Organizational commitment profiles and job satisfaction among Greek private and public sector employees

Cultural Perspectives CCM International Journal of

Cross CulturalManagement2007 Vol 7(1): 77–99

Organizational CommitmentProfiles and Job Satisfactionamong Greek Private and PublicSector Employees

Yannis MarkovitsAston University, Birmingham, UK,

Ann J. DavisAston University, Birmingham, UK,

Rolf van DickAston University, Birmingham, UK and Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

ABSTRACT Recent research into organizational commitment has advocated a profiles-basedapproach. However, with the exception of Wasti, published findings are confined to NorthAmerican samples. This article examines the relationships between organizationalcommitment profiles and job satisfaction in Greece. Greek organizations have rarely beenthe subject of detailed examination, so the study provides baseline information regardinglevels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Greece. Both private sector (N =1119) and public sector (N = 476) employees in Greece were surveyed, as this sectoraldistinction is regularly associated with different patterns of job-related attitudes. Thecontrasts between Greek and Anglo-American values present a new challenge to the profilesapproach. The results confirm the utility of the profiles approach to the study oforganizational commitment. Affective organizational commitment was found to be mostinfluential with respect to levels of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. This concurs withother studies of the behavioural outcomes of commitment.

KEY WORDS • Greece • job satisfaction • organizational commitment profiles • private sector• public sector

Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publicationswww.sagepublications.com

DOI: 10.1177/1470595807075180

This article examines the relationshipbetween organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction in Greece. Greece is representedin most major studies of cross cultural varia-tion (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; House et al.,2004), however organizational commitmentis barely reported from a Greek perspective.Following on from Myloni et al.’s (2004)identification of the culture-specific nature ofGreek human resource management (HRM)practices, this article explores the outcomesof these practices in terms of organizationalcommitment and its relationship with job satisfaction.

In line with recent developments, we takethe approach of exploring the role of com-mitment profiles (Meyer and Herscovitch,2001). That is, the way in which differentcommitment components combine to forman overall pattern or profile of organizationalcommitment, and how these profiles influ-ence the outcomes of organizational commit-ment, specifically intrinsic and extrinsic jobsatisfaction.

Finally, the article contrasts the responsesof employees in the public sector with thosein private sector employment in Greece.These sectors have different implications for the likely nature of commitment profilesgenerated and for job satisfaction. Howeverthe approach to employment in the two sec-tors in Greece differs markedly from the pat-tern normally expected in Western Europeancountries, which is also discussed.

Greek Context and Culture

Greece is rarely explored in managementresearch (Myloni et al., 2004; Papalexandris,1992) although it is represented in majorstudies of cross cultural variation. Indeed itsposition in these studies is quite distinctive.The GLOBE studies (Global Leadership andOrganizational Behavior Effectiveness; Houseet al., 2004) locate Greece in the EasternEurope cluster, while Hofstede’s earlier work(1980) locates Greece in a broadly ‘Near

Eastern’ cluster (see Ronen and Shenkar,1985), including Arab countries, Spain, someLatin American countries and Turkey.Griffeth et al. (1985) cluster Greece with theLatin European countries of Spain, Portugaland Italy, and the Netherlands and Belgium.In terms of the societal values, institutionalcollectivism and uncertainty avoidance arehighly valued, while power distance andassertiveness are less valued than in most ofthe GLOBE participant countries. Of thenine GLOBE dimensions, only gender egali-tarianism is both highly valued and widelypractised in Greece. Societal practices (incontrast to values) are reported to be high onassertiveness and power distance, and low onperformance orientation, institutional collec-tivism, humane orientation and uncertaintyavoidance. Hofstede’s findings are largelysimilar, although he reported high power dis-tance being valued rather than just practised.This shift from Hofstede’s study to theGLOBE findings may be a function of theeconomic development and related changesthat Greece has experienced in the past 30years.

While Greek values have been explored,the impact of this value set on organizationaloutcomes has not, in contrast to its neighbourTurkey, which has been the subject of anextensive series of studies on organizationalcommitment by Wasti (1998, 2003). Thecross cultural studies that have includedGreece reinforce the contrast between Greekattitudes, decision-making style, values andbeliefs and those of more widely researchedcontexts, primarily the UK and NorthAmerica (Schwartz, 1994). Bourantas et al.(1990) argue that Greek management is characterized by a fear of responsibility and alow belief in others’ knowledge and capacity– a characterization that accords with theGLOBE data.

Green et al. (2005) clustered countries’individualistic and collectivistic dimensionson the basis of three attitudes: self-reliance(an individualistic attitude), group-oriented

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1)78

interdependence (a collectivistic attitude),and competitiveness (an attitude that is bothindividualistic and collectivist). Greece wasclustered into the self-reliant non-competitorquadrant (together with Italy), whereas theUSA was on the borders of the interdepen-dent competitor quadrant, and Turkey waslocated in the self-reliant competitor quad-rant. This seems to indicate an emergentindividualism within both Greece andTurkey.

Taken as a whole, these and other studies(e.g. Bond et al., 2004, Smith et al., 2002)support the assertion that Greece is clearlydistinguishable from Anglo and East Asiancountries, but shares similarities with Latin,Eastern European and Arabic countries.Lammers and Hickson (1979) describeGreece as akin to a typical bureaucracy, highin power distance and with a strong rule ori-entation, the inverse of the Anglo pattern.Kirkman and Shapiro (2001) argue thatthere is a tendency for higher levels of collec-tivism to be associated with greater job satis-faction and organizational commitment, anda tendency for lower levels of power distanceto be associated with higher levels of organi-zational commitment. Clugston et al. (2000)argue that high power distance results instrong relationships with continuance andnormative commitment but not affectivecommitment; individuals high on uncertaintyavoidance develop continuance-type rela-tionships across all foci; while collectivismleads to more workgroup commitments aswell as normative commitments. Accordingto Smith et al. (2001) job satisfaction isgreater in individualistic than collectivistnations, possibly due to greater economicand social prosperity. Against this back-ground, Greece would appear to be a goodsocio-cultural context to further examineorganizational attitudes.

