Ar » .. ' A, .‘ .r A - _ ‘., u" A , A . . ‘ .H w -
..m. ‘ ,..‘ ‘- 3 ‘ - _ ‘ ‘ w J . - | .‘ ‘ . “,3; ‘54.. ‘ -

. comm or ORGANIZATION mmflcmon AND
commrmm ,

‘ . Dissertation for‘the Degree of Ph. D. '
_ MlCHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
' SAMMY B. GOULD
1975

f

lflllllzlljjllllllllllljlllll m m * .    “a

9510 '- L _":.’ g

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
Correlates or Organization

Identification And Commitment

presented by

Sammy Ba Gould

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D AJEQmeh,Buainesa Administration

 

 

”WA/gag

I
Major professor

iDate July 18. 1975

 

0-7639

ABSTRACT

CORRELATES OF ORGANIZATION IDENTIFICATION
AND COMMITMENT

by
Sammy B. Gould

The objectives of this research were to (1) pro-
vide a multivariate investigation of the correlates which
may result in organization commitment, (2) provide a multi-
variate investigation of the correlates which may result
in organization identification, and (3) to investigate the
relationship between organization identification and commit-
ment.

Data were collected via questionnaires from two
sources. The first sample was a county level social agency.
The second sample was Advanced Management Program partici-
pants at Michigan State University. The environment in one
sample provided an Opportunity to satisfy growth needs,
while the environment in the other sample did not provide
opportunities for satisfying growth needs. Subjects in
the samples were classified into three occupational groups:
managers, social workers and clerks.

The data were analyzed using higher order partial

correlations and analysis of covariance. Stepwise mulitple

Sammy B. Gould

regressions were employed to provide a comparative analysis
between the two environments and three occupational groups.

In the environment which was a source for satisfying
growth needs (work and promotion Opportunities), commitment
was related to the satisfaction of these needs. In the en-
vironment which was not a source for satisfying growth
needs, the satisfaction of lower order needs was related
to commitment. Furthermore, in the growth environment,
the importance of growth needs to the individual moderated
the relationship between organization identification and
commitment. Those with high growth importance had a stronger
relationship between identification and commitment than
those with low growth importance.

Each of the three occupational groups based its
identification upon different satisfactions. Identification
for the managers was related to satisfaction with promotion
and work. Identification for the social workers was related
to satisfaction with people and with their age. Identifica-
tion for clerical workers was found to relate to satisfaction
with work, peOple, pay and with their sex.

The highest level of commitment was found when both
identification and commitment were related to the satis-
faction of growth needs. In this case the relationship
between identification and commitment was strongest.

The results suggest that there may be two forms of

commitment. One form is internal commitment which has as

Sammy B. Gould

its basis the satisfaction of higher order needs gained
through participation in the organization. A second form
is external commitment which results from satisfying lower
order needs and from barriers which arise to limit the exit
of individuals from organizations. These barriers act to
reduce the individual's employment mobility and are exter-
nal to the organizational role per se.

This study indicates that organization identifica-
tion and commitment are separate psychological constructs
which may or may not be related. The development of iden-
tification and commitment appears to be a function of both
individual differences in training and interests, and the
organization's ability to act as a source for satisfying

its member's needs.

CORRELATES OF ORGANIZATION IDENTIFICATION
AND COMMITMENT

by

Sammy B? Could

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Management

1975

© COpyright by
SAMMY BRUCE GOULD

1975

DEDICATION

This volume is dedicated to my loving wife Elaine

and to my parents Robert and Dorothy Gould, whose un-

questioning love and understanding undergirded this work.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Though the dissertation is the responsibility of
one man, it is the creation of many. I am particularly
indebted to my committee members who helped me to pull
together the many loose ends and sharpen the focus of the
study. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Douglas T.
Hall, committee chairman, for sharing many of his insights
which helped me to clarify and sharpen my own thinking. I
am heavily indebted to Dr. Hall for his guidance, friend-
ship and involvement in my personal development. Dr. Clay
Hamner, committee member, has been particularly helpful in
keeping the study methodological bounded. His helpful
suggestions have significantly limited the number of unpro-
ductive paths the author may have explored. Dr. Henry Tosi,
committee member and academic advisor, has been a source of
council and inspiration throughout my tenure as a doctoral
student. Without the help and dedication of these three
men, this present volume could not have materialized. I
would also like to eXpress my appreication to Dr. Lawrence
Poster for his help in obtaining data for this study and to

Dr. Phillip Carter for his sustaining moral support.

iii

A dissertation is completed by the sacrifices of
many. I am particularly indebted to my partners in life,
Elaine, my wife and Tim, Davy and Mark, my sons, who lovingly
accepted the lost weekends, holidays and vacations so that
this goal might be attained. Without their love, encourage-
ment and personal sacrifices, I could not have completed the

doctoral program.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Review of Literature 2
Conceptual Frameworks- -Organizational
Identification . . 3
Conceptual Frameworks- -Organizationa1
Commitment . . . . . . . 4
Correlates of Identification . . . . . . 6
Correlates of Commitment . . . . . . 14
Summary of Research Literature . . . . . 16
An Explanation of the Relationship
Between Organization Commitment
and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . l8
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

II. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 '
Sample Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 30
Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Operational Definitions. . . . . . . . . . 33
Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Salary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Chapter Page

Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Need Importance . . . . . . . . . 38
Organization Identification . . . . . . . 42
Organization Commitment . . . . . . . . . 42
Sources of Satisfaction . . . . . 46
Summary of Environmental Differences. . . 47
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Introduction. . . . 50
Correlates of Organization Identification . 53
Correlates of Organization Commitment . . . 56
The Relationship Between Identification
and Commitment. . . . . 59
Identifying the Best Predictors of Iden-
tification and Commitment . . . . . 64
Major Predictors of Identification
and Commitment. . . . 64

Predictors of Identification and Com-
mitment in Three Occupational Groups. . . 67
Summary of Major Findings . . . . . . . . . 75

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . 78
Introduction . . . . . . . 78
Discussion of Research Findings . . . . 78
A Theoretical Framework for Organization

Commitment. . . . . . . . . 82

Relevance to Practicing Managers . . . . . 85
Limitations and Recommendations for

Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

vi

Table

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

LIST OF TABLES

Sample and Population Data for Sample 1
and Sample 2 . . . . . . . . .

Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha for Selected
Sample 1 Scales in Two Sequences

Cronbach's Coeffecient Alpha for Selected
Sample 2 Scales in Two Sequences .

Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha Reliabilities
for Sample Data. . . . . . . . . .

Sample 1 Intercorrelation Matrix for Satis-
faction Measures

Sample 2 Intercorrelation Matrix for Satis-
faction Measures

Factor Analysis of Sample 1 Satisfaction
Scores . .

Factor Analysis of Sample 2 Satisfaction
Scores . . . . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations of Sample 1
and Sample 2 Scale Meansures

Summary of Environmental Differences
Sample 1 Intercorrelation Matrix .
Sample 2 Intercorrelation Matrix .
Sample 1 High Order Partial Correlations
Sample 2 High Order Partial Correlations
Sample 1 Means for Low and High Growth

Importance Groups.

vii

Page

31

33

33

37

39

40

41

41

46
48
51
52
54
55

60

Table Page

16. Sample 2 Means for Low and High Growth

Importance Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 61
17. Sample 1 Analysis of Covariance . . . . . . . . 62
18. Sample 1 Adjusted Cell Means. . . . . . . . . . 62
19. Sample 2 Analysis of Covariance . . . . . . . . 63
20. Sample 2 Adjusted Cell Means. . . . . . . . . . 63

21. Summary of Sample 1 RegreSsion for Organization
Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

22. Summary of Sample 1 Regression for
Organization Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . 66

23. Summary of Sample 2 Regression for Organiza-
tion Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

24. Summary of Sample 2 Regression for Organiza-
tion Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

25. Comparison of Beta Weights Obtained from
Regressing Best Predictors of Identifica-
tion from Both Samples on Sample 1 and
Sample 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

26. Comparison of Beta Weights Obtained from
Regressing Best Predictors of Commitment
from Both Samples on Sample 1 and
Sample 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

27. Comparison of Best Predictor Variables of
Identification and Commitment for Two
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O

28. Comparison of Best Predictor Variables of
Identification and Commitment for Three
Occupational Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

29. Commitment and It's Relationship to Iden-

tification Among Three Occupational
Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Correlates of Organization Identification . . . l3
2. Correlates of Organization Commitment . . . . . l7

3. Correlates of Organization Identication
and Commitment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4. Proposed Determinants of Organization
Identification and Commitment . . . . . . . . 22

S. The Propensity to Remain Scale. . . . . . . . . 44
6. Sample 1 Multiple Regression . . . . . . . . . 6S
7. Sample 2 Multiple Regression. . . . . . . . . . 68
8. Sample 1 Non Professionals. . . . . . . . . . . 72

9. Sample 1 Professional Staff (Social Workers). . 73

10. A Model of Organization Commitment. . . . . . . 86

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Organization commitment is an important field of
investigation for two distinct reasons. First, the survi-
val and growth of an organization hinges on the commitment
of its members. The committed employee willingly devotes
his energy in behalf of the organization (McGregor, 1967).
Secondly, the committed employee is actively engaged in pur-
suing his own interests through his participation in the
organization. Thus the study of commitment may provide
information which can result in both more effective organ-
izations and an increased level of satisfaction in the work
force.

Organization commitment has been the subject of
several studies (Sheldon, 1971; Grusky, 1966; Hrebiniak and
Alutto, 1972; Porter, Steers and Boulian, 1973; and Buchanan,
1974). Although some tentative conclusions can be drawn
concerning the relationship of organization commitment to
other structural and behavioral variables, there are still
many important questions which require answers. An objec-

tive of this current study is to provide a multivariate

investigation of the correlates which may result in organ-
ization commitment. A multivariate approach was chosen so
that a clearer distinction might be drawn between the
unique and independent contributions of several important
variables in explaining the nature of commitment.

A second objective of this study is to provide a
multivariate investigation of the correlates which may re-
sult in organization identification. This concept is closely
related to organization commitment and has also received
research attention (Lee, 1969, 1971; Brown, 1969, Hall,
Schneider and Nygren, 1970; Schneider, Hall and Nygren,
1971; Hall and Schneider, 1972).

The final objective of this study is to investigate
the relationship between organization commitment and organ-
ization identification. These two concepts have not been
distinguished either conceptually nor empirically in the
research literature. In several cases the terms have been
used interchangeably (Sheldon, 1971; Hall, et a1. 1970;
Lee, 1971). Before turning to these tasks, we shall first

review the literature relevant to these concepts.

Review of Literature

 

This section has four parts. The first part devel-
0ps a conceptual framework for organization identification
and commitment. The second part reviews previous research
on correlates of organization identification,while part

three reviews previous research on correlates of organization

commitment. The final part will summarize the points of

interest found in the literature review.

Conceptual Framework-Organ-
ization Identification

 

 

In reviewing the concept of organization identifi-
cation, an attempt will be made to gain a wide perspective
of the identification process. Material from the psycho-
logical and sociological literature will be included which
does not specifically address the more specialized case
known as "organization identification."

According to Becker and Carper (1956), individuals
identify themselves by answering the question, "Who am I?"
They answer in terms of the names and categories which exist
in the groups in which they participate. By applying these
labels to themselves, they learn who they are and how they
should behave. They acquire a set of perspectives in terms
of which their conduct is shaped.

Kelman (1958) states that identification occurs
when an individual accepts influence because he wishes to
establish or maintain a satisfying self-defining relation-
ship with another individual or group. Lee (1971) sees
identification as being characterized by a degree of belong-
ingness, loyalty and shared characteristics between an in-
dividual and an organization. Hall and Lindzey (1957) state
that identification results in a person's taking on the

features of another person or group, making them a part of

their own personality. Sears' theory of identification
(Pervin, 1970) sees early identification in a child as re-
sulting from a process of reinforcement and nurturance be-
tween parent and child. This suggests that satisfying the
child's needs in a consistent manner will result in the
child modeling his behavior after the parent and in the
child taking on the parent's values.

Allport (1955) believes that identification is a
process by which we extend ourselves or broaden the manner
in which we define our individuality. Gergen (1971) sees
identification occurring when a person comes to see himself
as having those attributes characterizing the role he is
required to play.

As a result of these earlier works, we can define
organization identification as follows:

Organization identification is a process whereby an
individual (1) defines his own self in terms of his
organizational role, and (2) accepts the values and

behavioral patterns sanctioned by the organization
as his own.

Conceptual Frameworks-Organ-
ization Commitment

 

While organization identification engenders an in-
tegration of organization values and roles into one's
identity, organization commitment is an attitude of affec-
tive attachment that an individual develops toward an or-
ganization. Grusky (1966) refers to commitment as the
"strength of attachment" to an organization. Hrebiniak

and Alutto (1972) consider commitment an attitude dealing

with the perceived utility of continued participation in
the organization.

In addition to attachment, commitment involves a
dedication of onefisefforts toward meeting the goals and
objectives of the organization. Sheldon (1971) terms
commitment a positive evaluation of the organization and
an intent to work toward its goals. Buchanan (1974) speaks
of commitment as a partisan affective attachment to the or-
ganization and one's work role. It consists of identifi-
cation with its goals and values, an involvement in the
work role and loyalty to the organization. Porter, Steers
and Boulian (1973) call commitment the strength of an in-
dividual's identification with and involvement in an organ-
ization. They state that it consists of (1) a strong be-
lief in and acceptance of organizational goals and values,
(2) a willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organ-
ization, and (3) a definite desire to maintain organizational
membership.

Conceptually, organization identification was de-
fined as a process by which the individual increasingly de-
fines himself in terms of those values and behavioral traits
which are embraced by the organization. These traits may
be aggressiveness and competitiveness in very dynamic or-
ganizations,or they may be traits requiring social skills
or for that matter physical skills in organizations dif-

fering in what Ghiselli (1974) calls the psychological

dimensions of organizations. Commitment, on the other hand,
shall be defined as follows:

Organization commitment is an attitude of affective
attachment to an organization which is characterized
by (1) a high propensity to retain organizational
membership, (2) an acceptance of organizational goals,
and (3) a willingness to devote one's effort in behalf
of the organization.

 

The differences between identification and commit-
ment is measured then in shades rather than contrasts. The
questions of interest involve the conditions under which
identification and commitment may co-exist. Are the two
concepts always related or are there conditions which may
exist that weaken the relationship between identification
and commitment? The answer to these questions will re-
quire some additional theorizing. However, before we turn
to this task, it is appropriate that we review the liter-
ature relating to the correlates of organization identifi-

cation and commitment.

Correlates of Identification

 

Six correlates of organization identification will
be reviewed in this section. They are: (1) length of
service (tenure), (2) salary, (3) age, (4) level, (5) sat-
isfaction, and (6) need importance. Where conflicting re-
sults are encountered in the literature, an attempt will

be made to reconcile the differences.

Tenure.--The relationship between tenure and organ-

ization identification was found to have been investigated

in three studies. Brown (1969) found no relationship to
exist between tenure and identification. Lee (1971) found
tenure to be positively related to identification in his
study of research scientists. Hall and Schneider (1972)
found the tenure and identification relationship to be
moderated by the individual's career style. Those persons
with multi-organization careers were not found to have a
relationship between tenure and identification while those
with single organization careers were found to have such a
relationship.

