l

A Model of the Proposed Research

 

 

 

 

 

Organizational
Commitment
Affective Co nti n ua nce

 

 

 

 

LEPC Performance

 

 

T

 

Perceived Effort Expended

 

D-

lntentions to Turnover

 

 

Attendance

 

 

 

PROXIMAL ANTECEDENTS
Goal Identification

Leader Communication
Leader Consideration

--------------------------

DISTAL ANTECEDENTS
Evacuation Experience

Subcommittee Strucuture

 

 

Job- related Self-efficacy

Leader-i nitiati no Structure
Role Ambiguitu

Role Conflict

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Evacuation Experience
Subcommittee Structure

 

Perceived Opportunity
for Reva rd

Communitu Support

 

 

36

perceived opportunity for reward) of the proposed classification
system.

H2: The primary antecedents (the variables

which name each category) will be more

strongly related to commitment than will the

other antecedent variables.
Limited initial support for this hypothesis can be found in the
Mathieu and Zajac (1990) meta-analysis. Of those antecedents in the
job-related self-efficacy category examined by Mathieu and Zajac,
perceived personal competence had the highest correlation to
organizational commitment (r=.63). Unfortunately, neither
identification with organizational goals nor perceived opportunity for
reward were included in the Mathieu and Zajac (1990) study.

It is expected that the antecedent categories in the proposed

classification will be differentially related to commitment.

H3a: The categories of goal identification and

job-related self-efficacy will be related to

affective commitment.

H3b: The category of perceived opportunity

for reward is expected to be related to

continuance commitment.
These hypotheses are supported by the definitions of affective and
continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Affective
commitment represents an emotional attachment to an organization,
which both "goal identification" and "job-related self-efficacy" would

presumably influence. Continuance commitment is defined as a

37
desire to remain a part of an organization in order to avoid loss of
investments in the organization, including pay or benefits. Certainly
one's possession of continuance commitment would be dependent
upon one's "perceived opportunity for reward".

It was assumed that affective commitment would far outweigh
the prevalence of continuance commitment in a voluntary
organization, since few, if any, extrinsic rewards can be accrued from
voluntary involvement. This prediction had an impact on each of the
hypotheses concerning the outcomes of organizational commitment.

H4a: Affective commitment is predicted to be

negatively related to intentions to turnover,

but positively related to effort expended and

attendance.
Lindell and Meier (in press) found that the average LEPC lost slightly
less than one third of its members annually to turnover. Although
turnover is expected to be relatively high considering the lack of
many extrinsic rewards (and therefore lack of continuance
commitment), positive affect toward the organization should lower
intentions to turnover. The prediction that attendance and perceived
effort will relate positively to affective commitment is in keeping
with the findings of Meyer et. al. (1989) that affective commitment
increases individual performance.

H4b: Continuance commitment is expected to

be related negatively to turnover intentions,

but have no association with attendance or

perceived effort expended.

38
Continuance commitment, although unlikely to be strong in a
voluntary organization due to few extrinsic rewards, will by
definition cause a person to desire to remain a part of the
organization. However, as Meyer et. al. (1989) found, people high in
continuance commitment are motivated to work only hard enough to
remain a part of the organization and would thus be expected to
exert little effort. In a voluntary organization where one is unlikely
to be penalized for poor attendance, it is expected that no significant
relationship will exist between continuance commitment and
attendance.

The next hypothesis examines the relationship between the
antecedent variables, commitment variables, and individual-level
outcome variables.

H5: The relationship between the antecedent

variables and the outcome variables of

turnover intentions, attendance and perceived

effort will be mediated by affective and

continuance commitment.
The research literature examining organizational commitment in
traditional work settings has found the relationship between the
several antecedent and outcome variables to be mediated by
affective and continuance commitment. This hypothesis will allow an
examination of whether such a mediated relationship between these
variables also exists for a voluntary organization.

The final hypothesis examines the influence of organizational

commitment on the performance of the entire group.

39

H6: The relationship between organizational

commitment and LEPC performance will be

mediated by intentions to turnover,

attendance, and perceived effort expended.
As was discussed above, research has indicated a weak but positive
relationship between commitment and measures of actual
performance. This might suggest that researchers should stop
relating organizational commitment and performance. However, the
ultimate goal of applied research is to examine variables which are
important to the organization's goals. Surely performance is essential
to an organization. In the sample used in the present study -- Local
Emergency Planning Committees -- group performance is
organizational performance. Commitment researchers have often
found a relationship between organizational commitment and such
individual variables as turnover and attendance. Yet a weaker
relationship is consistently found between organizational
commitment and actual performance. Although this finding is
consistent in traditional organizations, no research has examined the
relationship between performance and commitment in voluntary
organizations. The present study re-examines the organizational
commitment-performance relationship, this time in a voluntary
setting. However, unlike previous organizational commitment
research (e.g., Lee & Mowday, 1987; McFarlane-Shore & Martin,
1989; Steers, 1977), Figure 1 posits that the relationship between
organizational commitment and performance is not a direct

relationship, but rather is mediated by turnover intentions,

40
attendance, and perceived effort. According to the model, an
individual's increased attendance and effort, and decreased intention
to leave the organization will lead to increased performance for the
team. In Local Emergency Planning Committees the variables of
turnover intentions, attendance, and perceived effort are expected to
be closely related to performance due to several factors. LEPCs are
small organizations, with a mean size of about 10 members. Thus,
each individual is more directly responsible for the outcomes of the
group than in large organizations. Taken to the extreme, if very few
members attended LEPC meetings, and those that did attend
demonstrated little effort and/or desired to leave the organization,
then the LEPC would get no work accomplished at all. However, due
to the few members of each LEPC, it is expected that even if only a
few members exhibit poor attendance, poor effort, and high turnover
intentions, then LEPC performance as a whole will suffer. Despite the
low correlations typically observed between commitment and
performance, therefore, the present study hypothesizes that a
commitment and performance will be indirectly related through the
mediation of the individual level outcome variables of attendance,

perceived effort, and intentions to turnover.

 

METHOD

Respondents and Procedures
Pte-test

One hundred twenty-seven pre-test subjects recruited from a
large midwestern university pre-tested the questionnaire packet.
Two samples of college students served as subjects for the pre-test.
The first sample consisted of individuals who regularly participated
in volunteer service organizations. The second sample consisted of
individuals with part-time jobs in the fast food industry. Samples
with these characteristics were selected in order to assess groups
that possess two of the distinctive characteristics of LEPCs -
voluntary and part-time membership - and are likely to have
varying levels of affective and continuance commitment. Subjects
were recruited by in-class notification and posters describing the
study, and were administered each of the scales in the LEPC
questionnaire with one exception. The goal identification scale was
not included since this scale contains goals specific to Local
Emergency Planning Committees. Subjects were instructed to

complete the questionnaire according to their feelings and opinions

concerning their target organization, i.e. service organization or part-

time job. For those scales with items including the words "LEPC" or
"LEPC chair", the referent of the items was changed to maintain
equivalence of item meaning. For example, in each of the items on

the leader communication scale, the words "LEPC chair" were

Changed to "supervisor". The pre-test of the LEPC questionnaire was

41

{w m‘h_mn:.u—..,e

42
conducted to serve two purposes. The first objective was to
determine internal consistency of the items in each of the various
scales within the questionnaire. This was necessary because several
of these scales (e.g., attendance, perceived effort, and turnover
intention) have been created for the present study, and, thus, have
no previous assessment of their reliability. Other scales require
internal consistency assessment because they have undergone
modifications ranging from a slight word change in an item to the
addition of several items to the scale. Reliabilities of the modified
scales must be re-estimated to ensure that they have not decreased.
Finally, since brevity of testing time was an important constraint in
the present study, accurate determination of scale internal
consistency estimates was necessary in order to allow removal of
unnecessary or inadequate items.

The pre-test also enabled the examination of any difficulties a
pilot group experienced with the questionnaire package, such as
failure to respond according to given scales, following of instructions,
and the amount of time to complete the entire package. Although it
was originally intended to pre-test the questionnaire packet on one
hundred part-time workers and one hundred volunteers, volunteers
were extremely difficult to recruit. Indeed, of the 127 total pre-test
subjects, only 15 of these were members of volunteer organizations.
Therefore, the pre-test subjects were mainly part-time job holders.
£2

The members of selected LEPCs in Michigan served as subjects in

the second phase of the study. The state of Michigan possesses 97

I..-‘-rn- ‘4 ma luv-L'- min.
I

43

Local Emergency Planning Committees, with an average of about 10
members per LEPC. Due to budgetary constraints in the present
study, it was not possible to survey all 1,000 members of Michigan's
LEPCs. However, in order to ensure representation from all LEPCs,
eight members of each LEPC in Michigan were randomly selected to
participate in the study. For LEPCs with less than eight members,
every member of the LEPC was asked to participate in the study.
This resulted in sending approximately 570 questionnaire packets to l
the members of Local Emergency Planning Committees in Michigan.

Addresses of the selected LEPC members were obtained from the

Michigan SERC. Each of these individuals were mailed the following:

.nflvnm 4

1 - A cover sheet explaining the study; 2 - The revised LEPC -
questionnaire; and 3 - A self-addressed stamped return envelope.
Those individuals who failed to return the completed questionnaire
within three weeks were sent a post card reminding them of the
study and requesting their completion of the questionnaire.
Questionnaires were once again be sent to those individuals who had
not yet returned completed questionnaires two weeks after the
postcard was sent. Attempts were then made to contact non-
responders by telephone and encourage them to fill out and return
the questionnaire.

Two hundred four of these members returned completed
usable surveys, resulting in a response rate of 36%. Of the
responders, 84% were male, 16% were female. This is very close to
the gender breakdown of the sample (85% were male, 15% were

female). The mean age of respondents was 47 years, with a standard

44
deviation of 9.4. On the average respondents had served their LEPC
for 33 months, with a standard deviation of 15. Ninety-one percent
of LEPC respondents possessed a full-time job. The vast majority of
these occupations involved public service (elected official, civil
defense, law enforcement, etc), education, or operation of local

manufacturing facilities.

Measures

The LEPC questionnaire utilized in the present study is found in
Appendix A. The various components comprising the questionnaire
are listed below.

Apteeeoept Variablee;

Goal loentifieation. The measure of goal identification was
developed by the present author in order to provide statements that
are sufficiently general that they are likely to be shared by all Local
Emergency Planning Committees, yet specific enough to differentiate
LEPCs from other organizations. The scale contains nine items scored
on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree).

Leaoet Commpnieation. Leader communication was assessed by
a modified version of the leader trust and support subsection of
James' Climate Questionnaire (James & Sells, 1981; Jones & James,
1979). The scale contains nine items scored on a five point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (To a very great extent).

Leader Consideration. Leader consideration was assessed by

use of a modified version of the leader consideration subsection of

45
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Stogdill,
1963). Past research has indicated a Spearman-Brown internal
reliability estimate of .89 (Szilagyi & Keller, 1976). The scale
contains ten items scored on a five point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).

Leaoet Initiating Structure. Leader initiating structure was
assessed by use of the leader-initiating structure subsection of the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Stogdill, 1963).
Past research has indicated a Spearman-Brown internal reliability
estimate of .87 (Szilagyi & Keller, 1976). The scale contains 10 items
scored on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5
(Always).

Pereeiyed Reward Qpportunity. The amount of reward subjects'
perceived they were likely to experience as a result of their
participation as a member of the LEPC was measured using a
modified version of a scale drawn from the Michigan Organizational
Assessment Program (Lawler & Camman, 1980). The scale contains
11 items scored on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(Not at all likely) to 7 (Extremely likely).