Organizational Commitmentand Commitment Profiles

Organizational commitment (OC) has beena popular topic for research into work atti-tudes and behaviours in recent years (seeMeyer et al., 2002). It has been formulated ina variety of ways, typically as a construct withmultiple components describing individuals’feelings of attachment to, identification withand obligation to the organization (e.g. Allenand Meyer, 1990; Cook and Wall, 1980;Mowday et al., 1979).

Cook and Wall (1980), working in a UKcontext, view OC as the ‘feelings of attach-ment to the goals and values of the organiza-tion, . . . and attachment to the organizationfor its own sake rather than for its strictlyinstrumental values’ (p. 40). This attachmenttakes three forms: identification (a feeling ofpride and belonging to the organization);involvement (the willingness to invest personaleffort for the sake of the organization); andloyalty (attachment and obligation towardsthe organization). This is operationalized inthe British Organizational CommitmentScale (BOCS), modelled on Mowday et al.’s(1979) Organizational Commitment Ques-tionnaire, and has been widely used in theUK across a range of employment contexts(e.g. Biggs and Swailes, 2006; Pendleton,2003). Its psychometric properties have beenextensively tested: a recent study by Mathewsand Shepherd (2002) supported the three-component structure, although like Guestand Peccei (1993) a decade earlier, cautionsremain regarding some negatively wordeditems.

Internationally, the BOCS has been usedin the USA (Madsen et al., 2005), in Israel(Bar-Hayim and Berman, 1992), and inAustralia (Albrecht and Travaglione, 2003),however there are no reports of its use in theNear East (Israel is located in the LatinEurope cluster in the GLOBE studies andtends more towards northern Europe inHofstede’s 1980 study).

Markovits et al.: Organizational Commitment Profiles and Job Satisfaction 79

Allen and Meyer’s (1990) formulationalso proposes a three-component model:affective commitment (employees remainwith the organization because they want to;AC), continuance commitment (employeesremain because they need to; CC) and nor-mative commitment (they remain becausethey feel they ought to; NC). A self-reportmeasure of these three components has beendeveloped by Meyer et al. (1993).

The BOCS and Meyer and Allen’s con-ceptualization share an ‘affective’ component(organizational identification or affective com-mitment), which is generally suggested to bethe main determinant of commitment-relatedfocal and discretionary behaviours (Meyer etal., 2002). They also share a broadly norma-tive component (NC or loyalty) emphasizingmutual obligation. The remaining compo-nents (job involvement and continuance com-mitment) are not directly comparable.

Meyer et al.’s (1993) measure has beenresearched extensively across cultures. Its con-struct validity has been demonstrated inEurope (Vandenberghe, 1996; Vandenbergheet al., 2001), Nepal (Gautam et al., 2001),and the Middle East (Yousef, 2002), althoughothers question its validity in East Asian samples (e.g. Chen and Francesco, 2003;Cheng and Stockdale, 2003; Ko et al., 1997;Lee et al., 2001). The debate continues as towhether differences arise from translationproblems (Lee et al., 2001) or cultural differ-ences in the OC construct: Wasti (2003)demonstrated the importance of developing‘emic’ items when assessing ‘etic’ OC con-structs.

The antecedents of OC appear to varysystematically with societal values, particu-larly collectivism. Wasti (2003) found thatsatisfaction with work and promotions werethe strongest predictors of OC among indi-vidualists, whereas satisfaction with supervi-sor was an important predictor of OC amongcollectivists. Across seven nations, MesnerAndolsek and S tebe (2004) also found thatmaterial job values (e.g. job quality) were

more predictive of OC in individualistic soci-eties, whereas post-materialistic job values(e.g. helping others) were more predictive ofOC in collectivistic societies.

Research on the consequences of OC hasfound that OC in general is a more powerfulpredictor of job performance in nations scoring high on collectivism (Jaramillo et al.,2005). Meyer et al. (2002) report AC in particular to be a powerful predictor of joboutcomes in the (individualistic) US, with NCbecoming more important elsewhere (seeGautam et al., 2005; Wasti, 2003).

Recent theoretical developments (Gellatlyet al., 2004; Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001;Wasti, 2005) have begun to emphasize theimportance of overall commitment profiles.This goes beyond the extent to which indi-vidual components of commitment relate toother variables, to looking at the combina-tions of those components and how theyinteract as a whole to influence focal and dis-cretionary outcomes. A review of the litera-ture identified only limited research on com-mitment profiles and their work-relatedimplications, and these have adopted Allenand Meyer’s (1990) approach to OC. Untilrecently such studies have limited themselvesto exploring only two-way interactionsamong the three forms of OC. For example,Meyer et al. (1989) and Randall et al. (1990)associated the components of organizationalcommitment with job performance andbehavioural manifestations of job attitude.Both studies reported differences in thecorrelations of each component of commit-ment with the predictor variables, and sometwo-way interactions, but neither examinedthree-way interactions. Subsequently, Somers(1995) identified that while AC was the solepredictor of turnover and absenteeism, whenobserved in conjunction with NC a positiverelationship with intent to remain emerged; atwo-way interaction. However, the statistic-ally significant relationships among the variables were modest. Similar results werefound by Jaros (1997), where turnover inten-


tions were more strongly correlated with ACthan with either NC or CC. In China, Chengand Stockdale (2003) found that NC reducedthe relationship between CC and job satis-faction, and Chen and Francesco (2003)found that NC moderated the impact of ACon organizational citizenship behaviour andperformance, providing support for the pri-macy of NC in non-western cultures.