Career style is not a likely explanation for Brown's
(1969) failure to find a relationship between tenure and
identification. This is because Brown‘s study was done with
a governmental agency not known for multi-organizational
careers at the lower organizational levels. Hall, et al.,
(1970) explained that Brown's results may have occurred be-
cause of Brown's use of group means in computing correlational
relationships. However, there is another possible explana-
tion for these divergent results. The existence of a com-
peting source for identification could detract from the
organization being a source of identification. Then over
a period of time, identification with this competing source
may strengthen in lieu of identification with the organiza-
tion. The most common occurrence of competing sources for
identification which has been cited in the literature in-

volves the relationship between professionals and professional

associations. As Lee (1969) points out, among professional
employees, whose primary contribution is professional exper-
tise, there will be a tension between their identification
with their organization and their identification with their
profession. Goldner's (1958) cosmopolitan and local con-
structs also deal with this problem of competing sources of
identification in the professional community. In the non-
professional community, however, organizations such as
employee unions or other employee bargaining units may be-
come competing sources for identification. Brown (1969)
found that organization identification was negatively re-
lated to the level of union concern. Hence the relation-
ship between tenure and identification may be moderated by
the presence of an employee bargaining unit which may act
as a competing source for identification. None of the
other studies cited had a situation where employees were
represented by a union. In the Lee (1969) study, profes-
sional prestige was found to be related to organizational
prestige and hence professional affiliations were not com-
peting sources for identification but rather they were
supportive to organization identification. The result was
that Lee found identification with the organization to be
related to tenure.

The difference then in whether or not tenure will
be related to organization identification may rest on

whether or not there is a competing source for identification

which co-exists with the organization. One such competing

source may be an employee union.

Salary.--Lee (1971) found salary to be correlated
with organization identification. This was the only study

found Which investigated this relationship.

Agg.-—Lee (1971) found age to be positively re-
lated to organization identification. March and Simon
(1958) theorized that as age increases the individual finds
fewer outside opportunities and hence more readily identi-

fies with his current organization.

Level.--Brown (1969) found a moderate relationship
between level and organization identification. Hall, et al.,
(1970) also found a positive relationship between level and
identification, but it became negligible when tenure was
held constant. Porter and Lawler (1965) found job satis-
faction to increase with level. This may infer that a higher
probability exists for more satisfying relationships to
develop between individuals and organizations at higher

levels.

Satisfaction.--Satisfaction was found to be a topic

 

of investigation in four studies dealing with organization
identification (Brown, 1969; Lee, 1971; Hall, et al., 1970;
Hall and Schneider, 1972). Brown found that identification

was correlated with the satisfaction of higher order needs.

10

He contends that identification results when one becomes
ego involved in his task rather than from the satisfaction
of affiliative needs. Hall and Schneider (1970) talk of
two types of organization identification. They called de-
ficiency oriented identification a form of identification
which is based upon the satisfaction of lower order needs.
Growth oriented identification results from the satisfac-
tion of higher order needs. Lee (1971) also found satis-
faction to be related to both higher order and lower order
need satisfaction. In addition, Lee found job satisfaction
to be related to identification. In Hall et al., (1972),
researchers were found to have a relationship between higher
order need satisfaction and identification but not between
low order need satisfaction and identification.

One problem which has not been approached in the
above studies is whether or not the level of an individual's
satisfaction can be attributed to his organizational member-
ship. For example, Brown (1969) found that identification
was not related to affiliation need satisfaction. This is
possibly because the organization was not a source for sat-
isfying affiliative needs. Thus the level of satisfaction
for affiliative needs may have been a result of one's union
membership. The organization, however, probably was a
source for satisfying achievement needs. The workers in
Brown's study were professionals and skilled workers who

normally fill jobs which are higher than average in

11

achievement potential. Since the organization is a source
for satisfying the achievement need, it is not surprising

that satisfaction of achievement needs are related to or-

ganization identification.

This explanation seems to hold for other studies
involving satisfaction and identification. From Hall, et
al., (1970) we can infer that the Forestry Service was a
source of satisfaction of a wide range of needs for the
Forestry Service employee. The study indicated that both
high and low order need satisfaction is related to identi-
fication. Hall and Schneider (1972), showed a relationship
to exist between identification of researchers and satis-
faction of their higher order needs. This may be a reflec-
tion that their organizations were able to meet higher order
needs. Since they frequently changed organizations, satis-
faction of lower order needs were not attributed to the
organization, but rather to their own ability to remain
mobile} Hence the organization was a source for satisfying
their higher order needs, but not their lower order needs.

In summary then we can prOpose that satisfaction
of a need will be related to organization identification in
those cases where the organization is a source for satisfy-
ing the particular need being considered. Next we will con-
sider the relationship of identification with need impor-

tance.

12

Need Importance.--Need importance was investigated

 

by Hall and Schneider (1972). They found that foresters‘
had a low but significant relationship between the impor-
tance of low order needs and identification. Researchers
showed a low but negative correlation between the importance
Of self fulfillment needs and identification. A possible
explanation for these findings is that the importance of a
need will be positively related to identification if the
organization is a source for satisfying that need. Con—
versely, if the organization is not a source for satisfying
a need, the importance of the need will be negatively re-
lated to organization identification. Thus in the Forestry
Service, which was cited earlier to be a source of satis-
faction for low order needs, One would expect to find a
positive relationship between the importance of lower order
needs and organization identification. Since self fulfill-
ment or growth needs can never be fully saturated (Maslow,
1954; Alderfer, 1969) the organization will not bé fully
able to satisfy the growth needs of the researcher. This
may explain why the researcher in the Hall and Schneider
study had a negative correlation between the importance Of
growth needs and organization identification. Therefore,
the relationship of need importance to organization identi-
fication may depend upon whether or not the organization

is a source for satisfying a particular need. The relation-

ships discussed in this section are summarized in Figure 1.

13

.fiOHHdUMWfiHCOfiH COHHmNMQwMHO MO MOHNHOHHOUuu.H MMDOHW

ammz mze ngmgam op .
seHgHm< m.one<NHz<umo. .#

 

ZOHH<UHmHHzmQH .ll|||

 

ZOHH<NHz<umO

 

ZOHH<UHmHHzmQH mo mumbom
ozHHmmzou < mo mozmmmmm _

moZfihmomzH Qmmz

ZOHHU<mmHH<m

4m>mq

mo<

>m<q<m

mszmH

14

Correlates of Commitment

 

In this section, five correlates of organization
commitment will be reviewed. They are: (l) tenure, (2)

age, (3) level, (4) sex, and (5) satisfaction.

Tenure.--Four studies were found which investigated
the relationship between organization commitment and tenure
(Grusky, 1966; Sheldon, 1971; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972;
Buchanan, 1974). In each of these studies, tenure was

found to be positively related to organization commitment.

Age.--Sheldon (1971) and Hrebiniak and Alutto
(1972) included age in their studies of organization com-
mitment. They both concluded that age is positively re-

lated to commitment.

Leve1.--Sheldon (1971) and Buchanan (1974) both
found a positive relationship between level in the organ-

ization and the degree of organization commitment.

Sex.--Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) and Grusky (1966)
both found females to be more organizationally committed
than males.

No studies were found which directly tested the cor-
relation of satisfaction measures to commitment. However,
Grusky (1966) considered "general satisfaction" to be a
measure of commitment in his Operationalization of the

term. Sheldon (1971) and Buchanan (1974) found social

15

involvements with other organizational members to be related
to commitment. For Sheldon, social involvement meant off
the job contacts as well as feeling a part of the work group
and department in which the individual was employed.
Buchanan's measures dealt with levels of peer group cohesion
and group attitudes toward the organization. In both of
these cases, the people associated with the organization
appear to be sources Of satisfaction to the individual.
However, because all three of these studies (Grusky, 1966;
Sheldon, 1971; Buchanan, 1974) include, or closely link iden-
tification with their measure of commitment, it is difficult
to determine whether these sources of satisfaction are cor-
related with commitment per se, or whether these sources of
satisfaction relate to commitment as a reflection of their
relationship with identification. Hence more work is re-
quired in the area of distinguishing and determining the
role of satisfaction to developing commitment.

The relationship of these variables to organization
commitment have frequently been explained in terms of an
inducements-contributions framework (March and Simon, 1958)
or in terms Of individual investments in an organization
over time (Sheldon, 1971). Age and sex are considered fac-
tors which may reduce the amount of outside Opportunities.
In this case, organizational inducements may be revalued
upwards and thus one increases his commitment to the current

organization. Tenure and level have been viewed as

16

investments of energy one has put into an organization which
may make leaving the organization appear less attractive.
Finally, one's level of satisfaction may be an inducement
to maintain a high level of commitment to an organization.

These relationships are summarized in Figure 2.

7

Summary of Research Liter-
ature

Several conclusions can be drawn from a review of
the literature. First, organization identification is a
process where an individual increasingly accepts organiza-
tional roles and values as a part of his own identity.
Secondly, organization commitment is an attitude of affect-
ive attachment to an organization which engenders, (l) a
desire to maintain organizational membership, (2) an accep+
tance of organizational goals, and (3) a willingness to
invest one's efforts in behalf of the organization.

Several correlates of organization identification
and commitment have been reviewed. From the research lit-
erature, one can conclude that tenure with an organization
will be positively related to commitment,and in those cases
where competing sources for identification are absent tenure
will be related to organization identification. Salary was
found to be positively related to identification. No studies
were found.which investigated the relationship of salary
to commitment. Age and level were found to have a positive

relationship with both identification and commitment. Sex

17

.ucoEquEou :owpmnwcmmuo mo moumaouuou--.N mmDon

HszHszoo ZOHH<NHZ<GMO

T\\\\\\\\\i oneo<mmHe<m
m

xmm

 

Am>mq

mo<

mmszmh

18

was found to related to commitment, but no studies were
found investigating the relationship of sex with identi-
fication. Females were observed to have higher commitment
than males.

Satisfactions derived from the organization were
found to be correlated with organization identification,
but the relationship between satisfaction derived from the
organization and commitment was not clear. Finally, need
importance was found to be a correlate of identification
when the organization could satisfy a particular need. The
relationship of need importance to commitment was not found
to have been investigated. These relationships are summar-
ized in Figure 3.

With the literature review completed there are
several questions which remain. First, what is the relation-
ship of satisfactions derived from the organization and the
importance of needs to organization commitment? Secondly,
what relationship exists, if any, between organization
identification and commitment? It is to these questions
we turn next.

An Explanation of the Relationship

Between Organization Commitment
and Identification

 

 

In this section, we will discuss, (l) the relation-
ship of need importance and satisfaction to organization
commitment, and (2) the relationship between organization

identification and commitment. Commitment has been defined

19

.Hflm—EHHEEOU Ufim COMHmUwWHHQQUH fiOHHflNHfiNMHO MO momeGHHOUII.M mmDUHm

HszHHZSOU xmm
ZOHB<NHZ<UMO

muz<9mom2H Qmmz

    

 

 

 

 

onhu<mmHe<m

mmwcmaowumaon omogu

moumpovoe coo: Hafimflsw Op
.3533 2033235 ‘-. Ami/mg
\ ‘ m0<
.lI >m<4<m

onh<uHmHHzmnH -.
onH<NHz<umo
.ll mmazmh
magm:0wpmaom mfinu mouwpovoz

coapmufimwunowH How mounzom
wcquQEoo mo oucomoum

20

as an affective attachment between the individual and his
organization. This relationship partially depends upon
whether or not the organization can satisfy the indiviudal's
important needs. Thus for an organization which can sat-
isfy existence needs, one would expect those individuals
with a high existence need strength to be more committed

to the organization. Similarily, if an organization is a
source for satisfying relatedness needs, individuals with
high relatedness need strength should be more committed

to the organization. A like situation follows in organ-
izations which are a source for satisfying growth needs.
Hence, the importance of a particular need will be related
to organization commitment if the organization is a source
of satisfactianfbr that need. Conversely, if the organiza-
tion is not a source of satisfaction for a particular need,
the importance of that need would be negatively related to
organization commitment.

Two of the three aspects of commitment require the
individual to willingly devote his effort in behalf of the
organization and to accept the goals and objectives Of the
organization. These requirements are closely related to
what Alderfer (1969) terms the growth needs of individuals.
Growth needs include all the needs which involve a person
making creative or productive effects on himself and the
environment. Growth occurs when a person engages in prob-

lems which call upon him to fully utilize his capacities

21

(Alderfer 1969). This requires a challenging work environ-
ment with Opportunities to move up into positions of greater
responsibility in the organization. Operationally, in the
present research, growth needs will be considered to be met
when the individual has a high level of satisfaction with
work and with Opportunities for promotion. The importance
of growth needs play a special role in the development of
commitment. In an organization which is a source for sat-
isfying the growth needs Of individuals, high growth im-
portance will lead to a situation where one's identification
with the organization is closely related to his commitment
to the organization. In such an environment the satisfac-
tion of growth needs are sources for both commitment and
identification, and hence they show a closer relationship.
However, these conditions do not hold in the organization
which is not a source for satisfying growth needs. In this
case the importance of growth needs will not act as a strong
moderating influence on the commitment-identification
relationship. Hence, we prOpose that the relationship be-
tween organization identification and commitment is moder-
ated by, (l) the level of an individual's growth need
strength, and (2) the organization's ability to fulfill the
growth need. These relationships are illustrated in Figure
4.

Since organization commitment is closely related

to the growth category of needs, commitment to an

22

.pcospwasou wcm :OwumuHMMunowH :OwumNfiamwho mo mucmcwehouon womomOpm--.¢ mmDuHm

HzmSHHZSOU
ZOHH<UHZ<UmO

.ucoecouw>ao :uSOHw m
a“ magm:0fiumaou

mane moumnoeoe.lllllv
oucmuuonEH nuzouu

ZOHB<UHmHHzmnH_
ZOHB<NHz<umO

some one Hfiamflsm op .

 

 

 

/

 

-
’

“.

‘

 

mmwnmcofiumHOH
omen“ moumnocoa

xufiawam m.:oflumNfi:OMHo

  

 

 
 

awnmcowumfion
many mumpouos
soapmuwmfiuaovw now

mOOHOOm mnwuomEOu

 

xmm

muz<9mom2H Qmmz

ZOHHU<meH<m

4m>mq

mo<

>m<4<m

mMDZMH

23

organization will be related to the satisfaction of these
needs. Alderfer (1969) indicates that where growth needs
are not met, that relatedness needs become more important
to an individual. Hence in those organizations which are
not a source for satisfying growth needs, organization com-
mitment will be related to the satisfaction of lower order

needs.

Hypotheses

Based upon the preceding analyses, several hypoth-
eses can be generated for testing its validity. These
hypotheses which follow will include some attempt to repli-
cate previous findings as well as to test the new relation-
ships which were suggested in the previous sections.

Hypothesis la: Age, salary and level will

be positively related to, (1) organiza-

tion identification, and (2) organiza-
tion commitment.

 

Hypothesis 1b: .Tenure will be related to
identification in those organizations
in which employees are not represented
by a union. This relationship will not
exist in those organizations where em-
ployees are represented by a union.

 

Hypothesis 1c: Tenure will be positively
related to organization commitment.

 

Hypothesis ld: Females will be more com-
mitted than males.

 

Hypo
reported in

variables.

24

theses 1 tests the relationships which were
earlier studies concerning certain demographic

The actual relationship appears in the liter-

ature review section of this chapter.