Role Ambiguity. The degree to which subjects experienced role
ambiguity as a result of their participation in the LEPC was measured
by a scale developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). The scale
contains 6 items scored on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (Very true) to 7 (Very false). Valenzi and Dessler (1978)

determined Cronbach‘s alpha for the scale to be .76, and Schriesheim

46
and Von Glinow (1977) determined a Kuder-Richardson internal
consistency reliability of .89.

Role Confliet. The degree to which subjects experienced role
conflict (including role overload) as an LEPC member was assessed
by a scale developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). The scale
contains 6 items scored on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true). Szilagyi, Sims and Keller (1976)
provided evidence of a Spearman-Brown internal reliability of .90.

loo-related Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy was assessed using a
modified version of the Jones (1986) scale measuring self—efficacy to
one's job, as well as items adapted from a scale by Major (1990). The
scale contained 11 items scored on a seven point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

Afteetiye Commitment. Affective commitment was measured
using the scale by Meyer and Allen (1984). The scale contains eight
items scored on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Research has demonstrated
this scale to be highly reliable, with a Cronbach's alpha equal to .88.

Coptipoanoe Commitment. Continuance commitment was
measured using the scale by Meyer and Allen (1984), which has
been shown to have a Cronbach's alpha equal to .73. The scale
contains eight items scored on a seven point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree).

_-W ~. 4.: um_a'..‘m

47
V ri l S'

Attenoanee, Perceived attendance was measured by a four item
scale developed by the present author. Items are scored on a seven
point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(Strongly agree).

Pereeiyed Effort. The amount of effort subjects' perceived they
exerted on behalf of the LEPC was measured using a three item scale
developed by the present author. Items were scored on a seven
point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(Strongly agree).

fljorpoyer Intentions, Turnover intentions were measured using
a three item scale developed by the present author. Items were
scored on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

A special note must be made considering the use of the
measures of continuance commitment and turnover intentions.
Cursory examination of these measures might produce an appearance
of item overlap. Item overlap would, of course, lead to an inflated
correlation between the two variables. However, despite the
similarity in the items, the measures do assess distinct constructs.
For example, the continuance commitment item, "It would be very
hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to"
is very similar to the turnover intention item, "I'd discontinue
serving as a member of my LEPC if it was possible to leave". In this
example, the continuance commitment item measures one's ability to

leave the organization while the turnover intention item measures an

48
individual's actual desire to quit. The importance of including a
measure of turnover intentions in the present study is based in part
on the long utilization of turnover intentions as a standard outcome
measure of organizational commitment. In the studies examined in
the Mathieu and Zajac (1990) meta-analysis, turnover intentions
were used more frequently as an outcome of organizational
commitment than any other variable. This is not surprising
considering the definition of organizational commitment, which
indicates a person with high commitment would also have high
desire to remain in the organization. Theoretically, therefore, the
relationship between commitment and turnover intentions is very
important. Indeed, Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982, cf. Mathieu
and Zajac, 1990), predicted the strongest and most important
predictable behavioral consequence of employee commitment should
be lower turnover rates.

Each of the above constructs was measured using a Likert-type
response format. Whenever similar response formats are utilized the
possibility of achieving biased results due to method variance should
be considered. In order to assess the possibility of biased findings
resulting from the influence of method variance in the present study,
intercorrelations of all variables were examined. Evidence of method
variance is indicated if variables which are conceptually dissimilar
exhibit moderate to high intercorrelations (Kozlowski & Doherty,
1989). Additionally, item content of all scales was examined to
eliminate conceptual overlap as much as possible. Interestingly,

Spector (1987) has suggested that the problem of method variance

49
may be largely mythical. Based upon an examination of 10 multi-
trait multi-method matrices of published data, Spector concluded
that correlations between bias measures and measures designed to
assess constructs of interest tend to be very small and rarely
statistically significant. However, Spector (1987) does suggest
method variance may be a much larger problem in single item or
poorly designed scales.

ii Meas r S'

Information regarding the degree of community support for the
LEPC, evacuation experience, and possession of subcommittee
structure were obtained from data obtained by Lindell and Meier (in
press). The performance of the LEPC was determined by whether or
not the LEPC had produced the emergency response plans dictated
by SARA Title 111. Information regarding the degree of emergency
response plan completion was obtained from the Michigan State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC). These data are a matter of
public record and are routinely compiled and reported by the staff of
the SERC. Additionally, the LEPC chair's ratings of LEPC performance
were obtained from Lindell & Meier (in press). These ratings were
the chair's judgments of the total hours members had worked for the
LEPC in the past year, amount of work accomplished by members of
the LEPC, and satisfaction with amount of work the LEPC
accomplished. In order to disaggregate this data to the individual-
level, each individual within an LEPC was assigned the score for
his/her LEPC. Every member of a particular LEPC, therefore,

received the same values for each of the independent variables of

50
community support, evacuation experience, and possession of
subcommittee structure, as well as the dependent variables of plan
submission and LEPC ratings of amount of work accomplished, total

hours worked, and satisfaction with LEPC achievements.

Analyses

Data were entered into a computer file and initial analyses
consisting of frequency tabulations were conducted to check the data
for human error. Subsequent examinations included scale and
regression analyses. Scale analyses provided reliability estimates for
each of the several scales.

A list of the hypotheses and a brief explanation of how each
hypothesis was tested is presented in Table 3. The initial hypotheses
pertain to the proposed classification of antecedents of organizational
commitment. Antecedent variables within a particular category
were expected to be more highly associated with antecedents within
their category than to those in another category. In order to test this
hypothesis, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test
whether the antecedent variables loaded highly within their
hypothesized categories. If the antecedents did not load as expected,
the proposed classification of antecedents to organizational
commitment would be revised.

The second hypothesis is that within a particular category of
antecedents, the primary antecedent will be more highly related to
one of the commitment measures than any of the other antecedents

in the category. This hypothesis was tested through multiple

51
regression between the antecedents, used as predictors, and the
measures of affective and continuance commitment, used as criteria.
Additionally, this hypothesis was tested by means of the statistical
significance of the difference between correlations.

The third hypothesis is concerned with the relationship between
each of the proposed categories of antecedents and their relationship
to commitment. It is proposed that the categories of goal—
identification and job-related self-efficacy will relate to affective
commitment, while the antecedent category of perceived opportunity
for reward will be associated with continuance commitment.
Regression analyses of the relationship between the antecedent
variables and the two (affective and continuance) commitment
variables served to test this hypothesis.

The fourth hypothesis investigates the relationship between
each of the two commitment variables and the primary outcome
variables of attendance, turnover intentions, and perceived effort
expended. Affective commitment was expected to be negatively
related to intentions to turnover, but positively related to effort
expended and attendance. Continuance commitment was expected to
be negatively related to turnover intentions, but unrelated to
attendance and perceived effort. This hypothesis was tested through
multiple regression between the commitment variables, used as
predictors, and the primary outcome variables of attendance,
turnover intentions and perceived effort, used as criteria.

The fifth hypothesis examines the relationship between

antecedents, commitment, and outcomes at the individual level of

52
Table 3

Hypotheses and How They Are Tested

 

ngothesis

Test of hypothesis

 

H1:

Variables within a category will be sufficiently
related to one another, and sufficiently unrelated to
other antecedents, to form separate factors.

All antecedent variables will be entered
into a confirmatory factor analysis.

 

H2:

The primary antecedent (the variable that gives a
category its name) in each of the categories will be
more strongly related to organizational commitment
(affective or continuance respectively) than any
other antecedent in the category.

Multiple regression between the
antecedents, used as predictors, and the
measures of affective and continuance
commitment, used as criteria.

 

H3a:

The categories of goal identification and self— efficacy
will be related to effective commitment.

H3b:

The category of perceived opportunity for reward is
expected to be related to continuance commitment.

Regression analyses of the relationship
between the antecedent variables and
the two commitment variables will
serve to test this hypothesis.

 

H4a:

Affective commitment is predicted to be negatively
related to turnover intentions, and positively related
to perceived effort expo nded and attendance.

H4b:

Continuance commitment is expected to be negative] y
related to turnover intentions, but have no
association with attendance or perceived effort.

Multiple regression between the
commitment variables, used as
predictors, and the individual level
outcome variables of attendance,
turnover intentions, and

perceived effort, used as criteria.

 

H5:

The relationship between the antecedent variables
and the outcome variables ofturnover intentions,
perceived effort, and attendance will be mediated by
affective and continuance commitment.

The proposed mediation model will be
tested through the use of hierarchical
regression.

 

 

H6:

The relationship between organizational
commitment and LEPC performance will be
mediated by turnover intentions, attendance, and
perceived effort.

 

The proposed mediation model will
be tested through the use of
hierarchical regression.

 

 

53
analysis. In order to examine the hypothesized mediated
relationship between possible antecedents of organizational
commitment and the primary outcome measures of attendance,
intention to turnover and perceived effort expended, hierarchical
regression techniques were used. In accord with James and Brett
(1984), the following steps were taken:

1) The antecedent and organizational commitment variables
were used to predict attendance, intention to turnover, and
perceived effort. The relevance of these variables was established if
they predicted a statistically significant portion of the variance in the
outcome variables.

2) In order to test the proposed mediation model, two additional
regression analyses were performed predicting the outcomes from
antecedent variables alone and also from the commitment variables
alone. If the relationship between antecedents and outcomes is
completely mediated by commitment, the R square for the
commitment variables alone would be significantly different from
zero, but not significantly different from the R square for the
composite (antecedents and commitment variables) model tested in
step 1. In addition, the R square for the antecedent variables alone
would ideally be nonsignificantly different from zero. If the R
square for the antecedent variables was significantly different from
zero, the R square for the composite would be significantly greater
than for the antecedents alone, while the R square for the composite
would not be significantly greater than for the commitment variables

alone.

54

The sixth hypothesis is that the relationship between
organizational commitment and LEPC performance would be
mediated by the individual level outcomes of turnover intentions,
attendance, and perceived effort. Since both organizational
commitment and the individual-level outcome variables are by
definition individual-level variables, it was considered inappropriate
to aggregate these variables to the group-level of analysis.
Examination of this hypothesis, therefore, required a cross-level
analysis.

This hypothesis was tested by hierarchical regression analyses,
following the same procedure outlined for hypothesis six.
Specifically, the following methods were employed:

1) The commitment, turnover intention, attendance and
perceived effort variables were used to predict LEPC performance.
The relevance of the commitment and individual outcome variables
(turnover intentions, attendance and perceived effort) was
established if they predicted a statistically significant portion of the
variance in the outcome variables.

2) In order to test the proposed mediation model, two additional
regression analyses were performed predicting LEPC performance
from commitment variables alone and also from the individual
outcome variables. If the relationship between commitment and
LEPC performance was completely mediated by the individual
outcome variables, the R square for the individual outcome variables
alone would be significantly different from zero, but not significantly

different from the R square for the composite (commitment and

55

individual outcome variables) model tested in step 1. In addition,
*the R square for the commitment variables alone would ideally be
nonsignificantly different from zero. If the R square for the
commitment variables was significantly different from zero, the R
square for the composite would be significantly greater than for the
commitment variables alone, while the R square for the composite
would not be significantly greater than for the individual outcome

variables.

Results
Pre-test

A reliability estimate based upon undergraduate pre-test
subjects was computed for each of the scales. The internal
consistency estimates appeared to be in acceptable ranges, and it was
determined that no changes in the scales was indicated based upon
these initial findings.