In their 2001 article, Meyer and Hersco-vitch proposed eight theoretically distin-guishable commitment profiles, derived fromsplitting each component into high or lowscores (2 × 2 × 2). The existence of ‘pure’affective commitment was suggested to cre-ate the highest levels of both focal and dis-cretionary behaviours, followed by thosecases where AC is accompanied by high levels of either NC or CC, or both.Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) report threestudies exploring this model, demonstratingthat commitment to change was positivelycorrelated with compliance with the require-ments of change. However cooperation andchampioning of change were only correlatedwith AC and NC. Overall, both articles supported the view that AC by itself or inconjunction with NC were the best predic-tors of positive organizational behaviours.

Continuing this line of research, Gellatlyet al. (2004) explored the association betweenintention to stay and OC among Canadianhospital staff. They report that intention tostay was strong when any one component ofcommitment was strong and the other twocomponents weak. They further reportedthat normative commitment could take different forms depending on its context. Inconjunction with low affective commitmentand high continuance commitment, norma-tive commitment reduced the display of discre-tionary behaviours. When coupled with high levels of affective commitment however,normative commitment increased the likeli-hood of engaging in discretionary behaviour.

In the first reported replication of theprofiles approach outside North America,

Wasti (2005) adopts a clustering procedurerather than explicitly exploring eight theo-retically constructed profiles. This procedureidentified six distinguishable commitmentprofiles in her Turkish data: the highly com-mitted, the non-committed, the neutral, theaffective dominant, the continuance domi-nant and the affective-normative dominant.Despite the difference in approach, Wasti’sanalysis indicated that, in line with previousfindings, the best job-related outcomes forboth employee and employer were exhibitedwhere affective commitment was high. Speci-fically the highly committed group (high onall three commitment components), and the affective-normative dominant group dis-played significantly lower levels of turnoverintention, and the affective-normative domi-nant group showed significantly more loyalboosterism (defending the organizationagainst co-worker criticism) than all othergroups except the highly committed group.

This contrasting approach lends furthersupport to the case for a distinctive contribu-tion of a profile-based interpretation of com-mitment. The current article returns to the original approach from Meyer andHerscovitch (2001), statistically generatingeight theoretically feasible groups within athree-component model. However, it explorestwo different three-component models ofcommitment, those of Cook and Wall (1980)and Allen and Meyer (1990; Meyer et al.,1993), in terms of their relationships tointrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction andOrganizational Commitment

Job satisfaction is one of the most widelyresearched concepts in organizational behav-iour, although to date no studies have beenpublished linking it to commitment profiles.Job satisfaction is typically construed eitheras an affective or emotional attitude of anindividual towards his or her job (James andJones, 1980) or as a general attitude towards


a job and some particular aspects of it(Knoop, 1995). We take the position that jobsatisfaction has two facets relating to theextrinsic and intrinsic features of a job(Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005), aformulation that can be traced back toHerzberg (1968). Extrinsic job satisfactionrelates to satisfaction with, for example, pay,physical conditions of the organizationalenvironment, human resource managementpolicies and procedures, interpersonal rela-tionships, and so on. Intrinsic job satisfactionrepresents an employee’s satisfaction with thenon-monetary, qualitative aspects of work,such as creativity, opportunity to develop,ability utilization, feelings of personal achieve-ment and accomplishment, and so on. Thesefeatures are internal to a particular job andare viewed and felt individually and differ-ently by each employee (Arvey et al., 1989).

An examination of the relationshipsbetween organizational commitment and itsforms, and job satisfaction and its facets,demonstrates consistent and significant cor-relations, in particular with respect to theaffective component of commitment. Themeta-analysis by Meyer et al. (2002) reportsstrong correlations between affective com-mitment and overall job satisfaction (ρ =0.65), extrinsic satisfaction (ρ = 0.71) andintrinsic satisfaction (ρ = 0.68). These rela-tionships have been shown to be influencedby cultural context.

Differences between Publicand Private Sector in Greece

One final dimension of this study relates tothe impact of the employment sector on commitment and job satisfaction. There are significant differences in the nature of em-ployment in the public and private sectors inGreece, which are likely to have differentimplications for the nature of commitmentand the commitment profiles generated.Therefore it is appropriate to explore thesesectoral differences and speculate on the

likely impact on commitment profiles thatthey may generate. Reports of differences inattitudes among public and private sectoremployees abound. For example, in Israel,Solomon (1986) reports that performance-based rewards and policies intending to pro-mote efficiency lead to higher job satisfactionamong private than public sector managers.Karl and Sutton (1998) found that privatesector employees placed higher value ongood wages, while public sector employeesvalued interesting work. Naff and Crum(1999) reached similar conclusions, identify-ing the different values and responses to dif-ferent incentives between the sectors in theUSA.