Hypo

Hypo

thesis 2a: A particular dimension of
satisfaction will be related to organ-
ization identification if the organiza-
tion is a source for that satisfaction.
If the organization is not a source for
that satisfaction, the particular dimen-
sion of satisfaction will not be related
to organization identification.

thesis 2b: For a particular need, need

—"

Hypo
relationship
dition under
identificati
attempt to r
discussed ea

Schn

isfaction of

1mportance will be positively related

to identification if the organization is a
source for satisfying that need. If the
organization is not a source for satisfying
that need, need importance will be negatively
related to organization identification.

theses 2 provide a test of the need importance
5 with identification. It also tests the con-
which satisfactions will lead to organization
on. These hypotheses largely arise from an
econcile divergent research findings which are
rlier in this chapter.

eider and Alderfer (1973) showed that the sat-

growth needs was related to satisfaction with

work and promotion Opportunities as measured by the Job Des-

cription Index (Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969). They fur-

ther found that the level of relatedness satisfaction was

related to s

atisfaction with co-workers and supervision,

25

and that satisfaction of existence needs was related to sat-
isfaction with pay. Based upon this finding, satisfaction
with work and promotion Opportunities will be considered
sources for meeting growth needs. Satisfaction with people
(both co-workers and supervisors) will be considered a
source for meeting relatedness needs and satisfaction with
pay will be considered a source for meeting the existence
need. These last two classes Of needs will be considered
lower order needs while the growth category will be con-
sidered higher order.
Hypothesis 3a: In organizations which are
sources for satisfaction with work and
promotion opportunities, the level of

these satisfactions will be related to
the level of organization commitment.

 

Hypothesis 3b: In organizations which are
not sources for satisfaction with work
and promotion opportunities, satisfaction
with peOple and pay will be related to
commitment.

 

Hypothesis 3c: For a particular need, need
importance will be positively related to
commitment if the organization is a source
for satisfying that need. If the organ-
ization is not a source for satisfying that
need, need importance will be negatively
related to organization commitment.

 

Hypotheses 3 summarizes the relationships which
were theorized to exist between organization commitment
and need satisfaction and between organization commitment

and need importance.

26

Hypothesis 4: In those organizations which
are sources of satisfaction with work and
promotion Opportunities, the higher the
strength of growth needs for an individual,
the stronger will be the relationship be-
tween organization identification and com-
mitment. In organizations which are not
sources of satisfaction with work and pro-
motion opportunities, the importance of
growth needs will not affect the relation-
ship between organization identification
and commitment.

 

Hypotheses 4 summarizes a relationship which was
theorized to exist between organization identification and

commitment in a growth environment.

Summary

This chapter began with a brief description of the
objectives for this research study. They are, (1) to con-
duct a multivariate analysis Of the correlates of organiza-
tion commitment, (2) to conduct a multivariate analysis of
the correlates of organization identification, and (3) to
investigate the relationship between organization identi-
fication and commitment. In preparation for this task,
conceptual definitions were developed from a review of the
relevant literature. Based upon previous research findings,
a review of studies Of the correlates of identification and
commitment resulted in pointing to certain conclusions which
could be reached and certain questions which remain to be
challenged. In areas where uncertainty remains some theor-
izing was accomplished in an attempt to expand our knowledge

Of the commitment and identification processes. With this

27

background several hypotheses were advanced to test both
the conclusive results found in the literature and the more
theoretical propositions advanced in this paper. In the

next chapter we shall discuss the methodology of this study.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

 

In the previous chapter, the literature relevant
to organization identification and commitment was reviewed.
Several hypotheses were advanced for the purpose of (1)
testing relationships previously to have been found in the
literature and (2) to test some new relationships which
were developed in the latter part of Chapter I. The pur-
pose of this present chapter is to discuss the methodology
of this study. The chapter contains these four major sec-
tions: (1) research design, (2) sample characteristics,
(3) procedure, and (4) Operational definitions. The first

tOpic of discussion will be the research design.

Research Design

 

The research design is a correlational (Cronbach,
1957) field study or what Scott (1975) has termed a "syste-
matic assessment" as Opposed to an experimental design.
In the systematic assessment, several variables are Oper-
ationally defined, measured, and then certain relation-
ships between these variables are investigated. The vari-

ables are measured in their natural setting.

28

29

The primary advantage of the systematic assess-
ment design is in its ease of administration and limited
organizational disruption. Normally, once the variables
have been operationally defined, all that is required is
the creation and administration of a questionnaire to a
group of individuals. This is opposed to the experimental
design which requires manipulating some environmental vari-
able--a direct intervention in the affairs of the firm.

It is more difficult to find an organization which is will-
ing to permit this type of study, and it may require special
training of organization members to perform the manipulation
of treatment variables. This special training may have be-
havioral implications for the organization long after the
experiment is completed. The implications may be favorable
or unfavorable.

The major weakness of the systematic assessment
design is the lack of experimental controls which can re-
sult in other variables confounding one's results (Campbell
and Stanley, 1963). This is a direct threat to the study's
internal and external validity. Hence in the systematic
assessment design, one cannot assign causality to his in-
dependent variables except through inference.

To partially overcome the weakness of the systematic
assessment design, two steps have been taken. First, two
samples have been used in the study to permit a comparison

of results. Secondly, a multivariate approach has been

30

taken to determine within the bounds of reason, each vari-
able's unique contribution to the explanation of the de-
pendent variables. Although these measures are less than
perfect, they nevertheless provide a means for making strong
inferences regarding relationships which will be discussed

in the remainder of this paper.

Sample Characteristics

The first sample consists of employees in a county
level governmental organization. The organization consists
of 108 employees, 60 of whom were administered the ques-
tionnaire. The sample consisted of three employee classi-
fications which were represented as follows: 47% clerical,
secretarial, and paraprofessionals, 43% professional social
workers, and 12% managerial and supervisory. The sample
had a mean age of 28 years. The average tenure was three
years. Fifty-three percent of the sample was female.
Salaries averaged $8,690. The median level of education
was 15.5 years. These employees are represented by an or-
ganized bargaining unit which negotiates with their top
management concerning matters of pay and working conditions.
Table 1 compares selected sample statistics with available
population parameters. The data indicate that the sample
was representative of the pOpulation with the exception
that the sample had a higher representation of professionals.

The second sample consists of MBA students in the

Michigan State University Advanced Management Program. The

31

TABLE l.--Sample and Population Data for Sample 1 and

 

 

Sample 2.
Sample Population

Sample 1

Mean tenure (years) 3.0 3.4
Mean salary (dollars) 8,690 8,330
Mean age (years) 28 29
Mean education (years 15.5 15.2
Percent clerical 47 67
Percent professional 43 22
Percent managerial 12 10
Sample 2

Mean age 35 36
Percent nonsupervisory ll 17
Percent first line supervisor 20 23
Percent managerial 69 53
Percent female 11 8

 

sample consists of 36 students all of whom have full time
employment. Twenty percent were first line supervisors
while 69% had at least one level of supervision reporting
to them. The remaining 11% were non-managers. The sample
had a mean age of 35 years and the average tenure was 12
years. Eleven percent of the sample were female. Salaries
averaged over $30,000. All members of the sample were work-
ing toward their masters degree. They represented several
different organizations.

Table 1 compares available pOpulation parameters
with their corresponding sample statistics. The data indi-
cates that the sample is representative of the pOpulation

from which it was drawn.

32

Procedure

 

The Sample 1 respondents were administered the
questionnaire in small groups ranging in size from 3 to 17.
Where work schedules made group administration difficult,

a small number of subjects were permitted to take the ques-
tionnaire home and return it in a sealed envelope. Complete
anonymity was assured each subject. The subjects were in-
formed that the study was being conducted by Michigan State
University. They were also told that they would receive
feedback from the Study from summary results which would

be given to their management. Because of the length of

the questionnaire, approximately one half of the subjects
were given the questionnaire in a form such that they ans-
wered the job satisfaction questions first. The remainder
of the subjects were given the questionnaire such that the
job satisfaction questions were answered last. This pro-
vided a means for checking for reSponse bias. Table 2

shows selected job satisfaction reliabilities for both
halves of the sample. Since the reliabilities are acceptable
in both parts of the sample, response bias does not appear
to be a problem. The mean time for completing the question-
naire was 30 minutes.

The second sample of subjects was given the ques-
tionnaire in one of their regular classroom sessions. They
were instructed to return the completed questionnaire for

their next class. Thirty-six of the 67 students returned

33

TABLE 2.--Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha for Selected Sample

 

 

1.
Sequence 1 Sequence 2
JDI Promotion .75 .90
JDI Pay .74 .74

 

useable questionnaires for a response rate of 54%. Again
the subjects were informed that this was a Michigan State
University'study. Complete anonymity was assured each sub-
ject. The sequence of the questionnaire questions were
altered as for Sample 1. Table 3 indicates that response

bias is not a problem for this sample.

TABLE 3.--Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha for Selected Sample
2 Scales in Two Sequences

 

 

Sequence 1 Sequence 2
JDI Promotion .90 .89
JDI Pay .64 .72

 

Operational Definitions
In this section, the variables pertinent to this
study will be Operationally defined. The method of measur-
ing each variable will be discussed and the reliability of
each scale will be cited. The variables of consideration
in this study are: (l) tenure, (2) salary, (3) age, (4)

level, (5) sex, (6) satisfaction, (7) need importance,

34

(8) organization identification, and (9) commitment. For
each of these variables, examples of the questionnaire items
are included in the text. The full questionnaire appears

in Appendix A.

Tenure

Tenure in the organization refers to the length of
time the individual has been a member of the organization.
It was measured from the following single question:

To the nearest year, how many years have
you been with this company?

Those with less than one year of service were in-
structed to respond with a "1." As previously stated, the
mean years of services for Sample 1 was 3.4 years. For Sam-

ple 2 the mean years of service was 12 years.

Salary

Salary in the organization refers to the individuals'
current annual salary. This variable was measured from
responses to the following question:

What is your approximate annual salary
before deductions?

Respondents were instructed to check one Of several
salary categories to answer this question. The mean salary
was $8,690 (interpolated) for Sample 1 and in excess of
$30,000 for Sample 2. Since a large number of subjects in
Sample 2 reported salaries of "$30,000 and over," the exact

sample mean cannot be computed.

35

Agg

Age refers to the respondents chronological age
in years. This variable was measured from responses to
the question:

What is your approximate age?

Responses were grouped into five year categories
from 25 years to over 60. The respondent was asked to
check his appropriate age category. The mean age (inter-
polated) for Sample 1 was 28 years and for Sample 2 was

35 years.

isle;

Level in the organization is a measure of the in-
dividuals relative ranking in the organization. For the
Sample 1, clerical workers and paraprofessionals were con-
sidered on the lowest level (1) while professional social
workers were considered to be in the second level. The
managers were the tOp level (3). Since the organization
from which Sample 1 was drawn was small, there was only
one manager who was not a first line supervisor.

The level in Sample 2 was based upon whether the
individual was a non-manager, a first level manager or
higher. The lowest level (1) was assigned to the non-man-
agers and the highest level (3) was assigned to the man-

agers of managers.

36

Sex
Sex of the respondent was determined by responses
to the single question:
What is your sex? ___female __;male.
Females were assigned a "l" and males were assigned a "2"
for coding purposes. In Sample 1, 53% of the respondents

were female while for Sample 2, 11% were female.

Satisfaction

 

Satisfaction was measured in three ways. The first
set of measures tap need satisfaction based upon Alderfer's
(1969) categorization. The measures for the existence,
relatedness and growth need satisfactions were attained by
use of the Alderfer instrument. The reliabilities for the
Alderfer scales are summarized in Table 4. All reliabil-
ities were computed using Cronbach's coefficient Alpha
(Nunnally, 1967).

A second set of satisfaction measures were attained
from using the Job Description Index (Smith, Kendall and
Hulin, 1969). This instrument provides.a measure of job
satisfaction along the five dimensions of work, promotion
Opportunities, pay, co-workers and supervision. The re-
liabilities (coefficient alpha) for these scales appear
in Table 4.

A final measure of satisfaction is provided by a
measure of value congruence between the organization and

the role that the individual is required to adOpt in the

37

TABLE 4.—-Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha Reliabilities for
Sample Data.

 

 

Sample 1 Sample 2
Organization Commitment .84 .86
Organization Identification .88 .74
Existence Satisfaction .71 .79
Relatedness Satisfaction .76 .76
Growth Satisfaction .77 .81
Existence Importance .84 .82
Relatedness Importance .90 .96
Growth Importance .84 .97
Value Congruence .84 .75
Propensity to Remain .90 .91
Effort .70 .87
Goal Acceptance .73 .76
JDI Work .71 .76
JDI Promotion .74 .86
JDI Pay .73 .64
JDI People .89 .73
JDI Supervision .89 .81

 

organization. Five questions were devised to tap this
construct. A sample question from these five is:

To what extent do the things you value

highly in your life happen to you when

you are the most productive in your

work?
Responses to these questions are on a seven point scale.
The reliability (coefficient alpha) for Sample 2 was .75.
In Sample 1, two of the above five questions were deleted
from the scale because of incongruent responses. Perhaps
the two questions which were drOpped did not have meaning
for their particular environment. One of the questions
omitted was:

To what extent do you feel that your per-

sonal values must be compromised if you
are to be successful in your work?

38

The reliability (coefficient alpha) for the shorter three
question scale in Sample 1 was .84.

As Tables 5 and 6 indicate, the intercorrelations
between several of these measures of satisfaction were
quite high in both samples. Therefore, an attempt to
reduce the number of variables was made by performing an
Oblique factor analysis on the two sample's satisfaction
measures. Four a priori factors were submitted to the
analysis based upon the finding of Smith, Kendal and Hulin
(1969). Their factor analysis of job satisfaction measures
led to the five J.D.I. categories. For the factor analysis,
satisfaction with co-workers and supervision was combined
under the general heading of satisfaction with people.

The four factors, satisfaction with (l) the work itself,
(2) people, (3) promotion Opportunities, and (4) pay, with
their factor loadings appear in Tables 7 and 8. These four
factors are the satisfaction dimensions which are used in
the remainder of this study. They were formed by combining

the scores of scales which loaded highest on a factor.

Need Importance

The importance of individual needs were categorized
and measured by use of the Alderfer (1969) instrument. The
reliabilities for the measures Of existence, relatedness
and growth importance are reported in Table 4. The re-
liabilities were computed using Cronbach's alpha (Nunnally,

1967).

 

Hoo.vao

 

mwnwmm
oo.H ma. mo. ONV. amN. Hm. eon. se.- ma. fl.m.wv eoama>aaasm Haw
oo.H as. oo. amN. awN. new. ma. ma. fl.sa.ev afiaoaa Haw
oo.H amm. 0H. no. es. OH“. am~.- fl.>a.mv sea Han
m“ oo.H «Hm. new. awN. new. as. fl.ma.ev :oaaoEOHa Hoe
oo.H use. 4H. mo.- one. fi.z.wv xaoa Haw
oo.H tom. se.- nos. fl.m.ov eoapuaemauam apzoau
oo.H No.- 4N. fl.m.mv aoaauawmaaam mmaaeauafiam
oo.H nom.- fl.m.mv acapaawmaoam aueaamaxm
oo.H m.u.>v mucosnmnou osam>
.m.w .qa.w .sa.n .ma.w .2.e .m.o .m.m .m.m .u.>

 

.oouz mopSmmoz :ofiuummmwumm you xHHumz :owumaonhouhoucH N OHQEmm--.m mam<e

 

40

Hoo.vao

Ho.ven

mo.vmm

oo.H awe. amm. mam. 04m. one. 805. «mm. mos. fl.m.mv nonma>aaasm Haw
oo.H n44. AN. dam. om. use. awe. «Ha. afieoaa Haw
oo.H mm. «as. ea. nae. UNA. om. m.»a.wv Ram Haw

oo.H mam. awe. use. OH. Hm. ”.ma.ev coaooeoaa Haw

oo.H Ema. 650. Use. use. fl.3.ev Mao: Haw

oo.H nos. mm. uwm. fl.m.ov eoapuawmaoam gasoao

oo.H pom. nNm. A.m.mv eoapummmaoam mmaeeaoafiam

oo.H was. fi.m.mv coauuawmapam aueopmaxm

oo.H m.u.>v oozesuwcou osfim>

 

.m.h .Am.h .wm.h .mm.h .3.h .m.o .w.m .m.m .U.>

 

omuz monummoz :oMuommmwumm pom Nahum: museumaohuoupoucH N onEmm--.o mam¢e

 

I . . l1rllllll I H] I'll- .‘lJLItIq'

 

 

.e-Tiis—n. Man. r—

“ 'ASBJ'J'EHNJ ‘.' "I

abunvwlgjut- "

Tr” M’.‘ ~39. ..'
h .