The pre-test included sufficient numbers of subjects from
voluntary organizations to conclude these subjects did not have any
difficulty responding to the wording in any of the items which
compose the scales. At no point did any pre-test subject -- whether
a member of a voluntary organization or a part-time job holder --
express concern or confusion with a particular item.

The pre-test helped to determine a potential source of
difficulty -- the anchors of one scale were in the opposite direction of
the anchors of all other scales used in the packet. Evidence indicated
some pre-test subjects failed to notice this change in anchor polarity.
Therefore, the polarity of the anchors of this scale was made

consistent with the anchors of the other scales.

LEP 1

Two hundred four of these members of Local Emergency
Planning Committees returned completed usable surveys, resulting in
a response rate of 36%. An analysis was undertaken in order to
examine whether response rates differed according to LEPC

performance, as determined by the submission of an emergency

56

57
response plan to the Michigan State Emergency Response Commission
(SERC). This analysis determined that members of successfully
performing LEPCs were slightly more likely to respond than
members from unsuccessful LEPCs. Although 57% of the
questionnaires were sent to members of unsuccessful LEPCs, these

members represented only 46% of the actual responders.

Data Assessment;

Data were entered into a computer file and screened for
accuracy. Frequency analyses were run to further check the
accuracy of the data. Frequency analyses determined that for
several variables which had a 5 point Likert-type scale, some
respondents rated an item with a seven. It was reasoned that these
subjects wished to rate the item at the extreme, but had failed to
observe the 5 point scale. Accordingly, these cases were recoded
from a "7" to a "5". Although it could be argued that other
respondents also failed to notice the change in scale anchoring, there
is no way of detecting such miscues.

Further inspection of the data revealed a large number of
missing cases for some outcome variables. This was expected,
considering that some criterion data was unavailable for some LEPCs
from which subjects were recruited. Although randomly selected
members from each LEPC were sent questionnaires in the present
study, criterion data for the outcome variables rated by the LEPC
chair (e.g., satisfaction, total hours worked, and percentage of work

completed) was limited to those LEPCs in which the chairman had

58
responded to the Lindell and Whitney (in press) study. The effect of
missing values on the analyses was examined by first computing
intercorrelations using pairwise deletions, and, subsequently, by
replacing missing values with the mean for all responses to that item.
A comparison of these two procedures revealed that observed
intercorrelations were nearly identical. To preserve an adequate
sample size, all further analyses were conducted using the mean
substitution for all missing values. According to Hertel (1976) this
method is a conservative procedure for coping with item non-

ICSpODSC.

W

Scale reliabilities were examined using coefficient alpha
internal consistency estimates. Initial estimates of internal
consistency reliability ranged from or =.35 to or =.95 across scales (See
Table 4). Item-total correlations were examined to determine
whether some of the scales exhibiting lower internal consistency
estimates might be altered to increase reliability. Items were deleted
from a scale if they possessed low item-total correlations and also
were deemed to significantly differ in content from the other items
in the scale. It is worthy of note that the majority of items that were
dropped were contained in scales not previously tested. Final
reliabilities for each of the scales were in the .70s or above, with the
exception of continuance commitment, which had a reliability of or =
.54. This low level of internal consistency is somewhat surprising

because the items in this scale were used in previous studies which

59
reported much higher reliability estimates (e.g., Meyer & Allen,
1984; Meyer et. al., 1989). There are two possible reasons for the
low reliability for the version of continuance commitment used in the
present study: either the scale's reliability suffered because the
scale was shortened in an attempt to make it sensible for volunteers,
or the voluntary nature of LEPC service made even the shortened
scale nonsensical to respondents. Continuance commitment, by
definition, pertains to financial or other external incentives to remain
with an organization. The low reliability of the continuance
commitment scale suggests that subjects from a voluntary
organization had a difficult time responding in a coherent fashion to
the items in this scale. The intercorrelations for each of the variables
in the present study are provided in Table 5.
Eaetor analyses;

A confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1985) was performed in order to test the proposed factor
structure of antecedents as presented in Hypothesis 1 (See Table 2).
The LISREL confirmatory factor analysis produced a test statistic of
x2(39) = 437.15 (p < .01). Furthermore, the goodness of fit index of
the hypothesized model was only .773. Both of these fit indices
strongly suggest that the hypothesized model provides a poor fit to
the data, indicating the antecedent variables should not be
categorized as proposed. The LISREL estimates for the lambda X and
phi matrices are presented in Table 6. Subsequent exploratory factor
analyses were conducted in order to identify a factor structure that

would provide a better fit to the data. Principal axis factor analyses

60

Table 4
Reliability Estimates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Initial Reliabilitu Final Reliability
Estimate Estimate
Affective
Commitment '85 '89
Attendance 77 3'7
Continuance 35
Commitment - 54
Goal Identification .78 .80
Job- related .76
Self-efficacy 7’4
Lead" . . .95 .95
Communication
”3"?" . .66 -91
Consideration
Leader-initiating .95 .95
Structure
Leede rs hi p facto r - - _97
Perceived
Perceived Opportunity .86
for Reward '86
Role Ambiguity .92 .92
Role Conflict .85 .83
Turnover .88 .88

 

 

 

 

61

.528 u

 

 

 

 

32:5. 92:33 Uaifimoam. E:— 5535 58838—333

X Mb L N u A u o 3 m w E
L. >=ooz<o Abo Tum Lb .uo LA .cc .uu .2. .Au .Ao .Au .uq
N. 02.32280 93 _._m L.o .OA .3 .3 Lo .3 La LA Lm
u. 00355.5. mac—o. .Ao .Au To .mo ..OA :3 .oo .3 .3 .3
A. m<mo=uzo= mxc. .3 .3 Lb .3 Lo :3 Jon )3 be
m. Dow. 53:... 93 .co Lb .8 .3 Lu Lu Le
a. 3,1223 mm. A3c .3 7c .3 .o~ Joo .Ow
3. F252 02:35.. Abu .3 7o .3 .mo .3
m. Lineman 0253. ”:3 Lu 7o .3 .mm
o. romanlaz m2. u.AA .3 To .3
Lo. rowaaaE—o 322. 9: .mA Lb
3. $089.32. ”233 Aum f3 .3 .5 .3 .3 .3 .3 Ac .3 .Ao .uu
LN. ”20 0:55. A.A3 L.Au .um Lc .oe .cu .No .cm .uo .uo .aL .ma
3. ”0—0 00:22 _.mA LLN -Lu .oN law be Joa .oo JwA Jun flue Jaw
LA. mecca—=3 m3. .oa .uu .oo .oc .93 LA .oL .63 ..GA 3.3 39A low
E
G. LES—Egon aha LL: .AA LA .cu Lw .NA La .N3 .uo .No A:
3. Leona. mama: 93 .em .3 Lu .3 .3 .3 .No .3 .3 .3 LA
3. as 28338 «who 2.3 .AN .3 .3 LL Lo .8 Lu .3 .3 .NA
5. .3332 LE. A.3 _.3A :3 -.3 .3 :8 Jun :3 :5 ..NA -Lo :3
Lo. 6253ko 3.3 3.; .3 Lo .8 be .3 :3 Lu .3 .3 Lo
No. Sea: .uA .3 .3 .: :8 .8 Lu Ln .3 .3 .co .8
ML. woman—on who .mc .3 .3 .cA Bow LA -.cA .Nu .NA .3 .NN
NN. HOE— =o§m ”Lawn: 33.3 .cm .oo -.Nu La JOL Le Row .oL Jou low

 

62

.520 m A25}...

 

 

 

3. $28.32. No.52.
.N. ”in 0.3.5.

.w. ”0.0 0o:....2

.A. 958:2: m2.

E822“ 5.36.8
.M. 352.22..
.0. .uoao. mad:
3. .Vo 282.»:8
.m. 5.32:: .2.
.0. 60:25:”

No. 1.3.:

~.. M2322.

MN. :2». :25

>.. 832283 $.58 ucmogo <w.=o .m ..A 2 Samoa :3 amazon—2 2 a
>.. 8222.03 3.5% ”5.3.2." <25 .m ..m an .292 :3 «5:582 2 p

 

.P Lu .A La LN pm. Lw No N. Nu
..c .Au -..c -.oq .Nq .uq .No -.No .Nu -.oo ..a -..u
L.o -.~A .Ow .uc .uq .ue .uN ..o .co .Lu ..cn
..o -.o. -.N~ .cm -..w -..N -..m ..o« -.NA -..o
..o .oo .ON .ou .c. -..u .o. .o. .Nq
..c .A@ .o: -.Au .ou .cm .o. -.o.
..c .we -.uA -... -.oo -..A -.o.
..o -.AN -.oq .cw .oc .oq
..o -..N -.Lo -..m .cc
..o .Nu .om .L.
..o .m: ..N
..o .NA
..c
n .8
fl.b.

63

Table 6
LISREL Estimates for Lambda X and Phi Matrices for a Three-Factor
Model of Antecedents to Organizational Commitment

 

 

 

Clgsters

Antecedents Goal ID Efficacy Reward
Community Supp. .000 .000 .096
Evacuation Exp. .061 .114 .000
Goal Identif. .160 .000 .000
Job-related SE. .000 -.278 .000
Leader Comm. .739 .000 .000
Leader Consid. .717 .000 .000
Leader-init. Struct. .000 .048 .000
Perc. Reward .000 .000 .606
Role Clarity .000 -.099 .000
Role Conflict .000 -.158 .000
Subcomm. Str. .003 .030 .000
Efficacy -.644

Reward 1.031 -.002

64
Table 7
Principal Components Factor Analysis for the Antecedent Variables

 

 

 

Factor
1 2 3 4
Leader Communication .90 .14 -.04 -.04
Leader Consideration .89 .14 .00 -.06
Leader—Init. Struct. .89 .10 .04 -.11
Role Clarity .73 .23 .10 .09
Role Conflict .54 -.29 -.06 .20
Goal Identification .09 .76 -.04 .07
Perceived Opp. Reward .49 .64 .15 -.06
Community Support .06 -.08 .87 -.11
Evacuation Experience -.06 .21 .59 .44
Job-related Self—efficacy -.01 .30 -.17 .69

Subcommittee Struct. .02 -.26 .17 .66

65
with varimax rotation of 3, 4, and 5 factors revealed that the
antecedents do not have a simple structure. A principal axis factor
analysis with specification of eigenvalues greater than 1.0 produced
4 factors, and is presented in Table 7. Examination of the factor
loadings of the antecedent variables (e.g., goal identification,
subcommittee structure, job-related self-efficacy, etc.) in particular
leads to the conclusion that they cannot be represented within the
common factor space defined by the leadership variables of leader
communication, leader consideration, and leader-initiating structure.
Additionally, the variables of role clarity and role conflict loaded on
this factor. Examination of the intercorrelation of these variables as
presented in Table 5 reveals that role clarity correlates substantially
more highly with the leadership variables of communication,
consideration, and initiating-structure (r = .59, .59, .61, respectively)
than with role conflict (r = —.24). The intercorrelations of role
conflict with the leadership variables of communication,
consideration and initiating-structure were I = -.34, -.32, and -.29.
Because of the factor loadings and relatively impressive
intercorrelations, the items in each of these scales were examined to
determine if they could be combined into a single scale. The items
measuring role conflict are clearly different from those assessing the
leadership variables. Whereas the leadership variables seem
concerned with the leader's specification and clarification of the work
to be done, the role conflict scale seems to be concerned with the
degree to which LEPC members view different projects within the