With respect to organizational commit-ment, studies using the OCQ and the BOCShighlight that Australian private sectoremployees were more committed than theirpublic sector counterparts (Rachid, 1995).Cho and Lee (2001) argue that organiza-tional culture and societal values determinedthe differences in commitment between public and private sector managers in SouthKorea. Goulet and Frank (2002), reportingon findings from the OCQ in the USA, iden-tified lowest levels of organizational com-mitment in the public sector, with higher levels in the non-profit sector and still higherlevels of commitment in the for-profit sector.The only study examining the differencesbetween private and public sector employeesin Greece was conducted by Bourantas andPapalexandris (1999). They showed that,apart from the structural and environmentaldifferences exemplified between the privateand the public sector, there were also differ-ences in the personality characteristics of thepeople attracted to each sector. In general,Bourantas and Papalexandris argued thatprivate sector employees tended to displayhigher levels of activity, a greater sense ofcompetence, more tolerance of ambiguity, astronger work ethic and higher growth need,all of which were believed to contribute tohigher job performance. They conclude that


the public organization’s context tended toattract people with certain characteristics,and that these characteristics did not pro-mote positive work-related attitudes andbehaviours. In summary, private and publicsector employees project different attitudesand behaviours towards their organizationsand jobs; however, specific influences onorganizational commitment, job satisfactionand their relationships remain unexplored.

Substantial differences in employmentrelationships, status, wages, fringe benefits,and HRM exemplify differences betweenprivate and public sector employment inGreece. Table 1 summarizes the most impor-tant and significant of these differences(derived from Papapetrou, 2006; Sotirakouand Zeppou, 2005). Unusually, the startingwage for Greek public sector employees ishigher than for the private sector, and givenits stability of employment and guarantee ofpay increases, it is a highly attractive careerchoice for young Greeks. Private sectoremployment offers greater potential rewards,but at greater risk.

This research represents the first attemptat exploring commitment profiles amongGreek employees. It also provides an analysisof the nature of organizational commitmentin Greece and its relationships to job satisfac-tion, and an exploration of the impact of theemployment sector on commitment and jobsatisfaction.

Two studies are reported, one based inthe private sector and one in the public sec-tor. Greek translations of Cook and Wall’s(1980) BOCS and Meyer et al.’s (1993) orga-nizational commitment questionnaire areused. Initially, the two samples are analysedseparately to explore the roles of commit-ment profiles derived from Cook and Wall’smodel in influencing job satisfaction in theprivate and the public sectors. This analysis isthen repeated for the public sector samplealone, using Meyer et al.’s scales. Conclu-sions are drawn regarding the developmentof organizational commitment profiles to

enhance satisfaction and motivation at work.From the information presented so far a

number of hypotheses can be generatedregarding the nature of organizational com-mitment in Greece. Three hypotheses can beidentified with respect to the likely impact ofcommitment profiles on reported job satis-faction among Greek employees. Lookingfirst at the BOCS measure, high levels oforganizational identification, job involve-ment and loyalty are likely to result in satisfaction with both the intrinsic and theextrinsic aspects of a job:

Hypothesis 1a: Employees will be most satisfied,both extrinsically and intrinsically, if they aretotally organizationally committed (i.e. have highscores on all three components: organizationalidentification, job involvement and loyalty)compared to all other profiles.

Even if employees are not involved orloyal to their organization, the dominance ofthe affective aspect of commitment (organi-zational identification) in predicting work-related outcomes suggests that where identi-fication is present, higher satisfaction will befound:

Hypothesis 1b: Employees reporting high levelsof identification will exhibit higher mean val-ues for extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction thanthose reporting low identification, irrespectiveof loyalty and job involvement.

While the nature of organizational com-mitment and job satisfaction between publicand private sector employees in Greece mayvary in degree, it is unlikely that it will vary in type. Therefore these hypotheses holdequally for both private and public sectoremployees. However, the role of loyalty maydiffer by sector. In particular, public sectoremployees are expected to both value andexpress greater loyalty to their organization,given the stability of employment and thehigh cost of leaving:

Hypothesis 1c: Public sector employees willreport higher levels of extrinsic and intrinsicsatisfaction when loyalty is high than when loyalty is low.



Table 1 Contrasting approaches to employment in the Greek private and public sectors

Private sector Public sector

Loyalty To the private sector employer To the government and the State. Thenew entrant gives an oath to the GreekConstitution

Employment Individual-, company- or Government, regional government,contract sector-based local government-based

Employment status Contracted employment (mainly Life-time and secured employmentfixed term; rarely without time restriction)

Type of employment Full-time, part-time and flexi-time Full-time

Hours of work Mainly 40 hours per week, but 37.5 hours per weekvaries from sector to sector

Policies and Determined by each private sector Determined by law and applied to allprocedures organization employees

Wages determination Individual, enterprise or branch National collective agreement –collective agreements – minimum minimum wages are guaranteed wages are not guaranteed across everywhere in the public sectorsector

Fringe benefits Not provided to everyone Provided to everyone by law and collective agreements

Wage progression Determined by each private Determined by seniority andsector organization (according to educational backgroundmerits, achievements, company needs)

Entrance wage Around 600 euros per month for a Around 900 euros for all employeesfull-time employee

Wage differentials Substantial Marginal and provided as a fringe by rank benefit

Hierarchical Unclear, depends from each After 12 years of public service anprogression particular organization employee may become departmental

manager

Unionization Dependent on the industry. Essential for everyoneGenerally low

Training and Dependent on the company. Scheduled and organized by thedevelopment Generally rare and unscheduled National Centre for Public

Administration and Local Government

Performance Unclear and unsystematic, Typically annuallyevaluation and dependent on organizationassessment

Turning to the Meyer et al. (1993) meas-ure of commitment, comparable hypothesescan be generated. The direct associationidentified earlier between organizationalidentification and affective commitmentwould suggest a similar pattern should occurwith respect to affective commitment as foridentification:

Hypothesis 2a: Employees will be most satisfied,both extrinsically and intrinsically, if they aretotally organizationally committed (i.e. have highscores on all three components: affective, con-tinuous and normative commitment), com-pared to all other profiles.