 

 

a . ‘1’!

 

 

41

TABLE 7.--A Factor Analysis of Sample 1 Satisfaction Scores

N=60.

 

Factor Loadings

 

 

Scale
Work People Promotion Pay

Value Congruence 76 .24 .14 -.35
JDI Work .87 27 .31 .07
Growth Satisfaction

(Alderfer) 84 33 .34 -.01
Relatedness Satisfaction

(Alderfer) 27 .87 .28 -.Ol
JDI People .27 .65 .06 .21
JDI Supervision .26 .81 .42 .02
JDI Promotion .32 .32 1.00 .37
JDI Pay -.02 .12 .35 .92
Existence Satisfaction

(Alderfer) -.19 06 .34 . 2

 

TABLE 8.--A Factor Analysis of Sample 2 Satisfaction Scores

N=36.

 

Factor Loadings

 

Scale Work PeOple Promotion Pay
Value Congruence .;§1 .51 .21 .33
JDI Work L8; .68 .37 .57
Growth Satisfaction

(Alderfer) Lg; .48 .45 .21
Relatedness Satisfaction

(Alderfer) .67 L93 .60 .53
JDI People .51 481 .27 .50
JDI Supervision .56 L81 .39 .37
JDI Promotion .41 .48 ILQQ .14
JDI Pay .30 49 .28 423
Existence Satisfaction

(Alderfer) .52 50 .10 12;

 

42

Organization Identification

 

In Chapter 1, organization identification was de-
fined as the extent to which an individual accepts organ-
izational values and roles as a part of his own identity.
To measure this variable, four questions were selected from
Patchen's (1971) study of the Tennesee Valley Authority.
One of the four questions was:

If you could begin working over again, but
in the same occupation you are now in, how
likely would you be to choose this organiza—
tion as a place to work?
The subject could choose among five alternative responses
ranging from "definitely would not choose another place"
to "definitely would choose another place.” The organiza-
tion identification index was formed by taking the mean re-
sponse of these four questions. The reliability (coeffi-

cient alpha) of the scale was .88 for Sample 1 and .74 for

Sample 2.

Organization Commitment

 

Organization commitment was defined in Chapter I
as an attitude toward the organization which engenders (l)
a high propensity to remain in the organization, (2) an
acceptance of organizational goals, and (3) a willingness
to provide effort in behalf of the organization. The mea-
sure of organizational commitment used in this study was

constructed by combining a measure of propensity to remain

in the organization, a measure of goal acceptance, and a

43

self reported measure of effort that the individual puts
into his job.

The measure of the individual's prOpensity to re-
main in the organization was taken from a study of
Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972),. The question asked subjects
to indicate under which set of circumstances they would
accept an offer from another employer to work in a similar
job. The circumstances involved changes in (1) pay, (2)

s of cofworkers:

_.,,.. "g

job freedom, (3) status, and (4) friendlines
Subjects were asked whether they wOuld definitely leave

(score of I), definitely not leave (score of 3), or were

‘1?

w...“ ,r

undecided as to whether they would leave (score of 2) if
they were offered no increase, a slight increase or a large
increase in each of the above categories. The propensity
to remain question appears in Figure 5. The total score
is attained by summing the individual item scores. \Co-
efficient alpha for this measure was .90 for Sample 1 and
.91 for Sample 2. 7"“ 9

The goal acceptance part of the commitment measure
for Sample 1 consisted of responses to three questions,
each scored on a seven point scale. The questions are
anchored at the bottom by the phrase, "to a very little ex-
tent" and at the top by, "to a great extent." An example
of the three questions is:

To what extent are your own personal work

goals similar to the goals of the section
in which you work?

.nNanV oupsa< one Mmficmnop: Eoum

 

H
Hoflmom camsom ou zuflmcomopm one-u.m mason
.pofiawcofihw nose
mum on: onoom no“: xhoz OH .NH
.hofiavaowhm oauufla m
ohm 0:3 oaaoom no“: xhoz 09 .HH
.Hofiaocofiym on
one on: oaaoom Sufi: M903 09 .OH
.msumpm once nose nufiz .m
.mSumum woos zauzmwam sud: .w
. .mSumum whoa 02 Ava: .5
4.
4. new >5 ca Eoeooum ouoe nose spa; .o
.n0n »E
:w Eowoohw shoe >au£maam nuwz .m
.QOH >5 :fi Eoeoohm ouoe o: spa: .e
.xmm :w ommopucfi omhma a no“: .m
.xmm Cw omwOHuca pnmwam a spa: .N
.xmm :« ommouucfl on now: .H
uoz kaoufinfiwon :wmupooca zaoufiafimoa
02 mo»

A.Oumam

OpmquOHQQO onu :fi Meme Mooau m mcfiumam kn ow vasoz :0» pass oumowvnw omwoamv
wmaowuwocoo wawzoaaom 0:» mo ham Hows: downwawcmmpo unomohm Mao» o>mOH no» case:
.cowumnwcmmno mcwzoamso Moguocm no“: pun .cowuflmoa umHHEwm m vouommo who; so» ossmm<

45

The reliability of this scale (coefficient alpha) for
Sample 1 was .73. For Sample 2, two more questions were
added to the scale in an attempt to increase the relia-
bility. One of the five questions comprising the Sample
2 scale was drOpped because of its low intercorrelation
with the other questions. The reliability of the result-
ing four question scale for goal acceptance in Sample 2
was .76.

Effort was measured in Sample 1 from responses to
two questions. The reliability for Sample 1 was .70. Three
additional questions were added to the scale for Sample 2,
in an attempt to increase the scale reliability. The aug-
mented effort scale for Sample 2 had a reliability of .87.
Cronbach's coefficient alpha (Nunally, 1967) was used to
compute these reliabilities. An example of one of the
effort questions is:

How hard do you work at your job?
Respondents chose their response from a five point scale
anchored at the bottom by, "Not very hard," and at the tOp
by "as hard as possible."

The commitment score was constructed by taking
the mean to standardized scores on the scales for propensity
to remain, goal acceptance and effort. The reliability
(coefficient alpha) for the commitment index was .84 for

Sample 1 and .86 for Sample 2.

46

Table 9 contains the means and standard deviations
for the variables measured in this study for both Sample

1 and Sample 2.

TABLE 9.--Means and Standard Deviations of Sample 1 and
Sample 2 Scale Measures.

 

Sample 1 Sample 2

 

Scale
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t p<

 

Organization Commitment 3.46 .58 3.95 .45 4.31 .001

\

Organization Identi-

fication 3.29 .69 3.66 .70 2.53 .050
Existence Importance 4.68 1.22 3.60 1.16 4.28 .001
Relatedness Importance 3.77 1.68 3.44 1.87 .89 N.S.
Growth Importance 4.99 1132 4u65 1,76 1&07 N;S.
Tenure 3.41 3.07 12.06 5.65 9.65 .001
Salary ! 3.69 2.21 10.80 1.28 17.60 .001
.Age 2.42 1.79 3.86 .97 4.38 .001
ILevel. 1.67 .69 2.57 .70 6.06 .001
Sex. 1.47 .50 1.89 .32 4.45 .001
Work Satisfaction 4.79 .94 5.39 .74 3.27 .010
People Satisfaction 5.50 .99 5.66 .82 .82 N.S.
Pay Satisfaction 3.59 1.22 5.26 1.10 6.08 .001
Promotion Satisfaction 3.16 1.73 4.94 1.83 4.77 .001

 

Sources of Satisfaction

 

Sources of satisfaction refer to whether or not
the individual's work organization is a place where he can
satisfy his needs. Thus, if an organization is capable

of satisfying the growth need of individuals, we would

47

conclude that the organization is a source for satisfy-

ing growth needs. The method used to determine whether or
not the organization is a source for satisfying a particu-
lar need is by inspection of the mean level of satisfac-
tion of that need in the organization as a whole. Table

9 indicates that the organizations in Sample 2 are sources
for satisfaction with work, promotion, peOple, and pay.
This follows from the observation that the mean levels

for these dimensions of satisfaction are relatively high.
Inspection of the satisfaction means for Sample 1 indicates
that this organization is a source of satisfaction with work
and people, but is to a much lesser degree a source of sat-

isfaction with promotion and pay.

Summary of Environmental Differences

The differences between the organizational environ-
ments play an important role in the study. These differ-
ences will now be described.

First in Sample 1, the county employees have an
organized bargaining unit for the purpose of representing
their needs to their employer. Sample 2 consists of almost
entirely managers whom we can infer from their mean age and
salary levels are competitive, "fast track" and successful.
They represent themselves to their higher management and
have been successful in doing so.

A second way in which the Sample environments

differ is in regard to the sources of satisfaction they can

48

provide to their members. These differences were discussed
immediately above. Table 10 summarizes the differences
between the sample environments. Since Sample 2 is a source
for satisfaction with work and promotion opportunities, it
will be considered a growth environment. Conversely, since
this organization in Sample 1 is deficient as a source for
satisfaction with promotion Opportunities, it will not be

considered a growth environment.

TABLE lO.--Summary of Environmental Differences.

 

 

Sample 1 Sample 2

Employees represented by a

bargaining unit? yes no
Source for satisfaction with:

People yes yes

Work yes yes

Pay no yes

Promotion no yes

 

Summary
In this chapter, the methodology of this study has

been outlined. It was noted that a two sample, "systematic
assessment" design has been used for the purpose of testing
hypotheses in two different organizational environments.
In this chapter the variables of this study have been Oper—
ationally defined, their measurement discussed and their

scale reliabilities cited. In the next chapter we shall

49

review the results found from incorporating the above

analyses.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Introduction

 

The purpose of this chapter is to present the re-
sults obtained from testing the hypotheses developed in
Chapter I. These results are presented in three sections.
The first section pertains to the hypotheses testing the
correlates of organization identification. The second sec-
tion deals with the hypotheses concerning the correlates of
organization commitment. The third section deals with the
hypothesis about the relationship between identficiation
and commitment. A fourth section discusses the results
obtained from several stepwise multiple regressions which
were run on the sample data.

Tables 11 and 12 contain the intercorrelation ma-
tricies for Samples 1 and 2 respectively. The relatively
high intercorrelations among several of the variables indi-
cate the utility of a multivariate approach to testing the
hypotheses of this study. Therefore, unless otherwise noted,
the correlations discussed in this chapter refer to higher
order partials. These partials were Obtained by holding

all variables in this study constant except for the two

50

HHHeH ease Hee.vau
HHHeH cape Ho.vae
HHHep ease me.va

 

51

 

m

ee.H eon. HH. eH. mH. se.- eeN. me. eH.- Hem.- se.- mH.- aHm: Hem.- HHee euaeoaeaeH
_epzeae

eo.H me.- AH. AH. HH. MH. HH.- emN.- ee~.- eH.- eee.- eH.- HHme eueeeaoaeH
mmoncoumaom

ee.H wH. new. ewe. ewe. NH.- AH. ee.- uHm.- me.- HH.- HHme eueauaoaaH
monoumfixm
ee.H eae. No.- «New. -ae. . Ne.- oe. eem.- No.1-emmdw eH.» nxmmeexem
ee.H me.- Ome. eH. HH.- me.- eem.- eH.- eH.- eH.- HHe HeseH
ee.H eH. owe. me. ee. ee~.- me. eHm. mH. Hag em<
ee.H eee. ~H.- .ee. mH.- eH.- NH.- eH~.- Hme aaeHem
equn-H9 mm-efi-m9 e9- HbeBEH

ee.H aHm. ewe. ewe. aHm. mN. Hzaaae aeHHeseaa
:oHpummeumm

oe.H Hem. HH.- uee. Uee. Hze Haas
:ofiuumMmHumm

oo.H NH. uem. eHe. HHaae eHaoea
:oHpommmHumm

eo.H NH. me.- Hsame Rae
aeHeeaHeHeem
ee.H one. HHe :eHeaOHHHeeeeH
8H Q 2650

He He Hm xmm H m H. same .2. Ham Ham H u

 

.oeuz xHHHaz eoHHeHeaHouHeueH H eHaeem--.HH mHm<e

52

HHHeH cape Hee.vau
HHHeH ease He.va

HHHS eat modem

 

 

ee.H uNe. uem. eH.-_ mN. eH. HN.- NH. eH.- Hm.- «se.- ee.- Ne.- eN.- HHee eueeeaoaeH
eageao

eo.H eee. eo.- mN. NH. NH.- eH.- eN.- mN.- eee.- eH.- NN.- NN.- HHme eeeaeaeeeH
, mmonwoumaom

oe.H ee. HH. eH. eH.- HH.- eH.- eNe.- eme.- Oee.- NN.- NN.- HHme eeeeeaoeaH
oocowmfixm
ee.H em. eHe. Owe.. NH. Hm. HN. HN. HN. NH. eH. meme xem
oe.H ewe. ewe. em. He. NN. me.- HN. NN. em. HHV He>eH
.eo.H eNm. nae. He.- HH. HH. HN. mN. me.- H<e em<
ee.H nee. eH. wee. emm. eNe. NN. mN. Hme NaeHam
ee.H NH. eH. eH. mN. mam. NH. HHU ensues

eo.H nee. eHm. eN. eNe. UNe. ozcmae :oHeeseaa
eeHeueHmeem

ee.H me. ee. ee. ma. Hag Heoz
O n O O cowpommmwumm

ee.H ewe. Hem. eHm. HHaae eHeoea
scapummmfiumm

ee.H ewe. eem. Hsame.saa
:oHuommmHumm
ee.H uNe. HHe :eHHeOHHHHeeeH
8H H8 «SEES

He He Hm xmm H .< w H. same 3. Ham Ham H u

 

.emuz xHaHez eoHeeHeaaouaeHeH N eHHEem--.NH mHm<H

53

whose relationship is being tested. These higher order
partials appear in Tables 13 and 14 for Samples 1 and 2 re-

spectively.

Correlates of Organization Identification

 

Hypothesis la proposed that age, salary and level
would be positively related to organization identification.
The relationship of identification and age was supported
in both Sample 1 (r=.28, p<.05) and Sample 2 (r=.27, p<.10)
of this study. Salary, however, was not found to relate
significantly with organization identification in either
Sample 1 or Sample 2. Level was found to be significantly
correlated to identification in Sample 1 (r=.23, p<.10)
but not in Sample 2.

Hypothesis lb proposed that whether or not the
organization has a union, moderates the relationship be-
tween tenure and identification. The presence of a
union was theorized to be a competing source for identi-
fication since the rewards received from the organization
might be attributed to the union rather than the organiza-
tion. This hypothesis was not supported since for Sample
2 (no union), the relationship between tenure and identi-
fication failed to reach significance.