LEPC as competing with one another in terms of time, effort, and

66

resources. It was decided, therefore, that role conflict would not be
combined with these variables to create a new factor. Inspection of
the role clarity items, on the other hand, revealed that these items
are similar to the leadership variables in that both sets of items are
concerned with the establishment of clear work-related
responsibilities. The major difference between the leadership items
and the role clarity items is that the former assess the leader's
influence in the creation of the latter. It was decided based upon the
similar theme and high intercorrelations that the role clarity scale
and leadership variables would be combined to form a single factor.
These four variables produced a leadership factor with an internal
consistency reliability of .97. The new leadership factor was used in
place of the three separate leader variables and role clarity in all
subsequent analyses. The relatively low intercorrelations between
the remaining antecedent variables suggests that these antecedents
should not be grouped as factors.
ngressign analyses

To test hypothesis 2, tests of significance of the differences
between correlations were performed in order to determine whether
the primary variables among the antecedents were more strongly
related to commitment than were the other antecedent variables.
The strength of the relationship between each of the primary
antecedents (e.g., goal identification, job-related self-efficacy, and
perceived opportunity for reward) and both affective and
continuance commitment was compared with the strength of the

relationships between each of the other antecedent variables (e.g.,

67
community support, evacuation experience, leadership, role
ambiguity, role conflict, and subcommittee structure) and both forms
of commitment. In order to perform these analyses, each of the
predictor variables was corrected for unreliability. The results of
these analyses are reported in Tables 8 (affective commitment) and
9 (continuance commitment). It is clear that perceived opportunity
for reward exhibits a significantly greater relationship with affective
commitment than do any of the non-primary antecedent variables.
The relationship between perceived opportunity for reward and
continuance commitment is also stronger than the relationship
between continuance commitment and any of the non-primary
antecedents, with the exception of the leadership factor. Thus,
hypothesis two is mainly supported for the primary antecedent
'perceived opportunity for reward'.

The relationship between goal identification and affective
commitment was also shown to be significantly greater than between
affective commitment and any of the non-primary antecedents, again
with the exception of leadership. However, none of the comparisons
of the relationship with continuance commitment between goal
identification and the non-primary antecedents reached significance.

In comparisons of the relationship between job-related self-
efficacy and affective commitment with the relationships between
affective commitment and the non—primary antecedents, none of the
comparisons reached significance. The relationship between job-
related self-efficacy and continuance commitment was significantly

greater than three of the five relationships between continuance

68

Table 8
Comparisons of the Relationships Between the Antecedents and
Affective Commitment

 

1mm: r t
Goal Identification .37
vs. Community Support . 14 2.44*
vs. Evacuation Experience .09 4.08*
vs. Leadership .58 -1.77
vs. Role Conflict -.16 2.35*
vs. Subcommittee Struct. .06 3.33*
Job-related Self-Efficacy .23
vs. Community Support .14 0.90
vs. Evacuation Experience .09 1.58
vs. Leadership .58 -3.24*
vs. Role Ambiguity -.10 1.37
vs. Role Conflict -.16 0.72
vs. Subcommittee Struct. .06 1.81
Perceived Opp. for Reward .68
vs. Community Support . 14 7 .74*
vs. Evacuation Experience .09 8.42*
vs. Leadership .58 2.20*
vs. Role Conflict -.16 7.55*
vs. Subcommittee Struct. .06 8.18*

 

r = correlation between antecedent and affective commitment after
correction for unreliability in the antecedent

t = the t statistic of the comparison of the differences between two
correlations, calculated using the procedure by Downie & Heath
(1970)

* indicates significant, p < .05

N = 204

69
Table 9
Comparisons of the Relationships Between the Antecedents and
Continuance Commitment

 

M r t
Goal Identification .10
vs. Community Support .04 0.59
vs. Evacuation Experience .02 0.83
vs. Leadership .18 -0.92
vs. Role Conflict .02 0.83
vs. Subcommittee Struct. .00 1 .00
Job-related Self-Efficacy .22
vs. Community Support .04 1.78
vs. Evacuation Experience .02 2.25*
vs. Leadership .18 0.42
vs. Role Conflict .02 2.04*
vs. Subcommittee Struct. .00 2.33*
Perceived Opp. for Reward .23
vs. Community Support .04 2.04*
vs. Evacuation Experience .02 2.26*
vs. Leadership .18 .79
vs. Role Conflict .02 2.28*
vs. Subcommittee Struct. .00 2.26*

 

r = correlation between antecedent and continuance commitment
after correction for unreliability in the antecedent

t = the t statistic of the comparison of the differences between two
correlations, calculated using the procedure by Downie & Heath
(1970)

* indicates significant, p < .05

N = 204

70
commitment and the non-primary antecedents. Specifically, the job-
related self-efficacy and continuance commitment relationship was
significantly greater than the relationships between continuance
commitment and evacuation experience, role ambiguity, role conflict,
and subcommittee structure.

The calculation of the significance of the differences between
correlations leads one to conclude that hypothesis two received only
partial support. Although the variables hypothesized to be primary
antecedents were significantly more strongly related to both
affective and continuance commitment than were many of the
antecedent variables, the comparisons of these relationships did not
always reach significance. Furthermore, the strength of the
relationship between the leadership factor and commitment was
surprisingly strong. In one case leadership had a stronger
relationship with commitment than the variables hypothesized to be
primary antecedents.

In order to determine which of the antecedents was most
predictive of organizational commitment, regression analyses were
performed. Regressing affective commitment upon the antecedents
using a step-wise procedure, the only four variables to enter the
equation were opportunity for reward, leadership, job-related self-
efficacy, and goal identification. These four variables produced a
multiple R of .71 (F(4,199) = 50.93, p <.01), indicating that together
these 4 variables account for approximately 50% of the variance in
affective commitment. Interestingly, three of these four variables

were indeed hypothesized to be primary antecedents. Only

7 1
leadership, which was the second variable to enter the equation, was
not hypothesized to be a primary antecedent. When continuance
commitment was regressed upon the antecedents, only two variables
entered the equation: perceived opportunity for reward and job-
related self-efficacy. Both of these variables were hypothesized to
be primary antecedents. The resulting multiple R is .27 (F(2,201) =
8.00, p < .01). The standardized regression coefficients for these
analyses are presented in Table 10.

In order to determine whether inclusion of variables
hypothesized to be primary antecedents (e.g., goal identification, job-
related self—efficacy, and perceived opportunity for reward) was
necessary to predict organization commitment accurately, a second
series of regression analyses was performed. First, commitment was
regressed upon all of the non-primary antecedents. In a second step,
the primary antecedents entered the regression equation. If the
change in R was significant for this step, the inclusion of the
variables hypothesized to be primary antecedents would be
necessary to achieve accurate prediction. When affective
commitment was regressed upon the non-primary antecedents, the
resulting multiple R was .59 (F(5,198) = 20.61, p < .01). After the
addition of the primary variables the multiple R rose to .72, (F(8,l95)
= 26.40, p < .01). The change in F was significant, FChg(3,195) =
24.05, p < .05, indicating that inclusion of the primary antecedents
significantly increases predictive accuracy of affective commitment.

This regression analysis is presented in Table 11.

7 2
Table 10

Hypothesis 2: Regression Results

 

 

Dependent Variable:

Predictors

Perc. Opp. for Reward
Leadership Factor
Job-related Self-effic.

Goal Identification

Dependent Variable:

Prir

Affective Commitment

Beta Total R2 Change R2.

.63 .40** .40**
.33 .47** .08**
.15 .50** .02**
.11 .51** .01*

Continuance Commitment

Beta Total R2 Change R2.

 

Perc. Opp. for Reward

Job-related Self-effic.

 

* denotes p < .05
** denotes p < .01

N=204

.21 .04** .04**

.17 .07** .03*

7 3
Table 11

Hypothesis 2: Regression Results

 

 

Dependent Variable:

Meters

Community Support
Evacuation Exp.
Leadership Factor
Role Conflict
Subcommittee Str.

Goal Identification
Job-related Self-effic
Perc. Opp. for Reward

 

* denotes p < .05
** denotes p < .01
N = 204

Affective Commitment

Beta Total R2 Changs R2

.08

.05

.58

-.04

.06
.34**

.11
.15
.40
.52** .18**

7 4
Table 12

Hypothesis 2: Regression Results

 

 

Dependent Variable:

Predictors

Community Support
Evacuation Exp.
Leadership Factor
Role Conflict
Subcommittee Str.

Goal Identification
Job-related Self-effic
Perc. Opp. for Reward

 

* denotes p < .05
** denotes p < .01
N = 204

Continuance Commitment

Beta Total R2 Qhangs R2.

.03

.02

.20

-.09

.00
.04

.01
.18
.13
.09* .05*

75

This procedure was repeated regressing continuance
commitment on the antecedents. Entering only the non-primary
antecedents resulted in a multiple R = .20, (F(5,198) = 1.63, p > .05).
Following the entering of the primary antecedents the multiple R =
.29, (F(8,l95) = 2.32, p < .05). The change in F was significant,
FChg(3,195)=3.38, p < .05. This result indicates that continuance
commtiment is more accurately predicted when the primary
variables are included. This regression analysis is presented in Table
12.

These analyses provide evidence that the variables of goal
identification, job-related self-efficacy, and perceived opportunity
for reward are indeed important predictors of both affective and
continuance commitment. However, other antecedents (in particular,
leadership) also play an important role in the prediction of

organizational commitment.

Aff iv vs n in n e ommitmen

Due to the voluntary nature of Local Emergency Planning
Committees, it was hypothesized that subjects would be more likely
to experience affective than continuance commitment. Evidence
supporting this hypothesis is found in how well the antecedents
predicted the two types of organizational commitment. The multiple
correlation for affective commitment (R = .68) is significantly larger

than the multiple correlation for continuance commitment (R = .27).

76

Hypothesis 4 predicted the relationships between the affective
and continuance components of organizational commitment and the
individual-level outcome measures. Specifically, affective
commitment was expected to be positively related to perceived
effort expended and attendance, but negatively related to turnover
intentions. Continuance commitment was also predicted to be
negatively related to turnover intentions, but uncorrelated with
attendance or perceived effort due to the voluntary nature of LEPCs.
The portion of hypothesis 4 concerning affective organizational
commitment was completely supported. The intercorrelations
between affective commitment and the outcome variables of
turnover, attendance, percentage of attendance, and perceived effort
were -.45, .44, .42, and .59, respectively. All of these were
significant at p < .01. The hypothesized relationship between
turnover and continuance commitment was supported, r = -.17.
Contrary to hypothesis 4, significantly positive relationships were
found between continuance commitment and the other individual-
level outcome variables of attendance, percentage of attendance, and
perceived effort (r = .14, .20. and .33, respectively). Utilizing the
procedure suggested by Downie and Heath (1970), t-tests were used
to compare correlations between the individual outcomes and both
organizational commitment variables, following correction for
unreliability in the commitment variables. The difference between

each of the corresponding correlations was significant. Comparing

77
the disattenuated correlations between each of the commitment
variables and turnover intentions (rAff = -.45; TCont = -.23)
produced t(197) = 3.75, p < .01. Comparing the disattenuated
correlations between each of the commitment variables and
attendance (I'Aff = .47; YCont = .19) produced t(197) = 4.27, p < .01.
Comparing the disattenuated correlation between each of the
commitment variables and the percentage of attendance (rAff = .45;
TCont = .27) produced t(197) = 2.65, p < .01. Finally, comparing the
disattenuated correlations between each of the commitment
variables and perceived effort (rAff = .63; rCont = .45), yielded t(197)
= 3.15, p < .01. Thus, affective commitment more strongly influenced
each of the individual level outcome variables than did continuance
commitment.