Hypothesis 2b: Employees reporting high levelsof affective commitment will exhibit highermean values for extrinsic and intrinsic satisfac-tion than those reporting low affective com-mitment, irrespective of levels of normativeand continuance commitment

In the literature drawing on Meyer et al.’smodel, affective and normative commitmentare highly correlated, and normative com-mitment displays similar but distinguishablepatterns of association with antecedent andconsequential variables. Given the impor-tance of job security in Greece and the wayin which normative commitment recognizesthe binding of the employee to the organiza-tion through a sense of obligation and its tendency to be more strongly representedwithin more collectivist cultures, we put for-ward:

Hypothesis 2c: Public sector employees whoreport high levels of normative commitmentwill report higher mean values for extrinsicand intrinsic satisfaction, irrespective of thevalue of continuance commitment.

Method

Data Collection and Samples

Data were collected from two different sets ofparticipants. The first was a random sampleof 1119 non-supervisory employees from 35private sector organizations in the NorthernCentral Greece, surveyed with the assistance

of business students from the TechnologicalEducational Institute of Thessaloniki. Partici-pants’ organizations ranged from familyowned small businesses to medium-sizedindustrial or commercial enterprises, produc-ing a response rate of 69%. A little less thanhalf the sample (45.3%) were male, with amean age of 33 years and mean organiza-tional tenure of 6 years. Educational achieve-ment was varied, with 38.2% having com-pleted secondary education, 29.3% havingattended a technological educational insti-tute, and 23.8% being university graduates.

The second set of data were collectedfrom a random sample of 476 public sectoremployees from Northern Greece, workingin government authorities, customs and pub-lic health care. The response rate from thedifferent areas of public sector employmentranged from 61% to 85%. Approximately40% of this sample were non-supervisoryemployees, while the remainder were mainlymiddle-level supervisors. All were employedin secure, primarily white-collar civil serviceemployment. Again slightly less than half thesample (47.3%) were male, with the meanage being 41 years and the average tenure 11years. Education level was generally higherthan in the private sector sample, with 11.6%achieving only secondary education, 21.4%technological educational institute and 67%university graduates.

Measures

All scales used were translated into Greek, insome cases with minor modifications provid-ing explanations of the concepts under study.The job satisfaction measure was based onthe Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire(MSQ) (Weiss et al., 1967) coupled with thequestionnaire developed by Warr et al.(1979). In total 21 items were included, eachscored on a 7-point scale (endpoints 1 = I amvery dissatisfied, 7 = I am very satisfied). Thescale is divided into two facets: extrinsic satis-faction (e.g. wage level, security and safetyoffered by the job), and intrinsic satisfaction


(e.g. opportunity to use one’s own abilities,feelings of accomplishment). For the publicsector sample, two additional items relatingto satisfaction with industrial relations andwith the trade union were included in theextrinsic satisfaction scale.

The measure of organizational commit-ment taken across both samples was theBOCS (Cook and Wall, 1980), with addi-tional items taken from Lawler and Hall(1970), Mowday et al. (1979), and Buchanan(1974). This scale produced three sub-scaleseach comprising four items: organizationalidentification (e.g. ‘I am proud to say who itis I work for’), job involvement (e.g. ‘As soonas the job is finished I leave work’, reversed)and loyalty (e.g. ‘Even if there are financialdifficulties in the organization, I would bereluctant to leave’). All items were scored ona 7-point scale (endpoints 1 = complete dis-agreement and 7 = complete agreement).Negatively worded statements were reversecoded for the purposes of analysis. One item from the job involvement scale was sub-sequently deleted to improve the reliability of the overall scale. Karassavidou andMarkovits (1994) report on previous use andtesting of these scales in Greece.

For the public sector sample, Meyer etal.’s (1993) organizational commitment scalewas also included in the measurement instru-ment. This scale comprises 18 items, six foreach of the three commitment components(affective, normative and continuance com-mitment). Items again were scored on a 7-point scale (endpoints 1 = complete dis-agreement and 7 = complete agreement).

Results

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics, Cron-bach’s alpha coefficients and inter-correla-tions for the job satisfaction and BOCS scalesacross the two samples. All commitmentmeasures were significantly higher in thepublic than the private sector (p < .01 in allcases), and levels of identification were higher


Tab

le 2

Des

crip

tive

stat

istic

s (m

eans

, sta

ndar

d de

viat

ions

, Cro

nbac

h’s

alph

a co

effic

ient

s), P

ears

on c

orre

latio

ns a

nd t-

test

s fo

r co

mm

on

varia

bles

by

sect

or

Priv

ate

sect

or N

= 1

119

Publ

ic s

ecto

r N

= 4

76t-t

ests

Var

iabl

esM

ean

SDα

12

34

Mea

nSD

α1

23

4t

p

1.E

xtri

nsic

sat

isfa

ctio

n 4.

600.

98.8

34.

621.

00.8

30.

37.7

12.

Intr

insi

c sa

tisfa

ctio

n 4.

591.

10.8

9.7

7**

4.76

1.08

.88

.68*

*2.

86<

.01

3.O

rgan

izat

iona

l id

entif

icat

ion

4.29

1.11

.61

.62*

*.6

7**

4.64

1.14

.64

.61*

*.5

8**

5.65

<.0

14.

Job

invo

lvem

ent

3.90

1.06

.55

.19*

*.1

8**

.30*

*4.

181.

06.5

6.1

8**

.26*

*.2

8**

4.83

<.0

15.

Loy

alty

3.

921.

16.5

4.5

2**

.51*

*.6

5**

.57*

*4.

451.

25.6

4.5

1**

.48*

*.6

4**

.38*

*7.