Hypothesis 2a suggests that satisfaction will be
related to identification only if the organization is a
source for that satisfaction. Since we noted in Chapter

II that the organization of Sample 1 was a source for

54

TABLE l3.--Sample 1 High Order Correlationsl N=60.

 

Organization Organization
Identification Commitment

 

 

Tenure ' .06 .01
Salary -.13 -.30b
Age .28b .25b
Level .23a .05
Sex -.32C .15
Satisfaction-Work .238 .57C1
Satisfaction-PeOple .37C .24b
Satisfaction-Pay .05 -.21a
Satisfaction-Promotion .08 -.05
Existence Importance -.07 -.31b
Relatedness Importance -.15 .15
Growth Importance -.10 -.193
Organization Identification 1.00 .00
l

Controlling for all other variables.
p<.10 (two tail)

p<.05 (two tail)
p<.01 (two tail)
p<.001 (two tail

9039'

for satisfaction with work and peOple, there should be a sig-
nificant relationship between these satisfactions and iden-
tification. The correlations are .23 (p<.10) for the work-
identification relationship and .37 (p<.01) for the people-
identification relationship. The organization in Sample 1
was not a source for satisfaction with pay and promotion
opportunities. The relationship between satisfaction with

pay and identification was .05 and between satisfaction with

55

TABLE 14.--Sample 2 High Order Partial Correlations1

 

Organization Organization
Identification Commitment

 

 

Tenure .22 -.06
Salary -.26 .20
Age .27a -.323
Level -.03 .43b
Sex -.12 -.13
Satisfaction-Work .23 .66d
Satisfaction-People .05 -.23
Satisfaction-Pay .09 .08
Satisfaction-Promotion .33b .42b
Existence Importance -.11 .40b
Relatedness Importance .00 -.36b
Growth Importance .12 -.10
Organization Identification 1.00 .22
l

Controlling for all other variables.

bp<.10 (two tail)

.05 (two tail)
dp<.01 (two tail)
p<.001 (two tail)

promotion and identification was .08. These findings support
hypothesis 2a.

In Chapter II it was noted that the organizations
represented in Sample 2 were sources for satisfaction with
all four of the satisfaction dimensions. However, for.Sam-
ple 2, only satisfaction with promotion was found to be
significantly related to identification. The correlation
was .33 (p<.05). The correlations between identification

and satisfaction with work, people and pay were .23, 05

56

and .09 respectively. Hence Sample 2 only partially supports
hypothesis 2a.

Hypothesis 2b suggests that need importance will be
positively related to identification when the organization
is a source for satisfying a need and negatively related to
identification when the organization is not a source for sat-
isfying that need. This hypothesis was not supported since
none of the correlations reached significance in either sam-

ple.

Correlates Of Organization Commitment

Hypothesis la suggests that age, salary and level
will be positively related to organization commitment. This
hypothesis received only partial support in this study. Age
was found to be positively correlated to commitment in Sample
1 (r=.25, p<.05), but negatively correlated to commitment in
Sample 2 (r= -.32, p<.10). Salary was found to negatively
correlate with commitment in Sample 1 (r= -.30, p<.05), but
to be unrelated to commitment in Sample 2. Level was unre-
lated to commitment in Sample 1 but significantly related in
Sample 2 (r=.43, p<.05).

The negative relationship in Sample 1 between salary
and commitment spurred some further analysis. It was found
that 25% of the Sample consisted of married males who earned
the highest salaries. Although their salaries were high for
the agency, they averaged only $10,500 which is not adequate

for a married man who is in his early 30's and has family

S7

responsibilities. The lowest salaries were earned by single
females who made up 28% of the Sample. These women were in
their early 20's and did not have family responsibilities.

It may be that for these lower paid employees salary level
was not a source for noncommitment as it was for their higher
paid co-worker.

Hypothesis 1c suggests that tenure will be related
to commitment. This hypothesis was not supported in either
Sample of this study. Hypothesis 1d suggests that sex will
be related to commitment. This relationship was not supported
in either Sample 1 or 2.

Hypothesis 3a suggests that for organizations which
are sources for satisfaction with work and promotion opportun-
ities, that the level of these satisfactions will be related
to organization commitment. In Sample 1, the organization
was a source for satisfaction with work. The correlation be-
tween satisfaction with work and commitment is a .57 (p<.001).
In Sample 2, the organizations were sources for satisfaction
with both work and promotion. These variables correlate
with commitment .66 (p<.001) and .42 (p<.05) respectively.
Thus hypothesis 3a is strongly supported.

Hypothesis 3b suggests that in organizations which are
not sources for satisfaction with work and promotion, organi-
zation commitment will be related to satisfaction with peOple
and pay. In Sample 2, the organizations are sources for sat-

isfaction with work and promotion, hence Sample 2 data does

58

not apply in testing this hypothesis. In Sample 1, however,
the organization is not a source of satisfaction for promo-
tion. To support this hypothesis, satisfaction with people
and pay should be related to commitment. The correlation
between satiSfaction with peOple and commitment is .24
(p<.05). The correlation between satisfaction with pay and
commitment is -.21 (p<.10). This latter correlation while
significant was not in the hypothesized direction.
Hypothesis 3c proposes that need importance will be
positively related to organization commitment if the organ-
ization is a source for satisfying that need. When the
organization is not a source for satisfying that need, a
negative relationship is hypothesized to exist between need
importance and commitment. This relationship was partially
supported by Sample 1. Both existence importance and growth
importance was negatively correlated to commitment. The cor-
relations were -.31 (p<.05) and -.19 (p<.10) respectively.
The importance of relatedness needs was positively but not
significantly related to commitment (r=.15). In Sample 2,
the importance of existence needs was positively correlated
to commitment (r=.40, p<.05). However, the importance of
relatedness needs was negatively related to commitment

(r= n.36, p<.05).

59

The Relationship Between Identification
and'COmmitment

 

 

Hypothesis 4 proposes that the level of importance of
growth needs for an individual will moderate the relationship
between his organization identification and commitment.

The hypothesis further stipulates that this relationship will
only hold if the organization is a source for satisfaction
with work and promotion opportunities. One method of test-
ing this hypothesis would be to split each sample into high
and low growth importance groups, then test the correlations
between identification and commitment in each group for a
significant difference. One problem in this design is that
variables which covary with growth importance may confound
this analysis because they will also differ and may affect
the dependent variables in the two groups. To adjust

for the biasing effects of these covariates, a two way an-
alysis of covariance design was employed. The factors in the
ANCOVA are identification and growth importance. Each of
these factors is dichotomized at the median into high and low
levels. The dependent variable is organization commitment.

The covariates for the ANCOVA were chosen by the
following procedure. Each sample was split at the median
into low and high growth importance groups. The means and
standard deviations for these groups are summarized in Tables
15 and 16 for Samples 1 and 2 respectively. Each variable
which differed significantly between the low and high growth

importance groups was chosen as a covariate to be included

60

TABLE 15.--Sample 1 Means for Low and High Growth Importance

 

 

 

 

Groups.

Low Growth High Growth

Importance Importance

IMean. S.D. IMean S.D. t ' p<
Commitment 3.66 .45 3.26 .63 2.75 .01
Identification 3.49 .64 3.08 .69 2.39 .05
Tenure 3.67 3.31 3.17 2.88 1.91 N.S.
Salary 3.55 2.35 3.83 2.09 1.53 N.S.
Age 2.57 1.81 2.27 1.78 2.05 .05
Level 1.68 .72 1.67 .66 .06 N.S.
Sex 1.54 .51 1.43 .50 .78 N.S.
Existence Importance 4.68 1.17 4.67 1.29 .10 N.S.
Relatedness Importance 3.26 1.55 4.28 1.67 7.75 .001
Growth Importance 3.94 1.02 6.03 .48 10.15 .001
Satisfaction-WOrk 5.12 .76 4.46 .99 2.90 .01
Satisfaction-People 5.55 1.13 5.46 .85 .27 N.S.
Satisfaction-Promotion 3.30 1.97 3.01 1.46 2.05 .05
Satisfaction-Pay 3.71 1.23 3.47 1.21 .76 N.S.

 

1Groups formed by splitting Sample at the median on
growth importance.

in that Sample's ANCOVA. Table 15 indicates that the vari-
ables satisfaction with work, satisfaction with promotion,
age, and importance of relatedness needs differ significantly
between the low and high growth importance groups in Sample
1. Therefore, these four variables were chosen as the co-
variates for the Sample 1 ANCOVA. In a similar manner, Table
16 indicates that the covariates for the Sample 2 ANCOVA
should be satisfaction with people, and the importance of

existence and relatedness needs.

61

TABLE l6.--Sample 2 Means for Low and High Growth Importance

 

 

 

 

Groups.

Low Growth High Growth

Importance Importance

iMean S.D. Nben. S.D. t . p<
Commitment 4.04 .38 3.87 .51 1.14 N.S.
Identification 3.78 .31 3.54 .94 1.01 N.S.
Tenure 11.76 5.47 12.33 5.96 .30 N.S.
Salary 11.12 1.11 10.50 1.38 1.48 N.S.
Age 3.82 .81 3.89 1.13 .21 N.S.
Level 2.41 .80 2.72 .57 1.35 N.S.
Sex 1.94 .24 1.83 .38 1.00 N.S.
Existence Importance 3.01 1.20 4.20 .78 3.50 .01
Relatedness Importance 2.26 1.09 4.62 1.75 4.85 .001
Growth Importance 3.13 1.04 6.18 .64 10.62 .001
Satisfaction-WOrk 5.55 .44 5.23 .94 1.30 N.S.
Satisfaction-People 5.94 .55 5.37 .95 2.20 .05
Satisfaction-Promotion 5.39 1.78 4.50 1.81 1.48 N.S.
Satisfaction-Pay 5.26 1.25 5.25 .97 .03 N.S.

 

1Groups fOrmed by splitting Sample at the median on growth
hmxntamur

The data will support hypothesis 4 if there is a
significant interaction between identification and growth
importance in the growth environment (Sample 2), but if
there is no such interaction in the low growth environment
(Sample 1). Table 17 indicates that there is not a signi-
ficant interaction in Sample 1. Table 18 reports the ad-
justed commitment means for the four cells of the two way
ANCOVA performed on Sample 1. Table 19 indicates that

there is a significant main effect for identification and

62

TABLE l7.--Sample 1 Analysis of Covariance.1

 

 

Source DF SS MS F
Identification 1 220,629 220,629 .11
Growth Importance 1 3,124,640 3,124,640 1.56
Interaction . 1 603,896 603,896 .30
Within 52 103,901,550 1,998,107

 

1Dependent variable is commitment.. Covariates are
satisfaction with work and promotion, age and relatedness
importance.

TABLE 18.--Sample 1 Adjusted Cell Means.1

 

Growth Importance

 

 

High Low
I
D High 3.39 3.55
E
N
T Low 3.33 3.53

 

’-

1Dependent variable is commitment. Covariates are
satisfaction with work and promotion, age and relatedness

importance.

3 significant interaction in the Sample 2 ANCOVA. The ad-
justed cell means reported in Table 20 indicate that commit-
ment is highest in Sample 2 when both identification and

growth importance are high, and that commitment is low

63

TABLE 19.--Sample 2 Analysis of Covariance.1

 

 

Source DF SS MS F
Identification 1 7,783,486 7,783,486 6.56a
Growth Importance 1 54,765 54,765 .05
Interaction 1 8,102,761 8,102,761 6.623
Within 29 55,472,572 1,225,185

 

1Dependent variable is commitment. Covariates are
satisfaction with people, existence importance and related-
ness importance.

ap<.05

TABLE 20.--Sample 2 Adjusted Cell Means.1

 

Growth Importance

 

 

High Low
I High 4.24 4.01
D
E
N L
T ow 3.68 3.95

 

1Dependent variable is commitment (cell means).
Covariates are satisfaction with people, existence impor-
tance and relatedness importance.

when growth importance and identification are low. Thus, in
the growth environment, the individual's importance of growth
needs moderates the relationship between organization iden-

tification and commitment. This relationship was not found

64

in the low growth environment of Sample 1. Hence hypothesis
4 is supported.

Identifying the Best Predictors of
Identification and Commitment

The value in any theory lies in finding those few
variables which contribute the most to explaining the con-
cept under investigation. In the spirit of selecting those
"best" predictors of organization identification and commit-
ment, several stepwise multiple regressions were run on the
Sample 1 and Sample 2 data. The criterion for selecting
the "best" predictor variables, was that the semi-partial
correlation of the predictor with the dependent variable
must be significant (p<.05). The semi-partial correlation
is the relationship between an independent variable about to
be added to the regression and the dependent variable when
the effects of the previous independent variables in the
regression have been removed (Nunnally, 1967).

Major Predictors of Identifi-
cation and Commitment

 

Figure 6 indicates that three variables (1) satis-
faction with work, (2) satisfaction with peOple, and (3)
age were selected by the stepwise multiple regression as
being the best predictors of organization identification
in Sample 1. These variables accounted for 52% of the vari-
ance. A summary of this regression is provided in Table 21.
Table 21 indicates that the single most important predictor
or organization identification in Sample 1 was satisfaction

with people.

65

HszHHESOU ZOHH<NHz<omO

ZOHH<UHmHHszH ZOHH<NHz<omO

eonmonmom oHaHeHez H oHQEnm--.e mmaon

 

 

 

H
:owmmonwou pom moo.vmm
:ofimmoumop pom moo.vn~
mo.v moHnmwpm> wowhouoo mo ooomuHmHanmH
. H o I thgm
moo mm mH I m H
oonmuuomEH
HN.-" m mucoumflxm
He.-u m thamm
an. n m Moo:
om<
Mao:

 

onoom

66

TABLE 21.--Summary of Sample 1 Regression for Organization

 

 

Identification.
Predictor Beta1 R2 for Increase Significance
Variable Weight Regression in R2 of Equation
People .50 .41 .41 .0005
Work .25 .48 .07 .0005
Age .21 .52 .04 .0005

 

1Beta applies to final regression equation.

Figure 6 also indicates that 66% of the variance
in organization commitment is accounted for by the variables:
(1) satisfaction with work, (2) salary level, (3) importance
of existence needs, and (4) tenure. The summary of this re-
gression appears in Table 22. For this sample, satisfaction

with work was the best predictor of commitment.

TABLE 22.--Summary of Sample 1 Regression for Organization
Commitment.‘

 

 

Predictor Beta1 R2 for Increase Significance
Variable Weight Regression in R2 of Equation
Work .71 .45 .45 .0005
Salary -.41 .61 .16 .0005
Existence

Importance -.21 .63 .02 .0005
Tenure .19 .66 .03 .0005

 

1Beta applies to final regression equation.

67

Figure 7 shows that in Sample 2, 62% of the variance
of organization identification is accounted for by the fol-
lowing variables: (1) satisfaction with work, (2) satis-
faction with promotion Opportunities, and (3) tenure.
Further, satisfaction with work and promotion opportunities
accounted for 72% of the variance in organization commitment.
These regressions are summarized in Tables 23 and 24 respec-
tively.

To emphasize the similarities and dissimilarities
between the predictors of organization identification in the
two environments, the best predictors for Sample 1 and Sam-
ple 2 were combined and then regressed on each of the samples.
Table 25 compares the beta weights Obtained from these two
regressions. Table 26 compares the beta weights obtained when
the best predictors of organization commitment were combined
and then regressed on the two samples. These Tables indicate
that satisfaction with work was a strong predictor of commit-
ment in both Samples. However, the strongest predictor for
identification was satisfaction with people in Sample 1 and
satisfaction with work in Sample 2. Table 27 summarizes the
best predictors of identification and commitment for the
two samples.