The intercorrelations of the individual outcome variables were
examined to determine whether these variables might form a single
scale. Although all intercorrelations for these individual-level
outcome variables were generally high, initial internal consistency
reliability estimates were low due to the inclusion of a single item
assessing the respondents' self-report of the LEPC meetings he or she
attended in the past year. Inspection of the means and standard
deviations of the variables revealed the four scales utilizing a Likert-
type scale (e.g., attendance, perceived effort, and turnover
intentions) to have means around 5.0, with standard deviations near

1.0. This pattern was strongly contrasted by the percentage of

78
attendance variable, which possessed a mean of 83.8, with a
standard deviation of 21.4. The percentage of attendance variable
was therefore standardized using z-scores. The resulting internal
consistency reliability of the factor representing individual level
outcomes was a = .85. It was thought that by combining the
individual-level variables in this manner the factor would more
accurately capture the motivational and attitudinal processes
underlying each of the components of the individual-level outcome
variables. The disattenuated correlation between the individual-
level outcome factor and affective organizational commitment was r
= .64. The disattenuated correlation between the individual-level
outcome factor and continuance commitment was r = .38. These two

correlations were significantly different, t(197) = 4.45, p < .05.

Tasts 9f ths Modal

Hierarchical regression was used to test the proposed
mediating relationship between the antecedents, organizational
commitment, and individual outcomes (hypothesis 5), using the
method suggested by James and Brett (1984). Initially, hypothesis 5
was tested using the individual outcome factor as the dependent
variable. Table 13 provides the results obtained in the test of
hypothesis 5. In the first equation the individual outcome factor was
initially regressed onto the antecedents. This produced a multiple R

= .55 (F(8, 195) = 10.39, p <.01). Next, affective and continuance

79
commitment entered the equation, resulting in a multiple R = .64,
(F(10,l93) = 13.71, p <.01). The change in F was significant,
FChg(2,193) = 19.24, p < .01. The second equation again regresses the
individual outcome factor onto the antecedent and commitment
variables, but this time the order of entry was switched, such that
commitment entered the equation before the antecedents. Affective
and continuance commitment were shown to explain a significant
proportion of variance in individual outcomes, multiple R = .61
(F(2,201) = 59.15, p < .01). Finally, the antecedents were entered into
the equation, producing a multiple R = .64,(F(10,193) = 13.71, p <
.01). However, the F change was not significant, FChg(8,l93) = 1.85,
p > .05. This result, together with the significant prediction of the
commitment variables from the antecedent variables, supports the
assertion that organizational commitment indeed mediates the
relationship between the antecedents and individual outcomes.

In order to combine the individual-level outcome variables into a
single factor, it was assumed that each was governed by the same
psychological processes. However, it is possible that each of the
variables of attendance, turnover intentions, and perceived effort are
distinct behaviors, governed by different psychological processes. If
this were the case, the above test of mediation would be conceptually
meaningless. Therefore, further tests of hypothesis 5 were
conducted by using each of the components of the individual-level

outcome factor as dependent variables. In the first of these

80

Table 13
Hypothesis 5: Hierarchical Regression Results

 

 

Dependent Variable: Individual Outcome Factor

 

P i r Beta Total R2 Chang; R2.
Equation 1
Community Support .03
Evacuation Exp. .04
Goal Identification .17
Job-related Self-effic .22
Leadership Factor .30
Perc. Opp. for Reward .15
Role Conflict .00
Subcommittee Str. .00
.30**
Affective Commitment .46
Continuance Commit. .08
.42** .12**
Equation 2
Affective Commitment .57
Continuance Commit. .10
.37**
Community Support -.01
Evacuation Exp. .04
Goal Identification .12
Job-related Self-effic .14
Leadership Factor .14
Perc. Opp. for Reward -.05
Role Conflict .01
Subcommittee Str. -.03
.42** .04

 

* signifies p < .05
** signifies p < .01
N = 204

81
Table 13 (cont'd)

 

 

 

Dependent Variable: Attendance
ors Beta Total R2 Change R2.
WIRE—1.
Community Support .00
Evacuation Exp. .10
Goal Identification .15
Job-related Self-effic .12
Leadership Factor .27
Perc. Opp. for Reward .04
Role Conflict .11
Subcommittee Str. -.02
.20**
Affective Commitment .32
Continuance Commit. .01
.26** .05**
Equation 2
Affective Commitment .43
Continuance Commit. .01
.19**
Community Support -.03
Evacuation Exp. .10
Goal Identification .12
Job-related Self-effic .07
Leadership Factor .16
Perc. Opp. for Reward -.09
Role Conflict .12
Subcommittee Str. -.04
.26** .06*

 

* signifies p < .05
** signifies p < .01
N = 204

82
Table 13 (cont'd)

 

 

Dependent Variable: Percentage of Attendance

 

BtcdictmL Beta Total R2___Changc_32
Equation 1
Community Support .06
Evacuation Exp. .04
Goal Identification .13
Job-related Self-effic .23
Leadership Factor .17
Perc. Opp. for Reward .03
Role Conflict .06
Subcommittee Str. .03
.15**
Affective Commitment .39
Continuance Commit. .07
.23** .08**
Equation 2
Affective Commitment .39
Continuance Commit. .08
.18**
Community Support .02
Evacuation Exp. .05
Goal Identification .08
Job-related Self-effic .16
Leadership Factor .03
Perc. Opp. for Reward -.14
Role Conflict .07
Subcommittee Str. .00
.23** .05

 

* signifies p < .05
** signifies p < .01
N = 204

83
Table 13 (cont'd)

 

 

Dependent Variable: Perceived Effort

 

Predictors Beta Total R2 Change R;
Equation 1
Community Support .10
Evacuation Exp. .00
Goal Identification .13
Job-related Self-effic .17
Leadership Factor .26
Perc. Opp. for Reward .18
Role Conflict -.17
Subcommittee Str. .02
.24**
Affective Commitment .34
Continuance Commit. .17
.34** .09**
Equation 2
Affective Commitment .45
Continuance Commit. .19
.29**
Community Support .06
Evacuation Exp. .00
Goal Identification .09
Job-related Self-effic .09
Leadership Factor .13
Perc. Opp. for Reward .02
Role Conflict -.l6
Subcommittee Str. .00
.34** .04

 

* signifies p < .05
** signifies p < .01
N = 204

 

84
Table 13 (cont'd)

 

 

Dependent Variable:

Predictors
Equation 1

Community Support
Evacuation Exp.

Goal Identification
Job-related Self-effic
Leadership Factor
Perc. Opp. for Reward
Role Conflict
Subcommittee Str.

Affective Commitment
Continuance Commit.

Equation 2

Affective Commitment
Continuance Commit.

Community Support
Evacuation Exp.

Goal Identification
Job-related Self-effic
Leadership Factor
Perc. Opp. for Reward
Role Conflict
Subcommittee Str.

 

* signifies p < .05
** signifies p < .01
N = 204

Turnover Intentions

Beta Total R2 Changs 3.2..

-.03
-.01
.12
.21
.18
.13
.04
.00
.l7**

.39
.02
.24**

.44
.04
.20**

.07

.15

.05

-.03

.04

-.04
.24**

 

.07**

.04

85
subsequent analyses the percentage of attendance variable was used
as the dependent variable. In the first equation each of the
antecedent variables entered the equation, producing an R = .38
(F(8,l95) = 4.18, p < .01). The commitment variables then entered
the equation, producing an R of .48 (F(10,193) = 5.79, p < .01). The
change in F was significant, FChg(2,193) = 10.59, p < .01. In the
second equation the order in which these independent variables
entered the equation was switched. Entering the commitment
variables into the equation predicting percentage of attendance yield
an R = .43 (F(2,201) = 22.44, p < .01). After the addition of the
antecedent variables the multiple R rose slightly to .48 (F(10,193) =
5.79, p < .05). The F change was not significant, FChg(8,l93) = 1.51, p
< .05.

Hypothesis 5 was next tested using the attendance scale as the
dependent variable. In the first equation each of the antecedent
variables entered the equation, producing an R = .45 (F(8,l95) = 6.27,
p < .01). The commitment variables then entered the equation,
producing an R of .51 (F(10,193) = 6.64, p < .01). The change in F was
significant, FChg(2,l93) = 6.66, p < .01. In the second equation the
order in which these independent variables entered the equation
was switched. Entering the commitment variables into the equation
predicting percentage of attendance yield an R = .44 (F(2,201) =
23.75, p < .01). After the addition of the antecedent variables the

multiple R rose slightly to .51 (F(10,193) = 6.64, p < .05). The F
change was significant, FChg(8,193) = 2.10, p > .05.

86

Hypothesis 5 was next tested using turnover intentions as the
dependent variable. In the first equation each of the antecedent
variables entered the equation, producing an R = .41 (F(8,l95) = 4.89,
p < .01). The commitment variables then entered the equation,
producing an R of .49 (F(10,193) = 6.11, p < .01). The change in F was
significant, FChg(2,193) = 9.35, p < .01. In the second equation the
order in which these independent variables entered the equation
was switched. Entering the commitment variables into the equation
predicting percentage of attendance yield an R = .45 (F(2,201) =
25.89, p < .01). After the addition of the antecedent variables the
multiple R rose slightly to .49 (F(10,193) = 6.11, p < .05). The F
change was not significant, FChg(8,l93) = 1.14, p > .05.

Finally, the last of the individual-level outcome variables
(perceived effort) was used as a dependent variable to test the
mediating relationship. In the first equation each of the antecedent
variables entered the equation, producing an R = .49 (F(8,l93) = 7.82,
p < .01). The commitment variables then entered the equation,
producing an R of .58 (F(10,193) = 9.82, p < .01). The change in F was
significant, FChg(2,l93) = 13.76, p < .01. In the second equation the
order in which these independent variables entered the equation
was switched. Entering the commitment variables into the equation
predicting percentage of attendance yield an R = .54 (F(2,201) =
41.78, p < .01). After the addition of the antecedent variables the

multiple R rose slightly to .58 (F(10,193) = 9.82, p < .05). The F
change was not significant, FChg(8,193) = 1.59, p < .05.

87

In summary, the above analyses using the individual-level
outcome variables of attendance, turnover intentions and perceived
effort consistently provide support for the assertion in hypothesis 5
that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between
the antecedents and the individual-level outcomes. This same
conclusion can be reached using just the individual-level outcome
factor. Although the size of the multiple R for the relationship
between the antecedents, commitment, and individual-level outcome
factor of .64 is slightly larger than the R for the relationship between
antecedents, commitment and actual individual-level outcome
variables (R around .50), this probably resulted from the increased
stability of the underlying factor when attendance, turnover
intentions, and perceived effort were combined. If a single
psychological process does underlie each of the variables of
attendance, turnover intentions and perceived effort, then the
composite factor would be expected to have greater stability than
any of the individual components.

Hypothesis 6 examines the relationship between organizational
commitment, individual-level outcomes, and group-level outcomes.
In order to test this hypothesis cross-level hierarchical regression
analyses were planned. However, in order to support a mediating
relationship between several variables, the variables themselves
must be related. Examination of the intercorrelations between the
group-level outcomes and organizational commitment variables
found in Table 5 reveals only very slight correlations, generally in

the range of r = .05 to r = .10. The correlation between the

88
individual-level and group-level outcome is even lower, around an r
= .04. Given these correlations, it is obvious that hypothesis 6 did not

receive empirical support.