91<

.01

Not

e: **

p<

.01

(two-

taile

d).

than those of job involvement and loyalty.Loyalty was more prevalent in the public sector sample than involvement, whereas inthe private sector sample both were equallydepressed. Levels of extrinsic satisfaction didnot vary significantly between the public and private sectors, whereas public sectorrespondents were significantly more intrinsi-cally satisfied with their jobs.

Taking the BOCS data, eight theoretic-ally meaningful profiles were generated usingmedian splits on each of the three commit-ment components (see Table 3). This proce-dure was carried out independently for thepublic and private sector samples and sepa-rate analyses are reported.

Profile P8 represents what is identified inHypothesis 1a as ‘total organizational com-mitment’. Respondents with this profile areexpected to demonstrate the highest levels ofsatisfaction. All profiles to the right of thetable (P5–P8) include high organizationalidentification. According to Hypothesis 1b,these profiles should produce higher levels ofsatisfaction than cells P1–P4 where organiza-tional identification is low.

Two three-way analyses of variance wereperformed on each data set, with extrinsicand intrinsic satisfaction as the dependentvariables, and level of each commitmentcomponent (high or low) as the three inde-pendent variables. These produced theresults shown in Tables 4a and 4b. Figures 1aand 1b illustrate the group means.

While main effects for identification andloyalty and a few two-way interactions wereevident, these effects were qualified by thepredicted significant three-way interaction.Looking first at the private sector profiles, thesignificance of both three-way interactionterms indicates that variation in both extrin-sic and intrinsic satisfaction can be inter-preted on the basis of the commitment profiles. The organizational commitmentprofile with the highest levels of both extrin-sic and intrinsic satisfaction was the totallyorganizationally committed profile (P8), sup-porting Hypothesis 1a. The next highest profiles were those incorporating high orga-nizational identification and one or othercomponent (P5–P7), supporting Hypothesis1b. Employees with the non-committed


Table 3 Distribution of commitment profiles (Cook and Wall, 1980)

Organizational identificationLow High

Job involvement Low High Low High

Low P1 P2 P5 P6N (pri) = 276 N (pri) = 154 N (pri) = 115 N (pri) = 67N (pub) = 141 N (pub) = 35 N (pub) = 33 N (pub) = 23

“Totally Uncommitted”

Loyalty

High P3 P4 P7 P8N (pri) = 67 N (pri) = 89 N (pri) = 113 N (pri) = 237N (pub) = 36 N (pub) = 31 N (pub) = 75 N (pub) = 102

“Totally Organizationally

Committed”

profile (P1) were the least satisfied. In otherwords, a commitment profile containing jobinvolvement related to low satisfaction levels,whereas a profile also containing organiza-tional identification related to high satisfac-tion levels. Furthermore, high extrinsic satisfaction levels were exhibited with thecommitment profile P7, incorporating highlevels of both identification and loyalty, butin contrast high intrinsic satisfaction levelswere found in the commitment profile P5with high levels only of identification. Finally,all profiles that did not contain organiza-tional identification – that is, P1 to P4 – hadlower mean values for both extrinsic and

intrinsic satisfaction, compared with thoseprofiles that included the element of identifi-cation. These low satisfaction profiles tendedto be relatively higher on extrinsic satisfac-tion than intrinsic satisfaction.

In the public sector sample, only thethree-way interaction term for extrinsic satisfaction achieved significance. Again, theorganizational commitment profile repre-senting total organizational commitment (P8)was associated with the highest levels of bothextrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction. As with theprivate sector sample, organizational identifi-cation makes the largest difference to thecommitment profiles. Its existence in P7 and


Table 4a Analysis of variance for private sector (BOCS)

Variables df F p Variables df F p

Extrinsic Intrinsic satisfaction 1 27689.04 .00 satisfaction 1 24047.06 .00OI 1 206.76 .00 OI 1 298.59 .00JI 1 .07 .80 JI 1 .23 .63LO 1 43.85 .00 LO 1 35.94 .00OI × JI 1 .00 1.00 OI × JI 1 2.70 .10OI × LO 1 4.79 .03 OI × LO 1 .00 .99JI × LO 1 .50 .48 JI × LOC 1 .00 .96OI × JI × LO 7, 1118 9.30 .00 OI × JI × LO 7, 1119 20.78 .00

Note: OI = Organizational identification, JI = Job involvement, LO = Loyalty.

Table 4b Analysis of variance for public sector (BOCS)


Extrinsic Intrinsicsatisfaction 1 9862.32 .00 satisfaction 1 8713.85 .00OI 1 68.55 .00 OI 1 77.19 .00JI 1 2.89 .09 JI 1 2.75 .10LO 1 28.08 .00 LO 1 11.59 .00OI × JI 1 1.12 .29 OI × JI 1 .25 .62OI × LO 1 .10 .92 OI × LO 1 .17 .68JI × LO 1 2.98 .09 JI × LOC 1 1.08 .30OI × JI × LO 7, 476 4.92 .03 OI × JI × LO 7, 476 .48 .49

Note: OI = Organizational identification, JI = Job involvement, LO = Loyalty.