Predictors of Identification

and’Commitment for Three
Occupatibnal Groupg

 

 

 

In chapter 2, it was noted that three occupational

groups were represented in this study. Because differences

68

Nu." m

N
HszHHZZOU ZOHH<NHz<umO

No.nmm
ZOHH<UHmHHzmQH ZOHH<NHZ<OMO

.muommomz N onsmm--.n,mm:uHm

 

 

 

 

 

H
.mo.v moHanHm> wofihouoo mo ovumOmecmfimH
mm.» m ll :owpoEopm
me. u a II: xuoz
onscoe
:ofluosoum

 

 

Hoe:

69

TABLE 23.--Summary of Sample 2 Regression for Organization

 

 

Identification.
Predictor Beta1 R2 for Increase Significance
Variable Weight Regression in R2 of Equation
Work .42 .43 .43 .0005
Promotion .38 .55 .12 .0005
Tenure .26 .62 .07 .0005

 

1Beta applies to final regression equation.

TABLE 24.4-Summary of Sample 2 Regression for Organization

 

 

Commitment.
Predictor Beta1 R2 for Increase Significance
Variable Weight Regression in R of Equation
Work .68 .66 .66 .0005
Promotion .27 .72 .06 .0005

 

1Beta applies to final regression equation.

TABLE 25.--Comparison of Beta Weights Obtained from Regres-
sing Best Predictors of Identification from Both
Samples on Sample 1 and Sample 2.

 

 

 

 

Sample 1 Sample 2
Predictor Significance Significance
Variable Beta of Beta Beta of Beta
PeOple .48 .0005 -.13 .45
Age .22 .16 .11 .41
Work .24 .04 .49 .005
Promotion .07 .52 .43 .004

Tenure -.01 .95 .22 .10

 

70

TABLE 26.--Comparison of Beta Weights Obtained from Regres-
sing Best Predictors of Commitment from Both
Samples on Sample 1 and Sample 2.

 

 

 

 

 

Sample 1 Sample 2

Predictor Significance Significance
Variable Beta of Beta Beta of Beta
Work .71 .0005 .75 .0005
Promotion .001 .995 .26 .02
Tenure .19 .05 .04 .74
Salary -.41 .0005 -.05 .70
Existence

Importance -.21 .034 .12 .26

1

TABLE 27.-—Comparison of Best Predictor Variables of Identi-
fication and Commitment for Two Environments.

 

 

 

 

Identification Commitment
Environment Predictor R2 Predictor R2
County Agency Work .52 Work .66
(Sample 1) People Salary (—)

Age Existence

~ Importance

Tenure

Managers Work .61 Work .71
(Sample 2) Promotion Promotion

Tenure

 

1Best refers to the criterion that the semi-partial
correlation of each variable entering the stepwise multiple
regression must be significant at o =.05.

in occupational training and values may influence the basis
for an individual's identification and commitment, a final

set of regressions were run for comparing the determinants

71

of these variables for the three occupations. Sample 1 can
be classified into professional and nonprofessional segments.
The former group consists of county social workers and their
supervisors. The latter group is made up of clerical and
paraprofessional workers. Sample 2 consists mainly of man-
agers.

Figure 8 indicates that among the nonprofessionals,
the best predictors of identification were sex and satis-
faction with work, people and pay. These variables accounted
for 60% of the variance in identification. The variables
salary, satisfaction with work and satisfaction with peOple
accounted for 65% of the variance in commitment. For the
professional group, Figure 9 shows that satisfaction with
people and age were the best predictors of their identifi-
cation. These variables accounted for 58% of the variance
in this dependent variable. Satisfaction with work and level
of salary accounted for 61% of the variance in commitment for
this group. Table 28 compares the best predictors for iden-
tification and commitment for the managerial group of Sample
2 and the professional and nonprofessionals of Sample 1.
Table 29 compares the levels of commitment and identifica-
tion to the correlation between identification and commit-
ment for the three occupational groups in this study. Tables
28 and 29 indicate that for these groups commitment to an
organization is highest where both identification and commit-

ment are related to the satisfaction of the higher order

72

H.mHoHuos HHOHHQHU H onEmm--.m mmDon

.mo.v moHanHm> wcHHouoo mo mommOHchmeH

 

 

 

 

 

onoom
me u «m
hszHszou onh<NHz<wmo. AHmHmm
xhoz
em. u m and
co u Na
:3 II . xo
onB<uHmHHzmmH onB<NHz<umo . cu m
me. u m MAO:
Hm. u m onoom

73

H.muoxhoz HmHuom H onEmm--.m mmson

.mo.v moHanHm> wcHHopoo mo ouomOHchmHmH

 

He. u Ne Neiu m 1. >228

HszHHZZOU ZOHH<NHz<umo Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Hm. I m Mhoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZOHH<UHmHHszH ZOHH<NHz<umo Inn

 

ill, oHaoom

74

TABLE 28.--Comparison of Best1 Predictor Variables of Iden-
tification and Commitment for Three Occupational

 

 

 

 

Groups.
Identification Commitment

Environment Predictor R2 Predictor Rz
Managers Work .61 Work .71
(Sample 2) Promotion Promotion

Tenure
Social Workers People .58 Work '.61
(Sample 1) Age Salary (-)
Clerical Work .60 Work .65
(Sample 1) People PeOple

Pay Salary (')

Sex

 

1Best refers to the criterion that the semi-partial
correlation of each variable added to the stepwise multiple
regression equation must be significant at o =.05.

TABLE 29.--Commitment and Its Relationship to Identification
Among Three Occupational Groups.

 

Correlation of

 

Occupational Level of Level of Identification
Group Identification Commitment to Commitment
Managers 5.661 5.952 .673
Social Workers 5.25 5.54 .543
Clerical 3.36 3.57 .49

 

1Score is significantly greater than score for Clerks
(p<.01).

2Score significantly greater than for clerks (p<.01)
and social workers (p<.001).

3
(p<.10).

Difference between correlations is significant

75

growth needs. In this case, the relationship between organ-

ization identification and commitment is strongest.

Summary of Major Findings

The major findings of this study are summarized in
the following paragraphs. The organizations of this study
were found to differ in the sources of satisfaction they
provided their members. It was found that any of these sat-
isfactions may be a source for an individual's identifica-
tion with his organization.

The research indicated that in the organization which
was a source for satisfaction with work and promotion Oppor-
tunities, that commitment was related to these satisfactions.
The research also indicated that in such an environment, the
importance of an individual's growth needs moderates the re-
lationship between organization identification and commit-
ment. This moderating effect was not found in the organiza-
tion which was not a source for satisfaction with work and
promotion. In this latter organization, commitment was re-
lated to satisfaction with people, as well as to satisfaction
with work.

Managers, clerical workers and social workers were
found to base their identification upon different satisfac-
tions. Identification within the manager's group was related
to satisfaction with work and Opportunities for promotion.
Identification for the social workers was related to satis-

faction with peOple and their age while identification for

76

the clerical workers was related to their sex and satisfac—
tion with work, people and pay.

The highest level of commitment was found in the
managerial group whose identification and commitment were
related to satisfaction with work and promotion opportunities.
In this case there was a strong relationship between commit-
ment and identification. The lowest level of commitment
was among the social workers. In this group identification
was closely related to satisfaction with peOple while commit-
ment was related to satisfaction with work.' In this case
identification and commitment were not strongly related.

Organization commitment has been hypothesized to re-
sult from a favorable inducements-contributions balance
(March and Simon, 1958; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972) or from
the accumulation of personal investments in the organization
(Sheldon, 1971; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972). Based upon
this approach, the variables of sex, age, tenure and salary
were hypothesized to relate with organization commitment.
While this present study does not refute these earlier
findings, it does Show that the importance of these variables
in explaining commitment may not be as significant as the
level of satisfaction that one derives from the organization.
While the former variables in the previously mentioned studies
accounted for as much as 7% of the variance in identifica-
tion and 16% of the variance in commitment, the satisfac-

tion variables in this study accounted for as much as 55%

77

of the variance in identification and 72% of the variance
in commitment. Thus in this study the satisfaction vari-
ables were much stronger predictors of both identification
and commitment than were the variables sex, age, tenure and

salary.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Introduction

 

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the re-
sults obtained from the preceding analysis in terms of their
general implications, and relevance to practicing managers.
The chapter will also discuss the limitations of this study

and suggest some areas for further research.

Discussion of Research Findings

 

The organizations of this study differed in the
sources of satisfaction they provided their members. The
county agency was a source for satisfaction with work and
peOple but only a limited source for satisfaction with pro-
motion and pay. The managers' organizations were sources
for satisfaction with promotion, work, people and pay. The
analysis indicates that any Of these satisfactions could be
a source for an individual's organization identification.
For a specific individual, however, a given type of satis-
faction was related tO organization identification only when
the organization was a source for that satisfaction. This
implies that organization identification cannot be adequately

studied without considering both the individual's level of

78

79

_satisfaction in a particular dimension, and the organiza-
tion's ability to fulfill that satisfaction.

In the organizations which were sources for satis-
faction with work and promotion in this study, organization
commitment was related to the level of satisfaction of those
needs. Further, in these organizations, the importance of
growth needs to an individual moderated the relationship
between identification and commitment. For people with
strong growth needs there was a strong relationship between
identification and commitment. For peOple with lower growth
needs, there was a weaker relationship. This indicates that
-Organization identification and commitment are separate psy-
chological constructs which may or may not be related, de-
pending upon individual and environmental circumstances.

In the organization which was not a source for sat-
isfaction with promotion opportunities, commitment was re-
lated to satisfaction with work and peOple. Thus, there
appear to be both intrinsic and extrinsic sources for organ-
ization commitment. In the intrinsic case, commitment de-
velops from intrinsic satisfactions derived from one's or-
ganizational role. In the extrinsic case, commitment deveIOps
in response to extrinsic satisfactions and barriers which
materialize to prohibit the individual from freely leaving
the organization. One might term these "internal commit-

ment" and "external commitment" respectively.

80

Previous researchers have approached the study of
commitment as though it was only of the external form.
Grusky (1966) thought that commitment would be higher when
an individual overcame significant obstacles in their or-
ganizational careers. These Obstacles were Operationalized
in terms of low educational level and sex. Individuals who
had a low level of education or who were female and rose to
a managerial level in the firm were theorized to be more com-
mitted. The reason for their greater commitment was that
the organization permitted them to succeed in spite of their
"unmarketable" qualities. Sheldon (1971) and Buchanan (1974)
found that the degree of social involvement with other or-
ganization members was related to commitment. The external
pull of one's relationship with his co-workers can be another
form of external commitment. Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972)
investigated.the relationship of tenure, age and sex to or-
ganization commitment. They viewed commitment in terms of
exchange or reward-cost considerations. Being female, grow-
ing older or increased tenure weakened the individual's mo-
bility and hence strengthened commitment to the current or-
ganization. This present study emphasizes the fruitfulness
of investigating the intrinsic determinants of an internal
form Of commitment. The findings indicate that intrinsic
factors may account for up to 70% Of the variance in organ-
ization commitment while the extrinsic factors account for

about 20% of the variance.

81

In the analysis of the three occupational groups,
the manager's commitment was based largely on intrinsic
factors. Satisfaction with work and opportunities for pro-
motion were the strongest predictors of their commitment.

For the clerical and social workers, commitment was a mix-
ture of the internal and external forms. Satisfaction with
work, satisfaction with people and salary level were impor-
tant predictors of commitment for these individuals.

The three occupational groups also differed in their
determinants of identification. For the managers, satis-
faction with promotion, satisfaction with work and tenure
were the strongest predictors of organization identification.
Thus, it is those individuals who were trained and who thrived
in the competitive and dynamic managerial ranks of the organ-
ization which most readily identified with the organization.
For the social workers, satisfaction with people and their
age were the strongest predictors of organization identifica-
tion. For this group, which has been trained to be sensitive
to the personal problems of individuals, the quality of their
relationships with people on the job was their greatest source
of organization identification. For the clerical group,
whose training and education was more general, satisfaction
with work, pay and peOple, as well as their sex, were the
strongest predictors of identification. Hence it appears
that identification represents a fit between the background,
training,and interests of the individual and his organiza-’

tional role.

82

The highest level of commitment was found in the
managerial group, where both organization identification
and commitment were related to satisfaction with work and
promotion. In this case the relationship between identific
cation and commitment was strong. The lowest level of com-
mitment was found in the social worker group. In this case,
identification was based largely on their satisfaction with
people. However, their commitment was related strongly to
their satisfaction with work. For the social workers, iden-
tification and commitment were not strongly related. This
indicates that commitment will be highest when identifica-
tion and commitment are highly correlated.

The findings of this research can be integrated into
a theoretical framework which resembles Alderfer's need
theory (Alderfer, 1969). In the next section we shall dis-
cuss this framework.

A Theoretical Framework for
Organization Commitment

Based upon Alderfer's theory of needs (Alderfer,
1969), and the findings from this study, we can prOpose a
tentative theoretical framework for organization commitment.
Alderfer contends that when the satisfaction of a need is
frustrated, the importance of the next lower order need
increases. Thus in his three level system of needs, frus-
tration of the satisfaction of growth needs results in a

higher importance being placed upon relatedness needs of an

83

individual. Similarily, frustration of relatedness needs
results in the increase of importance in existence needs.
Alderfer's research (Alderfer, 1969; Schneider and Alder-
fer, 1972) has further shown that except for the growth
needs, frustration of a need will result in increasing its
importance. Thus frustrating the relatedness need not only
increasesthe importance of existence needs but it also in-
creases its own importance.

The results of this study of commitment are some-
what analagous to Alderfer's findings. Earlier in Chapter
I we noted that satisfaction with work and promopion Oppor-
tunities can be considered sources for satisfying the growth 1
needs of individuals. Similarly it was noted that satis-
faction with peOple could be considered a source for sat-
isfying relatedness needs and that satisfaction with pay
could be considered to be a source of satisfying existence ‘
needs. Now, commitment was found to be related to satisfac-
tion with work and promotion when the organization was a
source for satisfying these needs. However, when the organ-
ization was not a source for satisfying both of these needs,
relatedness needs became more important in determining the
individual's level of commitment.

Alderfer's research has further shown that as needs
become satisfied, their importance diminishes, and the im-
portance of the next higher need increases. The growth needs

are an exception in that they are insatiable (Alderfer, 1969),

84

and their satisfaction leads to strengthening the growth
need. The current study indicates for the manager group,
that their organizations provide satisfaction with work,
promotion, peOple and pay. The importance of satisfaction
with people and pay is minimal, but the satisfaction with
work and promotion is highly important in determining their
level of commitment. The findings from the county level
agency are not as clear since the agency is not a source
for satisfaction with pay and is not a source for satis-
faction with promotion. It appears that the partial frus-
tration of growth related needs increases the importance of
satisfaction with peOple in the agency, particularly for the
clerical workers. Satisfaction with pay did not seem to be
an important determinant of commitment.

The findings indicate that satisfaction derived from
organizations are sources for organization identification.
From the previous section, we concluded that identification
was a measure of fit between the background, training and
interests of an individual and his organizational role.
Hence depending upon the needs, interests and values of the
individual, any source of satisfaction from an organization
may also be a source for identification with the organization.