Discussion

This study examined antecedents to and consequences of
organizational commitment in organizations composed of volunteer
members. Additionally, the study assessed the appropriateness of a
proposed re-categorization of the antecedents of organizational
commitment. The results provide evidence for the generalization of
findings from organizational commitment research in traditional
work-related settings to voluntary organizations, although the
volunteer nature of membership in the present study did contribute
to some unique findings. Not all of the proposed hypotheses were
empirically supported. In the next section the major findings of the
present study will be discussed. The theoretical and practical
implications of these findings will then be considered, along with the
limitations of the present study. Finally, further research directions
will be explored.

R ls

Steers (1977) suggested a classification of the antecedents to
organizational commitment based upon the component of the work
environment they are believed to affect. These three work
components are, in decreasing proximity to an employee, -- person,
job, and work variables. Although Steers (1977) provides a useful
organization of the antecedents, his categorization fails to consider
the theoretical connections between the antecedents within a
category. Noting the lack of theoretical organization of the proposed

antecedents of organizational commitment, an attempt was made to

89

90

provide a theoretical framework for these antecedents. The
proposed re-categorization of the antecedent variables considered
possible reasons why each antecedent might affect organizational
commitment. Variables having common theoretical attachments to
organizational commitment were then grouped together, producing
three new categories. These three antecedent categories were
labelled perceived opportunity for reward, job-related self-efficacy,
and identification with organizational goals. Examination of the
factor structure of the antecedents provided no evidence in support
of this proposed re-categorization of the antecedents of
organizational commitment. Indeed, factor analysis suggested that
only those antecedents which assessed leadership variables (i.e.,
leader communication, consideration, and initiating-structure) and
role clarity should be combined into a single factor. Empirical
evidence suggested the remaining antecedent variables are distinct
factors. Thus, the proposed re-categorization of antecedents to
organizational commitment failed due to lack of empirical support for
the notion of similarities in underlying theoretical attachments.

The finding that the antecedents are generally uncorrelated casts
doubt on the success of any future re-categorization efforts based
upon theoretical similarities of the relationship between the
antecedents and commitment. Perhaps, then, the contribution of
Steers (1977) in the classification of antecedents to organizational
commitment according to three aspects of the work environment
should be retained. The present study suggests the supposed

weakness of Steers' classification is not easily overcome. Whether

91

the typology proposed here is incorrect, or simply does not apply to
volunteer organizations cannot be determined. Further research is
needed to determine if the typology presented in the present study,
or other classifications based upon theoretical similarities of the
antecedents, work with other organizations. In the interim, Steers'
simplistic classification remains a defensible categorization.

Although previous research has indicated that organizational
commitment is a multi-dimensional construct (e.g, Vandenberg and
Seo, 1991; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Meyer and Allen, 1984), it
was hypothesized that organizational commitment in a voluntary
organization would be better viewed as unidimensional. Meyer and
Allen (1984) propose that organizational commitment can be
described according to one's accumulation of investments (e.g.,
salary, benefits) that would be lost if an individual were to leave an
organization (continuance commitment) and one's emotional
orientation to the organization (affective commitment). Volunteers
are unlikely to experience continuance commitment since they are
unlikely to accumulate many investments within a voluntary
organization. The present study partially supports this hypothesis.
The low coefficient alpha reliability estimate for the continuance
commitment scale indicates that subjects had difficulty responding in
a consistent fashion to these items. Additionally, although the
antecedent variables explained 46% of the variance of affective
commitment, these same variables account for only 7% of the
variance in continuance commitment. However, it is important to

note the antecedents do account for a statistically significant amount

92

of variance in continuance commitment, indicating continuance
commitment does exist, even in voluntary organizations. Even after
corrections for unreliability, the prediction of individual outcome
variables (e.g., attendance, perceived effort, and turnover intentions)
was more accurate using affective than continuance commitment. It
is clear that affective commitment is a more useful construct than
continuance commitment for members of voluntary organizations.

In their meta-analysis of the organizational commitment
literature Mathieu and Zajac (1991) found that job challenge and
scope, leadership variables, perceived personal competence, and role
variables (conflict, ambiguity, overload) were the antecedents most
highly related to organizational commitment. In the present study
two of these variables were found to relate highly to affective
commitment: job-related self-efficacy (r = .43) and the leadership
factor (r = .57), suggesting the findings of previous studies may be
generalizable to voluntary organizations. (Note that the leadership
factor includes a role variable, clarity, which correlated .58 with
affective commitment). The voluntary nature of LEPC membership
may be reflected in the high correlations between affective
commitment with the perceived opportunity for reward (r: .64) and
identification with organizational goals (r = .33). Continuance
commitment in Local Emergency Planning Committees was shown to
be most highly related to job-related self—efficacy and opportunity
for reward. Perhaps organizational commitment in voluntary
organizations is in part dependent upon the volunteer's belief that

their efforts are worthwhile in terms of personal rewards, and in

93
part dependent upon their beliefs in the importance of their
contribution to society. Personal rewards can be achieved through
intrinsic rewards (i.e., perceived opportunity for reward) or extrinsic
rewards which can in part be obtained by a leader who provides
encouragement and praise. Volunteers' beliefs that their
contributions are significant can be determined by perceptions of
both ability to contribute (i.e., self-efficacy) and the worthiness of
making a contribution (i.e., goal identification). The impact of the
leader is clearly important in the establishment of affective
commitment in voluntary organizations. Leaders that are
considerate, good communicators, and provide adequate structure
are likely to provide volunteers not only with a clear sense of both
the own responsibilities and the goals of the organization, but a
strong sense of the significance of their own personal contribution as
well.

Previous research has indicated significant relationships exist
between the antecedent variables and organizational commitment,
and between organizational commitment and the individual outcome
variables of attendance, effort, and turnover intentions (e.g., Mathieu
and Zajac, 1991). The model in Figure 1 hypothesized organizational
commitment mediates the relationship between the antecedents and
individual outcome variables in voluntary organizations. This part of
the model received empirical validation.

The model in Figure 1 further asserts the individual outcome
variables will mediate the relationship between organizational

commitment and group performance. This part of the model was not

94
supported by the data. Indeed, the group performance variables
measured by the LEPC chair's rating of the quantity and quality of
work accomplished by the LEPC, total amount of hours worked, and
an objective measure of performance assessed by submission of
emergency response plans to the State Emergency Response
Commission failed to show significant correlations with any of the
individual outcome variables or commitment variables. Thus, no
evidence was gathered supporting the proposition that organizational
commitment either directly, or indirectly through its impact on
individual outcome variables, influences group outcomes. The
finding that individual outcomes are unrelated to group outcomes is
especially surprising. Logically, one would expect that an
individual’s increased attendance, reduced turnover intentions, and
increased effort would increase the achievement of group outcomes
in a organization. One possible explanation for the non-significant
relationship between individual and group outcomes is the cross—
level nature of this analysis. Outcomes pertaining to an individual
were correlated with performance outcomes pertaining to the entire
group. Although we might expect an individual's increased
attendance, effort, and decreased turnover intentions to increase
group performance, the individual's contribution to the group is
limited by contributions of other group members. Thus, attendance,
turnover intentions, and perceived effort of the group are more
likely to be related to group performance outcomes. Eight members
of each LEPC were sent questionnaires in the present study. The

number of actual respondents from each LEPC was considerably less

95
(n < 3). Thus, low response rates made it very difficult to aggregate
individual performance to the group-level, and then examine the
relationships of group attendance, turnover intentions and effort
with group performance outcomes. Such an analysis, if attempted in
the present study, would have so little power as to virtuallt preclude
the possibility of achieving any significant findings. Further research
is warranted to examine the relationships between "average"
commitment in the organization, aggregated attendance, turnover,
and effort measures, and group performance.

The model depicted in Figure 1 represents a logical extension of
the organizational commitment literature. However, organizational
commitment is inherently an individual level variable. Although the
present study and others have shown that individual level outcomes
such as turnover intentions and perceived effort are clearly
empirically linked to organizational commitment, much less positive
findings are consistently found when organizational commitment is
related to group outcomes. Perhaps a more complex model which
accurately portrays group processes is necessary to explain how an
individual's commitment to an organization impacts upon group
performance. Many models of team performance currently exist
(e.g., Hackman, 1983; Gersick, 1988; Morgan et. al., 1986). Recently,
Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum (1992) proposed an
integration of several popular models of team performance.
Adapting an input-throughput-output perspective, this model posits
that individual characteristics such as motivations and attitudes

(including variables such as organizational commitment) interact

96
with work characteristics (e.g., norms, work structure,
communication structure), team characteristics (e.g., member
homogeneity, cohesiveness), and task characteristics (e.g., task
complexity, task type) to affect team processes such as coordination,
communication and teamwork skills. These team processes, in turn,
influence team performance. Additionally, the Salas et. a1. model
hypothesizes a dynamic feedback relationship between output and
input constructs, suggesting that changes in team performance could
change the level of individual commitment. Furthermore,
organizational and situational characteristics such as availability of
resources and application of reward systems are posited to exert an
influence on each of the above processes. The Salas et. al. (1992)
model leads to several recommendations for the researcher who
hopes to relate organizational commitment with group or team
performance. Specifically, researchers cannot examine the
relationship between individuals' affective states in isolation and
group performance and expect significant correlations. Rather, many
factors pertaining to the team and environment in which the team is
embedded need to be considered. Measures of group performance
such as communication, coordination, and cooperation should be
included in future studies in order to examine empirically the model
proposed by Salas et. a]. (1992). The leader's role in establishing the
structure, communication and climate of a voluntary organization
may be particularly fruitful. The findings of the present study
suggest supervisors within a voluntary organization play a pivotal

role in how members view their long-term commitment to the

97

organization. Clearly, the relationship between team performance
and individual-level variables such as commitment is not as simple
as research has hypothesized it to be. By adapting a broader
perspective such as that proposed by the team effectiveness
literature, future research on organizational commitment need not be
limited to only individual level outcomes.
Theoretical Implisatigns

Past research has too often looked at either the antecedents of
commitment, or the outcomes, but not both concurrently (e.g.,
Dornstein & Matalon, 1989; Meyer et al., 1989; Rusbult & Farrell,
1983). The present study examined a testable model of the
relationships between antecedent variables, organizational
commitment, individual-, and group-level outcomes. Data collected
from the voluntary organizations used in this study support the
hypothesis concerning the mediation of organizational commitment
between antecedents and individual-level outcome variables.
Although this may seem an intuitive finding, it is a useful conceptual
addition to the organizational commitment literature. The data fails
to support two components of the model, however. Specifically, the
data supported neither the proposed classification of antecedents nor
the hypothesized mediating relationship between organizational
commitment, individual-level outcome variables, and group-level
outcome variables. Figure 2 presents a new model of organizational
commitment based upon the findings in the present study. The
antecedents used in this revised model continue to be categorized

according to Steers' (1977) classification based upon work context.

98
The new model reflects the direct effect of the antecedents upon
attendance, turnover intentions, and perceived effort. Although
group outcomes are included in Figure 2, based on the results of the
present study as well as the literature on team effectiveness, no
direct paths are indicated between these variables and commitment
or individual-level outcomes.