Figure 1a Mean satisfaction values for commitment profiles in the private sector (Cook andWall, 1980)

Figure 1b Mean satisfaction values for commitment profiles in the public sector (Cook andWall, 1980)

Extrinsic satisfaction

Intrinsic satisfaction

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

Commitment profile

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

Commitment profile

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8



P5 created very high levels of extrinsic satis-faction. However, in this sample, profile P3,representing only high levels of loyalty, wasalso associated with high levels of satisfaction,particularly extrinsic satisfaction. Finally, thenon-committed profile (P1), as well as profilescontaining job involvement but not organiza-tional identification (P2 and P4), showed lowlevels of extrinsic satisfaction. These resultsonly partially support the hypotheses sincethe relationships were only valid for extrinsicsatisfaction. It appears however that, in con-trast to the private sector results, loyalty ismuch more important in determining satis-faction than organizational identification, sobroadly supporting Hypothesis 1c. This maybe associated with the higher levels of loyaltyassociated with public sector employment ascompared with the private sector in Greece.The requirement to swear an oath to theemployer, coupled with the extensive benefitsand job and career security offered by thepublic sector may enhance the role of loyaltyfor this group. Finally, job involvement had arather negative effect on satisfaction; profilescontaining this variable tended to producelower levels of satisfaction.

Overall, these findings support the useful-ness of the ‘profiles’ approach to interpretingorganizational commitment. Eight viableprofiles were identified within the sample.The totally organizationally committed pro-file (P8) was associated with the highest levelsof satisfaction, while profiles containing orga-nizational identification all generated higherlevels of satisfaction than those without iden-tification. The existence of job involvementwithin a commitment profile does not appearto make people satisfied with their jobs.Profiles without identification tended to behigher on extrinsic satisfaction than intrinsicsatisfaction in the private sector, but higheron intrinsic than extrinsic satisfaction in thepublic sector.

The final set of analyses presented hererelate to Hypotheses 2a to 2c, using theMeyer et al. (1993) measures of organiza-

tional commitment, thus replicating Gellatlyet al.’s (2004) study. The same measures ofjob satisfaction were used. The descriptivestatistics, reliability coefficients and inter-correlations are shown in Table 5.

The same procedure was used to testthese hypotheses as described above. The dif-ference here is that the eight theoreticallymeaningful profiles were derived from theAllen and Meyer (1990) model (see Table 6).

The results of the three-way analyses ofvariance are shown in Table 7, with Figure 2illustrating the mean values for extrinsic satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction by com-mitment profile.

Using this formulation of organizationalcommitment, both three-way interactionswere statistically significant. As in the previ-ous analyses, totally organizationally com-mitted employees (C8) were both the mostextrinsically and intrinsically satisfied, sup-porting Hypothesis 2a. Those profiles con-taining high affective commitment (C5–C7)had high mean satisfaction values, support-ing Hypothesis 2b. Finally, all commitmentprofiles containing normative commitmentexhibited higher mean values for both facetsof job satisfaction than the profiles containingcontinuance commitment, providing supportfor Hypothesis 2c.

Discussion

In the present article, we examined the rela-tionships between organizational commit-ment and job satisfaction in Greece, using an approach based on exploring profiles ofcommitment as suggested by Meyer andHerscovitch (2001). We first identified pat-terns of organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction in the Greek private and publicsectors, and went on to explore the relation-ships between commitment profiles and jobsatisfaction, using two different approachesto the measurement of organizational com-mitment.

Greece is an under-researched cultural



Table 5 Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients) andcorrelations among the Meyer et al. (1993) commitment variables (public sector)

Variables Mean St.dev. a 1 2 3 4

1. Extrinsic satisfaction 4.62 1.00 .832. Intrinsic satisfaction 4.76 1.08 .88 .68**3. Affective commitment 4.76 1.19 .82 .42** .53**4. Continuance commitment 4.82 1.03 .66 .04 .01 .055. Normative commitment 4.27 1.18 .75 .36** .34** .66** .23**

Note: ** p < .01(two-tailed).

Table 6 Distribution of commitment profiles (Meyer et al., 1993)

Affective commitmentLow High

Continuance commitment Low High Low High

Low C1 C2 C5 C6(N = 96) (N = 77) (N = 42) (N = 26)“Totally

Normative Uncommitted”

commitmentHigh C3 C4 C7 C8

(N = 19) (N = 39) (N = 81) (N = 96)“Totally

Organizationally Committed”

Table 7 Analysis of variance for public sector (Meyer et al., 1993)


Extrinsic Intrinsic satisfaction 1 8396.30 .00 satisfaction 1 8726.23 .00AC 1 28.96 .00 AC 1 55.79 .00CC 1 .06 .80 CC 1 4.82 .03NC 1 5.84 .02 NC 1 12.56 .00AC × CC 1 .01 .91 AC × CC 1 .50 .48AC × NC 1 .00 .99 AC × NC 1 .77 .38CC × NC 1 .53 .47 CC × NC 1 .00 .97AC × CC × NC 7, 476 5.19 .02 AC × CC × NC 7, 476 13.10 .00

Note: AC = Affective commitment, CC = Continuance commitment, NC = Normative commitment.

context in relation to both organizationalcommitment and job satisfaction. The datareported here indicate that organizationalcommitment is significantly higher in thepublic than in the private sector in Greece.This contrasts with the Australian findings ofRachid (1995), and with Goulet and Frank’s(2002) American study, perhaps reinforcingthe contrast between Anglo and Greek cul-tures identified earlier, but also permitting aninstitutional interpretation based on the con-struction of Greek public life. In both thepublic and private sectors, organizationalidentification is the strongest component,reflecting the collectivistic orientation ofGreek society reported initially by Hofstede(1980) but also more recently by House et al.(2004). Public sector employment conditionsare more closely aligned to Greek societalvalues, providing job security and structuredprogression and development, meeting un-certainty avoidance needs. Predictable pro-gression within the public sector reinforcesthe widely practised but less socially valued

power distance orientation. Private sectoremployment in contrast tends to be moreshort term and insecure, resulting in signifi-cantly lower levels of both intrinsic satisfac-tion and all components of organizationalcommitment than the public sector. This iseven more prevalent at times when unem-ployment rates are high, currently around10% for the total workforce and over 25%for workers under 25 years old.