Finally, organization commitment was found to be
highest when both identification and commitment were based
upon meeting the growth needs of individuals. The lowest

level of commitment was found where identification and

85

commitment were based largely upon different factors and
were thus only weakly related. This may indicate that or-
ganization commitment and identification have a very impor—
tant relationship. In particular, commitment will be great-
est when it is consistent with one's own identity. That is
to say, when the sources upon which one bases his commitment
are the same as those upon which he bases his identity, then
commitment will be great. In those cases where commitment
and identification are based upon different factors, the
strength of commitment will be weakened.

The relationships discussed in this section are sum-
marized in Figure 10. The figure indicates that identifi-
cation results when the organization satisfies those needs
which are related to the individual's preferences as deter-
mined by his background, interests and training. It indicates
that commitment based upon satisfying growth related needs
such as work and promotion (internal commitment), will be
stronger than commitment based upon meeting other needs (ex-
ternal commitment). It further indicates that commitment
will be greatest when the sources for commitment and iden-

tification are the same.

Relevance to Practicing Managers
The implications and inferences drawn from this
study have particular relevance to practicing managers and
policy makers in an organization. The first factor the man-

ager should be aware of is that both identification and

F>CUH<HUZH

ZOHF-lnfib'fiCDI—I—llbm

86

Organizational Sources for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commitment
Existence Relatedness Growth
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
p (55) (RS) (GS)
R ES Identification
E
F
E
R R8 Identification
E
N
C
E GS Identification
8

Arrow denotes path of greatest com-

mitment.

FIGURE 10.--A Model of Organization Commitment.

 

87

commitment are the result of an interaction between the in-
dividual and the organization. Organizational policies de-
termine to a large extent the organization's sources for com-
mitment and thus which satisfactions will be provided to its
members. The greatest commitment is possible only when the
existence, relatedness and growth needs of individuals can
be satisfied by their organizational membership. This indi-
cates that a necessary condition for an optimal level of
commitment is a fair pay policy where the individual's exis—
tence needs can be satisfied as well as a work environment
which engenders satisfying personal relationships with super-
visors, co-workers, and others with which one comes in daily
contact. It also requires an opportunity for meeting one's
growth needs. Such needs can be met through participative
forms of management, career planning, and development of
organizational members.

Meeting the spectrum of human needs is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for Optimizing the commitment
of organizational members. The process is limited by the
personal attributes of those individuals employed by the
organization. Thus an organization will gain little by
implementing a participative management system if their
employees have little interest in satisfying their growth
needs. It is therefore important that employers select those
individuals who will identify with an organization which
offers opportunities for satisfying growth needs. It is in

this case that an optimum commitment can be reached.

88

Optimums are seldom feasible in reality. The more
common situation a manager faces, is, "Given my present
employees, how can I optimize commitment?" Therefore, the
problem reduces to one of sub-Optimization given the con-
straint of a nearly fixed organizational membership. Here
the organization is faced with the problem of selecting those
policies which will result in the greatest organization
identification and organization commitment. In this case
we are fitting the organization to the members rather than
selecting the members for the organization. In practice
this would require an investigation to determine the member's
preferences, interests and backgrounds. For example, should
the employees be oriented toward satisfying relatedness
needs, the optimum commitment will result when their exis-
tence needs are met, and the organization is a place with
harmonious interpersonal relationships. The commitment
would not be as high in this organization as in an organ-
ization which had members bent on satisfying their growth
needs, and which provided means by which the existence, re-
latedness, and growth needs of their members could be met.
However, commitment would be Optimized given the constraint
of their present work force.

Another constraint placed upon managers is inflex-
ible policy. For example, the organization's technology
may be such that the manager is unable to freely select the

sources of satisfaction that the firm might offer individuals.

89

Proponents of automated assembly have argued that jobs can

be changed to become intrinsically rewarding only at great
costs in efficiency and thus exorbitant market prices. The
best a manager can do in this situation is to select employees
which have a low interest in meeting their growth needs and
assign them to these tasks. Efforts should then be made to
meet the needs most suitable to these employees such as exis-
tence or relatedness needs.

An implication of this research is that the optimum
level of commitment for a group can be attained when their
organization identification and organization commitment are
based upon the same Set of factors. Thus it is important
for the manager or policy maker to understand how organiza-
tion members identify with the organization and then set
policies to, (1) change the membership to fit current pOlicies
(i.e., via selection or socialization), or (2) change current
policies to fit the present members.

Prior to completing this discussion, it is appro-
priate to mention the process of socialization. Socializa-
tion is a process by which one's identification develops.

The social dynamics of influential others tend to determine
the individual's values and attitudes. Schein (1967) has
shown that such a process can occur during management educa-
tion programs. Thus it seems posSible that organizations,
through their training programs both formal and informal, may

be able to shape the individual to fit the organization.

90

The extreme of this approach is taken by the military ser-
vices in Basic Training. However, the fact that the military
requires a two to four year "hitch" to preclude the egress

of its members is evidence that the military's socialization
program is at best only partially successful. McKelvey
(1969) has shown that individuals react differently to social-
ization attempts, particularly when a firmly held belief or
value is challenged. The prospective members of an employing
organization have already acquired a set of values and be-
liefs. Thus the organization will be most successful if it
selects those individuals whose values and attitudes are con-
gruent with the values of the organization.

Limitations and Recommendations for
Future Research

 

As in any study using a systematic assessment approach,
the results are dependent upon those variables which the
researcher chooses to include in the study. Since practi-
cality precludes the inclusion of all variables which have
been studied in the behavioral sciences, the selection of
variables is an important part of any study. An attempt
was made to select the most relevant variables which would
meet the objectives of this paper. The selection was made
on the basis of either previous research findings of that
the variable would help distinguish between the concepts of
identification and commitment. Other variables excluded

from this study may have done a better job or may not have.

91

At any rate, the selection of variables and exclusion of
other variables is one source of limitation in this study.

A second limitation of this study involves the
method by which the organizations were classified as sources
or non-sources for certain dimensions of satisfaction. A
better methods needs to be developed to determine what por-
tion of a person's satisfaction is actually derived from the
organization. Ghiselli (1974) has suggested that organiza-
tions have different psychological dimensions which affects
their behavior. Sources of satisfaction are perhaps one
of these dimensions which represent an area for fruitful
research.

Although this study included two samples with diver-
gent characteristics, there are several types of employees
who have not been included. For the most part both samples
included well educated individuals. The mean level of edu4
cation was approximately 14 years for Sample 1 and over 16
years for Sample 2. Thus it is not possible to generalize,
except by inferences, the results of this study to those who
have less than a high school education. Thus greater gen-
erality can only be achieved over a period of time as other
researchers find supporting or contrasting results.

The emphasis of this study has been to determine the
correlates of identification and commitment in terms of
which factors lead to developing them. Emphasized was how

the two concepts might differ in their relationship to each

92

other. However, there was no effort made to determine what
the outcomes of these two variables would be. A valuable
piece of future research would be to draw a distinction be-
tween commitment and identification treating them as inde-
pendent variables rather than dependent variables. This
would provide managers with a clear picture of what benefits
they might receive from developing a stronger sense of iden-
tification or commitment in their organizations.

Finally, a need for an experimental approach must
be included in areas of future research. Until a controlled
experiment can be done in organizational settings the assess-
ment of causality to independent variables must be made

largely through inference.

Conclusion

Several conclusions can be drawn from this study re-
garding organization identification and commitment. Perhaps
the most important one is that they are definitely not the
same concept nor must they always be related. Two factors
seem to account for the relationship between these variables.

First, the organization makes a difference in regard
to the sources of satisfaction it may provide to its employ-
ees. This factor seems to affect both the determinants of
identification and commitment. In an organization which is
a source for satisfying growth needs, the strongest deter-
minants of identification and commitment are satisfaction

of these growth needs. In such a climate, the importance of

93

growth needs further moderates the relationship between iden-
tification and commitment.

In the organization which is not a source for satis-
faction of growth needs, other variables appear to take on
importance in determining the level of identification and
commitment. In Sample 1, satisfaction with peOple was the
strongest correlate of identification while satisfaction
with work and the level of one's salary were important cor-
relates of commitment. Hence in the non-growth climate
these concepts seem to move in separate directions with
largely separate determinants. Further, the moderating
effect of growth importance does not work in this climate.

Individuals also make a difference in determining
the level of identification or commitment. For example in
the growth climate, the individual who can derive growth
satisfaction from the organization is the most committed.
Similarly, in the non-growth climate of Sample 1, the indi-
vidual who can derive high relatedness satisfaction from
the organization is the one who identifies most strongly.
Thus to a large extent, the individual must be capable of
deriving satisfactions from the organization in order to
develop a sense of identification or commitment.

Finally, the role of satisfaction with work is the
single most consistent correlate of identification and
commitment in both samples of this study. The importance

of this variable must not be underestimated when considering

94

development of identification or commitment to an organ-

ization.

B I BL IOGRAPHY

95

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams J. Stacy. "Toward an Understanding of Inequity."

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67:422-
436, 1963.

 

Alderfer, Clayton P. "Convergent and Discriminant Valida-

tion of Satisfaction and Desire.Measures by Inter-
views and Questionnaires." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 51:509-520, 1967.

 

"An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs."
Or anization Behavior and Human Performance, 4:142-175,
1959

 

 

Allport, George W. Becoming; Basic Considerations for a

ngchology of Personality. New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 1955.

 

Becker, Howard S. and James Carper. "The Elements of Iden-

tification with an Occupation." American Sociologi-
cal Review, 21:341-347.

 

 

Blocker, Donald H. and Richard A. Schutz. "Relationships

Among Self-Discriptions, Occupational Stereotypes,
and Vocational Preferences." Journal of Counseling
P§ychology, 8:314-317, 1961.

 

Block, Jack and Hobart Thomas. "Is Satisfaction with Self

a Measure of Adjustment?" Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 51:254-259, 1955.

 

 

Brown, Michael E. "Identification and Some Conditions of

Organizational Involvement." Administrative Science
Quarterly, 14:346-355, 1969.

 

Buchanan, Bruce II. "Building Organizational Commitment:

The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 19:533-546, 1974.

 

Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and

 

 

guasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago:
an c a y, .

96

97

Centers, Richard and Daphne E. Bugental. "Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Job Motivations Among Different Segments
of the Working POpulation." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 50:193-197, 1966.

 

 

Combs, Arthur and Donald Snygg. Individual Behavior: A
Perceptual Approach to Behavior. New York: Harper
andiBrothers, 19597*

 

Cronbach, Lee J. "The Two Disciplines of Scientific Psy-
chology." American Psychologist, 12:671-684, 1957.

 

Dubin, Robert. "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the
'Central Life Interests' of Industrial Workers."
Social Problems, 3:131-142, 1955.

 

Dunnette, Marvin D., Richard D. Arvey and Paul A. Banas.
"Why Do They Leave?" Personnel, 50:25-39, 1973.

 

Farley, Frank H. and Wallace L. Meabea. "Fear and the Locus
of Control." Hsychology, 9:10-12, 1972.

 

Farris, George F. "A Predictive Study of Turnover.” Per-
sonnel Psychology, 24:311-328, 1971.

 

Forehand, Garlie A. and B. VonHaller Gilmer. "Environmental
Variation in Studies of Organization Behavior."
Hsychological Bulletin, 62:361-382, 1964.

 

French, John R.P., Jr. "SPSSI Presidential Address--1963:
The Social Environment and Mental Health." Journal
of Social Issues, 19:39-56, 1963.

 

Gavin, James F. "Self-Esteem as a Moderator of the Relation-
ship Between Expectancies and Job Performance."
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57:83-88, 1973.

 

Gergen, K.J. The Concept of Self. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, i971.

 

Ghiselli, Edwin E. "Some Perspectives for Industrial Psy-
chology." American Psychologist, 29:80,87, 1974.

 

Goldman, Daniel R. "Managerial Mobility Motivations and Gen-
tral Life Interests." American Sociological Review,
38:119-126, 1973.

 

Gouldner, Alvin W. "CosmOpolitans and Locals: Toward an
Analysis of Latent Social Roles I." Administrative
Science Quarterly, 2:281-306, 1958a.

 

 

98

"CosmOpolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of
Latent Social Roles II." Administrative Science
Qparterly, 2:444-480, 1958b.

 

Greenhaus, Jeffrey H. "Career Salience as a Moderator of the
Relationship Between Satisfaction with Occupational
Preference and Satisfaction with Life in General."
The Journal of Psychology, 86:53-55, 1974.

Grusky, Oscar. "Career Mobility and Organizational Commit-
ment." Administrative Science Quarterly, 10:488-503,
1966.

Gustin, Bernard H. "Charisma, Recognition, and the Motivation
of Scientists." American Journal of Sociology, 78:
1119-1134, 1973.

 

Hackman, Richard J. and Edward E. Lawler, III. "Employee
Reactions to Job Characteristics." Journal of Applied
Psychology Monograph, 55:259-286, 1971.

Hall, Calvin and Gardner Lindzey. Theories of Personality.
New York: John Wiley, 1957.

Hall, Douglas T. and Benjamin Schneider. "Correlates of
Organizational Identification as a Function of Career
Pattern and Organizational Type." Administrative
Science Quarterly, 17:340-350, 1972.

Hall, Douglas T., Benjamin Schneider and Harold T. Nygren.
"Personal Factors in Organizational Identification."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15:176-190.

Hays, William L. Statistics for the Social Spiences. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

Hersch, Paul D. and Kark E. Scheike. "Reliability and Validity
of Internal-External Control as 3 Personality Dimen—
sion." Journal Of Consulting Psychology, 31:609-613,
1967.

Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. and Joseph A. Alutto. "Personal and
Role-Related Factors in the Development of Organiza-
tional Commitment." Administrative Science Quarterly,
17:555-573, 1972.

Inkeles, Alex and Daniel J. Levinson. "The Personal System
and the Sociocultural System in Large-Scale Organiza-
tions.” Sociometry, 26:217-230, 1963.

99

Ivancevich, John M. and James H. Connelly, Jr. "A Study of
Role Clarity and Need for Clarity for Three Occupa-
tional Groups." Academy of Management Journal, 17:
28-36, 1974.

Kahn, Robert L., Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn and J.
Diedrick Snoek. Organization Stress: Studies in
Role Conflict and Ambiggipy. TNew Yofk: John Wiley
8 Sons, 1964.

Kelman, Herbert C. "Compliance, Identification and Inter-
nalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change."
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2:51-60, 1958.

Korman, Abraham K. "Self-Esteem Variable in Vocational
Choice." Journal of Applied Psychology, 50:479-486,
1966.

. "Toward an Hypothesis of Work Behavior." Journal
of Applied Psycholpgy, 54:31-41, 1970.

Kritzer, Herbert M., A. Paul Hare and Herbert H. Blumberg.
"The General Survey: A Short Measure of Five Per-
sonality Dimensions." The Journal of Psychology,
86:165-172.

Lawler, Edward E., III. Motivation in Work Organizations.
Belmont: Wadsworth, 1973.

Lee, Sang M. "Organizational Identification of Scientists."
Academy of Management Journal, 12:327-337, 1969.

"An Empirical Analysis of Organizational Identi-
fication." Academy of Management Journal, 14:213-226,
1971.

Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. New York:
Harper 8 Brothers, 1951.

Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization: Its Management and
Value. Neinoik: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Lodahl, Thomas M. and Mathilda Kejner. "The Definition and
Measurement of Job Involvement." The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 49:24-33, 1965.

 

Lyons, Thomas F. "Role Clarity, Need for Clarity, Satisfac-
tion, Tension and Withdrawal." Organization Behavior
and Human Performance, 6:99-110, 1971.