Industrial/organizational psychological research examining the
influences on performance in voluntary organizations is sparse. The
present study examined whether past research on organizational
commitment would generalize to voluntary organizations. The
answer to this question is a qualified "yes". Several of the findings in
the present study of voluntary organizations replicate previous
findings in traditional work organizations. For example, antecedents
which have been shown to have a strong relationship to commitment
in past research have a strong relationship in this study and
commitment was shown to relate to individual-level outcome
variables. However, the distinctiveness of voluntary organizations is
demonstrated by an examination of the findings regarding the
organizational commitment construct. All recent commitment
research has examined two components of commitment -- affective
and continuance commitment. As expected, volunteers in the
present study were more influenced by affective than continuance
commitment. However, continuance commitment was significantly

predicted by job-related self-efficacy and opportunities for reward.

99

Figure 2

The Revised Model

 

 

LEPC Performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived Effort Expanded
Organizational
Commi tment ’- lnte ntions to Turnover
Affective Continuance Attendance
Person Job Work

 

 

Goal Identification

 

Leadership Variables

Role Ambiguity

Role Conflict

Community Support
Evacuation Experience

Job-related Self-
Efficacg

Subcommittee Struct. Perceived Opportunity

 

for Reward

 

 

100

The opportunities for reward scale was mainly composed of items
assessing intrinsic rewards (e.g., "You will feel better about yourself
as a person"). Thus, in the present study it seems that continuance
commitment resulted from the belief that one could adequately
perform the volunteer tasks combined with perceptions of intrinsic
reward as a result of performance. This is in contrast to the
traditional conception of continuance commitment, which is viewed
as the result of extrinsic motivation to remain in the organization.
Future research examining continuance commitment should
emphasize intrinsic rewards as well as extrinsic motivations.
Practisal Implications

Voluntary organizations face a constant struggle in their attempt
to recruit new and maintain current members. The present study
suggests volunteers who are committed to their organization have
increased attendance and decreased turnover intentions. These
highly committed volunteers further report exerting greater effort
on behalf of the organization. The present study suggests several
steps a voluntary organization might take to positively influence the
commitment of its members. First, the organization should help
stimulate intrinsic rewards by promoting the benefits of
membership. The opportunity to learn new things, the opportunity
to interact with people of similar interests, and feeling better about
oneself are all rewards that can be gained through voluntarism
which might be emphasized to members. The organization should
also attempt to increase motivation through the promotion of public

recognition for its employees. A clear statement of organizational

101
goals may be useful in stimulating volunteers' identification with
organizational objectives, which in turn may increase commitment.
How is the organization supposed to communicate all of this to its
volunteer members? The present study suggests the type of
leadership within the organization is a key component of the
promotion of organizational commitment. The data showed
leadership which incorporates a high degree of communication,

coordination, and initiating-structure is positively related to

3 AM“ 1""‘"..

organizational commitment. The leader, or immediate supervisor,

 

within an organization may be the best person to provide the type of
environment (high in communication, consideration, and clear
structure) necessary to facilitate an identification of organizational
goals and perceptions of the available of personal rewards. Finally, a
voluntary organization which hopes to promote commitment among
its volunteers should consider the significant positive relationship
between job-related self-efficacy and commitment. In order to
promote self-efficacy the organization could either choose to classify
volunteers into jobs for which they are best suited, or train
volunteers to perform jobs which are most needed. Both strategies
are likely to increase self-perceptions of competence in the
individuals who perform the jobs, and thus increase organizational
commitment.
Study Limitations

Consideration of several limitations of the present study is
warranted. First, although the present study sought to examine the

generalizability of the organizational commitment literature to

102
voluntary organizations, the volunteer organizations used in the
present study were all of a single type: Local Emergency Planning
Committees. Stronger arguments for the generalizability of the
present results could be made if members of several types of
volunteer organizations (e.g., American Red Cross, United Way, crisis
hotlines, etc.) were utilized. A further limitation of this sample is
that Local Emergency Planning Committees are volunteer
organizations in a special sense. In 1986 passage of SARA Title III
by the United States Congress required chemical emergency planning
by all communities. Communities nationwide responded by forming
LEPCs, which are generally composed of local officials and other
professionals in the community. These volunteers are likely to be
very different from members of other volunteer organizations.
Indeed, since many of the LEPC members are themselves
professionals, they are likely to be more demographically similar to
the individuals examined in traditional work organizations than to
typical members of volunteer organizations.

A second possible limitation of the present study concerns the
respondents themselves. Although respondents were similar to non-
respondents on demographic characteristics, there was a slight
overrepresentation of members from successful LEPCs. To the
degree that members from successful LEPCs are unrepresentative of
the "average" LEPC member, the results of the present study may be
questioned.

Since many of the variables used in the present study were

measured by subjects' responses to items on Likert-type scales, the

103

potential influence of method variance should also be considered as a
possible limitation. Method variance can bias results by artificially
inflating the observed correlations between variables. Kozlowski and
Doherty (1989) suggested that examination of variable
intercorrelations would be helpful in determining whether method
variance due to common source and format similarity is problematic
in a particular study. If variables which are theoretically dissimilar
correlate highly, evidence of method variance exists. Examination of
the intercorrelation matrix in Table 5 indicates that conceptually
distinct variables are not highly correlated. Indeed, in several cases
variables which were hypothesized to be theoretically related are
modestly correlated at best! Kozlowski and Doherty (1989) further
assert that in order to demonstrate independence among conceptual
domains, scales can be submitted to a principal-axis factor analysis.
If method variance is problematic, this analysis would yield a single
global factor. As demonstrated by the test of Hypothesis 1, the
variables in the present study do not form a single factor. Although
method variance cannot be completely ruled out as a possible
explanation for the obtained results, these analyses suggest that
method variance is not a likely explanation for the results in the
present study.
Fntnrs Rssearch Dirsctions

Sample limitations in the present study precluded a resolution of
several interesting questions. Future research which includes a
larger sample of individuals from each organization would enable an

examination of the influence of aggregated commitment, attendance,

104
turnover, and effort on group outcomes. This would perhaps provide
a better test of the mediating relationship as presented in Hypothesis
6 than the cross-level analysis performed here. As noted above,
future research examining the generalizability of the findings of this
study should include members from diverse volunteer organizations.

Randall (1988) found that possession of a career job was
detrimental to one's organizational commitment in a second job. The
possibility that this may be true for organizational commitment to a
voluntary organization could not be properly assessed in the present
study since nearly all respondents (91%) possessed full-time jobs.
Interestingly, LEPCs, as well as other volunteer organizations,
deliberately draw their staff from other organizations in order to
acquire needed knowledge and skills. Is it better to have volunteer
members who hold an outside job or who are not job-holders?
Volunteers with full-time jobs may bring needed knowledges and
skills to the voluntary organization, while members without full-time
jobs may be able to commit greater energy and provide increased
flexibility on behalf of the organization. Further research examining
whether differences exist between the affective commitment and
performance of job holding and non-job holding volunteers could be
enlightening.

Further research examining the conceptual and measurement
characteristics of continuance commitment is also suggested by the
present study. Although past research has viewed continuance
commitment as resulting from any personal investments which can

lead to a threat of loss if an individual were to leave the organization,

105
the measurement of continuance commitment has focussed on
external rewards: salary, medical benefits, seniority, etc. The results
of the present study suggest continuance commitment is also
strongly influenced by the intrinsic rewards which can be gained
from organizational membership.

The present study serves as a reminder that the domain of
Industrial/Organizational Psychology is not limited to traditional
work organizations. The findings suggest that although much of the
literature on traditional work organizations may generalize to
volunteer organizations, the study of these organizations produces
some unique findings as well. Industrial/Organizational
psychologists should actively pursue the investigation of factors
which influence the effectiveness of voluntary organizations. Topics
of research which might be particularly well-suited for the
investigation of differences between traditional work organizations
and voluntary organizations include motivation, climate, and

individual difference variables.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human

needs. Organizationalacbami andHumanRarformanceA. 142-
175.

Angle, H. & Perry, J. (1981). An empirical assessment of
organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness.
A ministr tiv i nce uarterl ,;6_, 1-13.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. PsyehologiealReview,8_4_(2), 191-215.

 

Barrick, M., & Alexander, R. (1987). A review of quality circle
efficacy and the existence of positive-finding bias. Persennel

Psyehelogx, 4_Q, 579-592.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment.
Am ri n Jo rn l f ociolo ,§_6_, 32-42.

Bruning, N., & Snyder, R. (1983). Sex and position as predictors of

organizational commitment. Aeademy of Management leurnal,
2Q, 485-491.

Caldwell, D., Chatman, J., & O'Reilly, C. (1989). Building
onganizational eemmitment; A multi-firm study. Unpublished

manuscript.

 

Cohen, J. & Cohen, C. (1983). Applied Multiple
R r ion rrl i n An I sis f r h B havioral i nces.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Cook, J., Hepworth, 8., Wall, T., & Warr, P. (1981). The Experienee ef

werk; A eempendium and review ef 249 measures and therr
use. New York: Academic Press.

106

107
Dornstein, M., & Matalon, Y. (1989). A comprehensive analysis of
the predictors of organizational commitment: A study of
voluntary army personnel in Israel. Journal o_fVoeational

Behavier, M, 192-203.

Downie, N. & Heath, R. (1970). Basie Statistieal Metheds. New York:
Harper and Row.

Drabek, T. E. (1986). Human system response to disaster: An
inventery ef socielegieal findings, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Towards a

new model of group development. Academy of Management
Review,3l -41.

Hackman, J. (1983). A normative medel ef team effeetiveness (Tech.
Rep. No. 2). New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Hertel, B. (1976). Minimizing error variance introduced by missing
data routines in survey analysis. Sociological Methods &
Researeh, a, 459-474.

James, L. & Brett, J. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for

mediation. Jeurnal ef Applied Psyehology,6_9_, 307-321.

James, L., & Sells, S. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical
perspectives and empirical research. In D. Magnusson (Ed.).

T w r a s chol of situations: An interac ional ers ec ive.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jones, G. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomer's

adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Jeurnal,
p. 262-279.

Jones, A., & James, L. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and
relationships of individual and aggregated work environment

perceptions. r niz ional Behavior and Human Performance,
23, 201-250.

Joreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. (1985). LISREL; Analysis of linear
structural relatienships by the method ef maximum likeliheed.

Chicago: National Education Resources.

 

108

Kartez, J., & Lindell, M. (1987). Planning for uncertainty: The case

of local disaster planning. American Planning Asseciatien
Jeurnal, L3, 487-498.

Kartez, J., & Lindell, M. (1990). Adaptive planning for community
disaster response. In R. Sylves and W. Waugh, Jr. (Eds.) Cities
and Disaster: North American Studies i_n_ Emergency
Management. Springfield, 11: Charles C. Thomas.

 

 

 

Katz, D. The motivational basis or organizational behavior.

Beuayieral Seienee,9_, 131-133.

Kozlowski, S. & Doherty, M. (1989). Integration of climate and
leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Jeurnal Qt: Applied
Psyehology, 73, 546-553.

Lawler, E. & Camman, C. (1980). Organizatt'enal assessment;
Berspeetives n h r m n r niz ion i
the quality of wetk life. New York: Wiley

Ledford, G., Lawler, E., III, & Mohrman, S. (1988). The quality circle
and its variations. In J. P. Campbell, J. R. Campbell, and
Associates, Preductivity in organizations: New perspectives frem

industrial and erganizational psychology, p 293-327. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, T. & Mowday, R. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization:
An empirical investigation of Steer's and Mowday's model of

turnover. Aeademy ef Management Jeurnal,1Q, 721-743.