100

Maracek, Jeanne and David R. Mettee. "Avoidance of Continued
Success as a Function of Self-Esteem, Level of Esteem
Certainty, and Responsibility for Success." Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 22:98-107, 1972.

March, James G. and Herbert A. Simon. Organization. New
York: John Wiley, 1958.

Maslow, Abraham. Motivation and Personality. New York:
Harper, 1954.

McGregor, Douglas. The Professional Manager. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967.

McKelvey, William W. "Expectational Noncomplementarity and
Style of Interaction Between Professional and Organ-
ization." Administrative Science Quarterly, 14:
21-32, 1969.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New
York: The Free Press, 1968}

Mettee, David R. "Rejection of Unexpected Success as a
Function of the Negative Consequences of Accepting
Success." Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 17:332-341, 1971.

Nelson, Leland R. and Merrick L. Furst. "An Objective Study
of the Effects of Expectation on Competitive Perfor-
mance." The Journal of Psychology, 81:69-72, 1972.

Nunnally, Jum C. Esychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1967.

Oberg, Winston. "Charisma, Commitment, and Contemporary
Organization Theory." MSU Business Topics, Spring
1972:18-32.

Oppenheimer, Ernest A. "The Relationship Between Certain
Self Constructs and Occupational Preferences."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13:191-197, 1966.

Organ, Dennis W. and Charles N. Greene. "The Perceived
Purposefulness of Job Behavior: Antecedents and
Consequences." Academy of Management Journal, 17:
69-78, 1972.

Patchen, Martin. Participationy_Achievement, and Involve-
ment on the JOb. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
1970.

 

101

Pervin, Lawrence A. "Performance and Satisfaction as a
Function of Individual-Environment Fit." Psychological
Bulletin, 69:56-68, 1967.

 

. Personality Theory Assessment and Research. New
York} John Wiley, 1970.

Phares, E. Jerry. "Internal-External Control and the Reduc-
tion of Reinforcement Value after Failure." Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psycholpgy, 37:386-390,
1971.

Porter, Lyman W. and Edward E. Lawler, III. "PrOperties of
Organization Structure in Relation to Job Attitudes
and Job Behavior." Psychological Bulletin, 64:23-51,
1965.

Porter, Lyman W. and Richard M. Steers. "Organizational,
Work, and Personal Factors in Employee Turnover and
Absenteeism." Psychological Bulletin, 80:151-176,
1973.

Porter, Lyman W., Richard M. Steers, and Paul V. Boulian.
Organization Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover
AmongPPsychiatric Technicians. Technical Report No. 16,
Personneiiand Training REsearch Programs Office,

Office of Naval Research, 1973.

Raven, John, Eddie Molloy and Rory Corcoran. "Toward a
Questionnaire Measure of Need Achievement." Human
Relations, 25:469-492, 1972.

 

Rizzo, John R., Robert H. House, and Sidney I. Lirtzman.
"Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organiza-
tions." Administrative Science Quarterly, 15:150-
163, 1970.

Ronan, W.W., "Relative Importance of Job Characteristics."
Journal of Applied Psychology, 54:192-200, 1970.

Schein, Edgar H. "Attitude Change During Management Educa-
tion: A Study of Organizational Influences on Stu-
dent Attitudes.” Administrative Science Quarterly,
11:601-628, 1967.

. "The Individual, the Organization, and the Career:
A Conceptual Scheme." Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 7:401-426, 1971.

102

Schneider, Benjamin and Clayton P. Alderfer. "Three Studies
of Measures of Need Satisfactions in Organizations."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 18:489-505, 1973.

Schneider, Benjamin and C.J. Bartlett. "Individual Differ-
ences and Organizational Climate: I. The Research
Plan and Questionnaire DevelOpment." Personnel
Psychology, 21:223-333, 1968.

 

"Individual Differences and Organizational Cli-
mate: II. Measurement of Organizational Climate
by the Multi-Trait, Multi-Rater Matrix." Personnel
Psychology, 23:493-512, 1970.

 

Schneider, Benjamin, Douglas T. Hall and Harold T. Nygren.
"Self Image and Job Characteristics as Correlates
of Changing Organizational Identification." Human
Relations, 24:397-416, 1971.

 

Scott, William E. "The DevelOpment Of Knowledge in Organization
Behavior and Human Performance." Organization Behavior
and Human Performance, 6:142-165, 1975.

Sheldon, Mary E. "Investments and Involvements as Mechanisms
Producing Commitment in the Organization." Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 16:143-150, 1971.

Singelmann, Peter. "Exchange as Symbolic Interaction: Con-
vergences Between Two Theoretical Perspectives.”
American Sociological Review, 37:414-424, 1972.

Smith, Patricia C., L.M. Kendall and Charles L. Hulin. Ins
Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement:
A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1969.

Tyre, Timothy E. "Review of the Internal-External Control
Construct as 3 Counseling Adjunct." Psychology,
9:33-41, 1972.

Weiss, Howard and John Sherman. "Internal-External Control
as a Predictor of Task Effort and Satisfaction Sub-
sequent to Failure." Journal of Applied Psychology,
57:132-136, 1973.

White, J. Kenneth and Robert A. Ruh. "Participation and Job
Attitudes." Administrative Science Quarterlyy 18:
506-514, 1973.

Wiener, Yoash. "Task Ego-Involvement and Self-Esteem as
Moderators of Situationally Devolved Self—Esteem."
Journal of Applied Psychology, 58:225-332, 1973.

APPENDIX

103

APPENDIX

The Questionnaire

 

The questions used to measure each of the variables

included in this study are presented in this appendix.

Tenure: Tenure was measured by the following ques-
tion.
To the nearest year, how many years have you
been with your company? years
Salary: Salary was measured by responses to the
following.

What is your approximate annual salary before
deductions?

I__under 9,000 __ll,000-12,999 __20,000-24,999_

__9,000-9,999 P_l3,000-14,999 __25,000-29,999‘

__10,000-10,999 _15,000-19,999 __over 30,000
Age: The question for age was:

What is your approximate age?

__under 25 P_36 to 40 51 to 55
__26 to 31 ‘__41 to 45 56 to 60
__31 to 35 .__46 to 50 over 60

Sex: Sex was determined by this question.

What is your sex? Female Male

Level. In Sample 1, level was measured by use of

the following question.
104

105
Please indicate your classification level.
Tops Professional Managerial
”Tops" refers to the clerical workers classification. For
Sample 2, the following question was used.
Do you supervise anyone as part of your job?

Yes No . If so, are any of your subor-
dinates also supervisors? Yes No . .

Need Satisfaction. The questions used for measuring

 

need satisfaction were taken from Alderfer's questionnaire
(Alderfer, 1969). Individuals were asked whether they strongly
agree, agree, mildly agree, undecided, mildly disagree, dis-
agree or strongly disagree to each of the following questions.

For measuring existence need satisfaction, the
questions were:

The fringe benefit program here gives nearly
all the security I want.

I make enough money from my job to live com-
fortably.

I feel completely safe from physical harm in
my work. . .

Considering the work required, the pay for my
job is what it should be. .

Compared to other places, our fringe benefits
are excellent.

I never sense that my physical well-being is
in danger in my work. . .

For satisfaction with relatedness needs the questions were:
My boss takes account of my wishes and desires.

My co-workers are uncooperative unless it's to
their advantage.

It's easy to talk with my boss about my job.

106

I can count on my co-workers to give me a hand
when I need it.

My boss gives me credit when I do good work.

My co-workers welcome Opinions different from
their own.

For satisfaction with growth needs, the questions were:
In my job I am never bored.
I use a wide range of abilities in my work.
I make one or more important decisions everyday.

I have an Oppotrunity to do challenging things
at work.

I often get the feeling of learning new things
from my work.

I have the Opportunity to use many of my skills
at work.
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured by
using the Job Description Index (J.D.I.) as developed by

Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969). The JDI is reproduced below.

PEOPLE ON YOUR PRESENT JOB

Think of the majority of the peOple that you work with now
or the people you meet in connection with your work. How
well does each of the following words describe these
people? In the blank beside each word below put:

_I_if it describes the people you work with

_H_if it does NOT describe them

_P_if you cannot decide
___Stimulating ___Fast ___Unpleasant
___Boring ___Inte11igent I__JNO Privacy
___Slow ___Hard to Meet ___pActive
___Ambitious P__Talk too much ___Narrow interests
___Stupid ___Smart ___Loyal
___Responsible ___Lazy __PEasy to make

enemies

107

SUPERVISION ON PRESENT JOB

 

Think of the kind of supervision that you get on your job.
How well does each of the following words describe this
supervision? In the blank beside each work below put:

Y If it describes the supervision you get on your
_job.

N if it does NOT describe it.

? if you cannot decide.

Asks my advice _Up- to- -date ___Tells me where
:Hard to please :Lazy I stand.
:Impolite ___Quick- tempered ___Intelligent
—Knows job well ___Annoying ___Leaves me on
—Tactfu1 .___Stubborn my own
—Inf1uential Praises good ___Bad
_Doesn' t supervise _——work
_enough ___around when

needed

WORK ON PRESENT JOB

 

Think of your present work. What is it like most Of the
time? In the blank beside each work given below, write:

onr "yes" if it describes your work.
N for "no" if it does NOT describe it.
i if you cannot decide.

___Fascinating ___Respected ___Challenging
___Routine ___Hot ___On your feet
___Satisfying ___Pleasant ___Frustrating
___Boring ___Useful ___Simple
___Good Tiresome ___Endless
Creative ___Healthful Gives sense

of accomplish-
ment

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROMOTION

 

Think of the Opportunities for promotion that you have now.
How well does each of the following words describe these?
In the blank beside each word put:

_P_for "yes" if it describes your Opportunities for
promotion.
N for ”no" if it does NOT describe them.
? :if you cannot decide.

108

___Good Opportunity ___Dead-end job ___Infrequent
for advancement promotions
___Opportunity some- ___Good chance for ___Regular
what limited promotion promotions
___Promotion on ___Unfair promo- ‘___Fair1y good
ability tion policy chance for
promotion

PRESENT PAY

 

Think of the pay you get now. How well does each of the
following words describe yOur present pay? In the blank
beside each work put:

Y if it describes your pay.
N if it does NOT describe your pay.
? if you cannot decide.

___Insecure ___Barely live on ___Pay adequate
pay for normal
expenses
I__PHighly paid '__PBad ___Satisfactory
profit sharing
___Less than I ___Underpaid ___Pay provides
deserve luxuries

Value Congrnence. The measure of value congruence

 

was measured from responses to the questions which follow.
The respondent could respond based upon a seven point scale
anchored at the bottom by "to very little extent" and at the
top by "to a great extent."

For Sample 1 the questions were:

To what extent do the things you value highly
in your life happen to you when you are the most
productive in your work?

When you are putting forth your greatest effort
toward meeting the requirements of your work,
to what extent are you doing the type of activ-
ities you value highly?

When you are doing the type of activities you
value highly at work, to what extent are you
engaged in activities which are the most impor-
tant to your job?

109

For Sample 2, the following questions were added to

the above group:

To what extent do you feel that your personal
values must be compromised if you are to be
successful in your work?

To what extent do you feel that your personal

values conflict with the type of activities
that Your work requires you to do?

Need Importance. Need importance measures were taken

 

from Alderfer's instrument (Alderfer, 1969). The importance
of existence needs were measured by the following set of
questions in which the respondent was asked to indicate how
much more of each of the following items he would like to
have. The scale had seven points anchored at the bottom by
"no more," and at the top by "very much more."

Frequent raises in pay.

A complete fringe benefit program.

A sense of security from bodily harm.

Good pay for my work.

Frequent improvements in fringe benefits.

Feeling safe from physical danger.

For measuring the importance of relatedness needs

the questions were:

Respect from your boss.

Cooperative relations with your co-workers.

Openness and honesty between your boss and your-
self.

Respect from your co-workers.

110

Mutual trust between your boss and yourself.
Openness and honesty with your co-workers.
For measuring the importance of growth needs, the
questions were:
Making full use of my abilities at work.
Getting a sense of self-fulfillment.

Opportunities for personal growth and deveIOp-
ment. '

Thinking for yourself.
Developing new skills and knowledge at work.

Being challenged by your work.

Organization Identification. This variable was
measured using the following questions.

I feel a strong sense of identification with this
organization. (Please circle the appropriate

 

number)

1 2 3 4 5
strongly strongly
disagree agree

If you could begin working over again, but in

the same occupation as you are now in, how likely
would you be to choose this organization as a
place to work. (Place a check by choice.)

(5)___definite1y would not choose another place.

(4) probably would not choose another place.

(3)___wouldn't care whether it was this organiza-
tion or another one.

(2) probably would choose another place.

(l)___definite1y would choose another place.

I take pride in being a part of this organiza-
tion. (Please circle the appropriate number.)

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree

111

How do you feel when you hear or read about some-
one criticizing this organization. (Place a
check by choice.)

l__I mostly agree with 4___It gets me quite
the criticism mad

2__It doesn't bother me 5___I never hear or

3__It gets me a little read such criticism
mad

PrOpensity to Remain: This variable was measured

 

using Hrebiniak and Alutto's scale for commitment (Hrebiniak
and Alutto, 1972). The question is as follows:

Assume you were offered a similar position, but
with another employing organization. W9uldfiyou.
leaveyyour_pre$entsorganizationgunder any of the.
~follguingfionditions? (Please indicate what

"you would do by placing a check mark in the
appropriate space.)

Yes Uncer- No
Defin- " tain Definitely
itely Not

 

 

1. With no increase in

PaY ____. ______ ._____

2. With a slight in-
crease in pay

3. With a large increase
in pay.

4. With no more freedom
in my job.

5. With slightly more
freedom in my job.

6. With much more free-
dom in my job.

7. With no more status.

8. With slight more
status.

112

Yes Uncer- No
Defin- tain Definitely
itely Not

 

9. With much more
status.

 

10. To work with peOple
who are no friend-
lier.

 

11. To work with peOple
who are a little
friendlier.

 

12. To work with people
who are much
friendlier.

 

Effort. Effort was maintained in Sample 1 from responses

to the following two questions.

How often do you waste time between work assign-
ments? (Please circle the appropriate number.)

1 2 3 4 5
frequently never

How would you rate the amount of overall effort
you put into your work? (Circle the appropriate

 

number.)
1 2 3 4 5
very low veryihigh

For Sample 2, three more questions were added to the

scale as follows:

In comparison with other employees similar to you,
how do you rate the amount of effort you put forth
at work? (Please check one.)

(S)__Top 10% (2)__Top 75% but not
(4) Top 25% but not tOp 10% top 50%
(3)::T0p 50% but not tOp 25% (l)__Bottom 25%

 

113

How motivated are you at work?

 

l 2 3 4 5
very IOw very high
motivation motivation

How hard do you work at your job?

 

l 2 3 4 5
not very ihard as
hard possible

Goal Acceptance. The following three questions were

 

used to measure goal acceptance for Sample 1. All responses

were framed in a seven point scale anchored at the bottom by

"to a very little extent" and at the tOp by "to a great ex-

tent."

If you devoted all your effort on the job to ac-
tivities which directly help the company be suc-
cessful, to what extent would you be doing things
which also satisfy your own personal needs and
interests?

To what extent are your own personal work goals
similar to the goals of the section in which_

you work?

To what extent do your personal job Objectives

reflect the most serious and pressing needs of

your work section and the company for which you
work?

For Sample 2 the first question above was dropped

and the following two questions were added.

To what extent do the key objectives of your
work section coincide with your own personal

work goals?

To what extent are the goals of your work sec-
tion or company important to you personally?

"‘IIIIIIIIIIII