Lindell, M. & Meier, M. (in press). Effectiveness of community
planning for toxic chemical emergencies. Journal of the

American Planning Association.

Lindell, M. & Perry, R. (1992). Behavieral foundations of
community emergency planning. Washington DC: Hemisphere
Press.

 

109
Lindell, M. & Whitney, D. (in press). Effects of organizational
environment, internal structure and team climate on the
effectiveness of Local Emergency Planning Committees. Risk

Analysis.

Mahoney, J., & Pechura, C. (1980). Values and volunteers: Axiology

of altruism in a crisis center. Psycholegical Reports, fl, 1007-
1012.

Major, D. (1990). Diffrnil ff 5 f in r ion on n

proaction on organizational socialization outcomes. Unpublished
master's thesis. Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI.

Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational
commitment. Psyehologieal Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.

McFarlane-Shore, L. & Martin, H. (1989). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment in relation to work performance and
turnover intentions. Human Relations, 912(7), 625-638.

McFarlane-Shore, L., Newton, L., & Thornton 111, G. (1990). Job and
organizational attitudes in relation to employee behavioral
intentions. n l f r nizat' l B h vi r, _1_1_, 57-67.

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the "side bet theory" of
organizational commitment: Some methodological
considerations. Jeurnal o_f Applied Psyehologi. $6), 372-378.

Meyer, J., Paunonen, S., Gellatly, I., Goffin, R., & Jackson, D. (1989).
Organizational Commitment and Job performance: It's the nature

of the commitment that counts. Journal o_prplied Psyeholegy,
14(1), 152-156.

 

Morgan, B., Jr., Glickman, A., Woodard, E., Blaiwes, A., & Salas, E.

(1986). Measurement of team behaviors in LNavy envirenment
(Tech. Rep. No. NTSC TR-86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training

Systems Center.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 14.
224-247.

110

Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-erganizatienal
linkages. New York: Academic Press.

National Response Team (1987). Hazardeus Materials Emergeney
Planning Guide. Washington, D.C.: Author.

O'Reilly III, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment
and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance,
identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Jeurnal

pf Applied Psyehelegy. ]_1(3), 492-499.

Parasuraman, S., & Nachman, S. (1987). Correlates of organizational
and professional commitment. Group & Organization Studies,
Q6), 287-303.

Pearce, J. (1983). Job attitude and motivation differences between
volunteers and employees from comparable organizations.

Jeurnal of Applied Psyehology,_6_8_, 646-652.

Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology,5_9(5), 603-609.

Randall, D. (1988). Multiple roles and organizational commitment.
Jeurnal _o_f Organizatienal Behavior, 2, 309-317.

Ritzer, G. & Trice, H. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker's
side-bet theory. SneialEerees,_1_6_, 172-186.

Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity

in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, L5,
150-163.

Rusbult, C., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the
investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job
commitment, and turnover variations in rewards, costs,

alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68(3), 429-438. .

111

Salas, E., Dickinson, T., Converse, S., & Tannenbaum, S. (1992).
Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In
R.W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their ainin an
performance, (p. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.

Schriesheim, C., & Von Glinow, M. (1977). The path-goal theory of
leadership: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Academy ef

Management Jeutna1,2fl, 398-405.

Spector, P. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 22(3), 438-443.

Steers, R. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational

commitment. Administrative Seienee Quarterly, 2;, 46-56.

Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1987). The nature of motivation. In R. Steers

and L. Porter (Eds.). Metivation and Work Behavier (4th Ed).
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stogdill, R. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire - Form XII: An experimental revision. Bureau of

Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Szilagyi, A., & Keller, R. (1976). A comparative investigation of the
Supervisor Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ) and the
revised Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ -

Form XII). Aeademy of Management Journal, 19, 642-649.

Szilagyi, A., Sims, H., & Keller, R. (1976). Role dynamics, locus of
control, and employee attitudes and behavior. Aeademy of

Management Journal,fl, 259-276.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988). Review ef Emergeney
stems: R or 0 Con ress. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Valenzi, E., & Dessler, G. (1978). Relationships of leader behavior,
subordinate role ambiguity and subordinate job satisfaction.

Academy of Management Journal, 2_l, 671-678.

112

Vandenberg, R., & Seo, J. (1991, April). A eemparisen ef the
internalizatien and eempliance seales with the erganizational

eemtnttment guestiennaire. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St.

Louis, MO.

APPENDIX A

Scales Used in the Study

1 l 3
APPENDIX A

Q 'I I I! . I I
Affective Commitment
Directions: Indicate your level of agreement to each of the following statements

concerning your LEPC. Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use
the following scale:

I do not feel ”emotionally attached" to this LEPC.
This LEPC has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
I feel a strong sense of belonging to my LEPC. ., .
I do not feel like "part of the family" at this LEPC. 3';
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career at this LEPC.
I enjoy discussing my LEPC with people outside it.
I really feel as if this LEPC's problems are my own.
I think I could easily become as attached to another (volunteer) organization as

l am to this LEPC.
Continuance Commitment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "‘
Strongly Strongly :
Disagree Agree g

Directions: Indicate your level of agreement to each of the following statements
concerning your LEPC. Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use
the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

Right now, staying with my LEPC is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
It would be very hard for me to leave my LEPC right now, even if I wanted to.
Too much in my life would be disrupted if i left my LEPC now.

It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my LEPC in the near future.

114
AntecedenLlaflaLIea

Goal Identification

Directions: Indicate your level of agreement to each of the following statements
concerning your LEPC. Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use
the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

Emergency planning is useless because circumstances during an actual
emergency are likely to be different from what has been planned for.

My community is highly vulnerable to toxic chemical hazards.

My community is likely to have a major fixed site toxic chemical release in the
next 5 years.

My community is likely to have a major transportation-related toxic chemical
release in the next 5 years.

Emergency planning would definitely limit damage to life and property in the
event of an actual chemical emergency.

Emergency planning requires more time and money than is worthwhile.

Chemical disasters can be handled effectively if the community develops
emergency response plans.

Training through emergency drills and exercises is unlikely to have much
impact during an actual disaster.

The biggest reason for having an LEPC in my community is because it is
required by federal law.

Emergency planning is really not necessary considering the small likelihood of
a chemical emergency in my community.

If all communities in the US had emergency preparedness plans chemical
emergencies would cause much less damage in this country.

Hazardous chemicals pose a real threat to most communities in this country.

1 1 5
Job-related Self-efficacy

Directions: Indicate your level of agreement to each of the following statements
concerning your LEPC. Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use
the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

My role in the LEPC is well within the scope of my abilities.
I have not had problems in adjusting to work in this LEPC.
| feel I am overqualified for the work I am doing on the LEPC.

In"

I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal'with my LEPC work, all I need
now is practical experience.

I feel confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my
colleagues on the LEPC.

 

My past experiences and accomplishments increase my confidence that I will be
able to perform successfully in this LEPC.
I could handle a more challenging role than the one I am doing on the LEPC.

Professionally speaking, my role in the LEPC exactly satisfies my expectations
of myself.

My educational background has provided me with the confidence that I can
perform my LEPC tasks.

__ Skills developed throughout my career have adequately prepared me for my
role in the LEPC.

LEPC training has given me the assurance that I can accomplish my work goals
in the LEPC.

Leader Communication

Directions: For each of the following, consider the W. Record all
answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all To a very
great extent

To what extent do individuals usually trust statements made by the chairman of
your LEPC?

To what extent is the chairman willing to listen to your problems?

l 1 6
Leader Communication cont'd
__ To what extent is the chairman eager to recognize and to reward good
performance?
To what extent is the chairman friendly and easy to approach?

To what extent does the chairman provide timely information?

To what extent does the chairman provide accurate answers to your questions?

Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Practically never Almost Always
How often does the chairman pay attention to what you say?
To what extent does the chairman promote good communication with the
members of the LEPC?
When you talk with the chairman, to what extent does (s)he pay attention

to what you're saying?
Leader Consideration

Directions: To what degree does each of the following statements describe the ehaiunan

W? Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use the
following scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Never Always

ls friendly and approachable.

Does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the LEPC.
Puts suggestions made by LEPC members into operation.

Treats all LEPC members as his or her equals.
Gives advance notice of changes.

Keeps to himself or herself.

Looks out for the personal welfare of LEPC members.

ls willing to make changes.

Refuses to explain his or her action.

Acts without consulting the other LEPC members.

1 17
Leader-initiating Structure

Directions: Rate the degree to which the W does each of the

following. Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use the
following scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Never Always

Lets group members know what is expected of them.

Encourages the use of uniform procedures.

Tries out his or her ideas in the group.

Makes his or her attitudes clear to the group.

Decides what shall be done and how it will be done.

Assigns group members to particular tasks.

Makes sure that his or her part in the LEPC is understood by members.
Schedules the work to be done.

Maintains definite standards of performance.
Asks that LEPC members follow standard rules and regulations.

Perceived Opportunity for Reward

Directions: For each of the following, consider how likely this outcome will result due to
your participation as a member of your Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC).
Record all answers in the blank next to each statement. Use the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Extremely
Likely Likely

You will feel better about yourself as a person.

You will have an opportunity to develop your skills and abilities.
You will be given chances to learn new things.

You will get a feeling you've accomplished something worthwhile.
You will receive public recognition for your efforts.

You will have the opportunity to interact with other people.

1 1 8
Role Ambiguity

I feel certain about how much authority I have.

Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my role in the LEPC.
I know that l have divided my time properly.

I know what my responsibilities are.

I know exactly what is expected of me.

Explanations are clear of what has to be done.

Role Conflict

Directions: Complete the following in consideration of W. Record all
answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very True Very False
l have to do things that should be done differently.

I receive an assignment without the personnel to complete it.

I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment.

I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently.

I receive incompatible requests from two or more people.
_ I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others.
I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it.
I work as directed on unnecessary things.

Wrinkles
Attendance

Directions: Indicate your level of agreement to each of the following statements
concerning your LEPC. Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use
the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

I never miss the meetings of my LEPC.

I am always on time when the meetings of the LEPC start.
I never leave the meetings of the LEPC early.

I am often absent from LEPC meetings.

 

l 1 9
Perceived Effort

Directions: Indicate your level of agreement to each of the following statements
concerning your LEPC. Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use
the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

I work to the best of my ability toward achieving the goals of my LEPC.

I could work much harder for the LEPC if I really wanted to.

When performing LEPC tasks I work harder than I do on my main job.

I work harder than most LEPC members to achieve the goals of this LEPC.
l exert a great deal of effort toward accomplishing the work of this LEPC.
I work hard to to accomplish the mission of my LEPC.

Turnover Intentions

Directions: Indicate your level of agreement to each of the following statements
concerning your LEPC. Record all answers on the blank to the left of each statement. Use
the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

I plan on staying with my LEPC indefinitely.

l'd discontinue serving as a member of my LEPC if it was possible to leave.
I plan on quitting serving as as member of this LEPC within the next year.

WWW

Age:

 

Circle your sex: Male Female
l have been a member of this Local Emergency Planning Committee for:

months

 

I attend % of the meetings of the LEPC.

120

Which of the following areas of the community do you represent as a member of your
Local Emergency Planning Committee? (check all that apply):

elected official transportation

law enforcement broadcast and print media
civil defense community groups
firefighting facility owner/operator
first aid organized labor

health education

local environmental personnel agriculture

hospital personnel

Do you have a full-time job? yes no

If yes, what is your occupation?

 

Do you have any further comments concerning your LEPC and/or toxic chemical
emergency planning that you think might be helpful?

 

 

"Illllllllllllllllllllll