The relatively high levels of loyalty (ornormative commitment) reported in the pub-lic sector again reflect the institutional collec-tivism orientation reported in the GLOBEstudy. The overt expression of loyalty to theGreek constitution required of the newentrant, and national collective agreementscovering wages and other benefits, furtherreinforce this value, while in the broadersociety its practice is generally less apparent.Although private sector employment is covered by collective agreements, the smallsize of typical Greek businesses tends to pro-mote local agreements and HR practice. The


Figure 2 Mean satisfaction values for commitment profiles in the public sector (Meyer et al.,1993)



6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

Commitment profile

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

low performance orientation in practicereported by GLOBE also tallies with the relatively lower job involvement ratingsfound in both sectors.

Overall therefore, it appears that thedegree of congruence between sectoral andsocietal values and practices relates to indi-vidual outcomes of commitment and intrinsicsatisfaction. Close alignment of these valuesmay account for the significantly higher levelof intrinsic satisfaction and all components ofcommitment within the public sector samplethan in the private sector. The lack of signifi-cant difference in extrinsic satisfactionbetween public and private sector employeesmay say more about the uniqueness of Greeksociety. Both Karl and Sutton’s (1998) andNaff and Crum’s (1999) work suggest thatthere should be significant differencesbetween public and private sector employeeson both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfactionmeasures. The wage structure of the Greekpublic sector may be the counterbalance this suggestion, however further research isneeded to confirm this.

Moving on to the profiles analyses of thetwo samples, the results provide considerablesupport for this approach to the interpreta-tion of the influence of organizational com-mitment on job satisfaction. Both sets of datasupport the view that the ‘totally organiza-tionally committed’ employee is likely to bemore satisfied with his or her job, irrespectiveof where he or she works, and that anemployee who identifies with the organiza-tion (shows affective commitment) is likely tobe more satisfied than one who does not,again irrespective of employment sector.

Low job satisfaction was the most likelyoutcome for individuals who were eitheruncommitted or only displayed job involve-ment (or continuance commitment). Perhapsmost specifically for the Greek context, pub-lic sector employees were likely to be highlysatisfied with their job when their commit-ment profile was high on loyalty or norma-tive commitment, even if identification or

affective commitment was low. This trend,while visible, was not so marked in the pri-vate sector where loyalty is neither rewardednor offered.

This work lends support to the contentionthat commitment needs to be considered as a whole, irrespective of the formulation ofcommitment being used, and not merely broken down into constituent parts. In linewith both Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) andWasti (2005), the dominant influence of theaffective component of commitment in pro-ducing organizationally positive work-relatedattitudes was confirmed. These authors havepreviously identified the importance of thiscomponent for the promotion of positive job-related behaviours. Our data confirm thatthese profiles also produce the most positivejob-related attitudes.

Adopting a profiles approach to the studyof organizational commitment does present anumber of methodological difficulties. Inparticular, in order to ensure sufficient dis-tinctions between the eight proposed profiles,and to detect three-way interactions, largesamples and sufficient variability are requiredin all three commitment components. Withthe large data sets used here, within bothsamples it was possible to extract the eightproposed profiles in sufficient numbers. Onlyone group (C3) contained fewer than 20respondents. The replication of findings acrosssectors further supports the generalizabilityof the results.

These findings have implications forhuman resource management specialists andpractitioners. Primarily, the importance ofseeking to develop affective commitment ororganizational identification is highlighted.Initiatives that seek to emphasize the eco-nomic implications of leaving the organiza-tion (i.e. associated with continuance com-mitment) may be not only ineffective butactually detrimental to positive organiza-tional outcomes. If the key variable is theextent to which the individual wants to stayin the organization, emphasizing the costs


associated with leaving the organization,through for example manipulation of rewardsystems, may undermine the sense of emo-tional attachment. Thus it is the manager’sjob to create and develop organizationalenvironments and jobs that will enableemployees to feel attached to their organiza-tion. While the primacy of the affectiveaspect of commitment appears to be univer-sal, the significance of cultural values, in particular collectivism and uncertainty avoid-ance, may be of more significance in impact-ing on normative commitment or loyalty. Inthe Greek context, given the importance ofthe loyalty component of commitment, stability of employment and career structurewould seem to be significant for all em-ployees. However, this may be difficult toachieve in a climate where unemploymentrates remain high, consumption rates andpatterns are rather low and the growth ratesof the total Greek economy does not exceed3% per annum. Accepting that total organi-zational commitment produces positive out-comes, emphasizing security and order may be a more effective lever for increasingorganizational commitment in collectivistcultures high in uncertainty avoidance thanin more individualist contexts.

Limitations of the Study

This study related commitment profiles tojob satisfaction, and not to focal and discre-tionary behaviours as exhibited in most ofthe relatively few studies conducted so far.The major limitation of this research is the cross-sectional data generated in self-reported questionnaires that raise the poten-tial for common-method variance. However,it is difficult to envisage a way in which indi-vidual attitudes such as job satisfaction canbe assessed other than through self-report.This is less of a problem, however, for ourhypothesized interaction effects. Common-method variance cannot account for inter-actions but rather leads to an underestima-tion of statistical interactions (McClelland

and Judd, 1993). Despite the mono-sourcedesign, we may therefore have some confi-dence in the interactions obtained.

The data were generated from conve-nience sampling of public and private sectoremployees. This also may limit the generaliz-ability of the findings, although the largesample sizes could mediate this shortcoming.One further issue arising from this samplingapproach is that the public sector sampleincludes supervisory and middle manage-ment employees, while the private sectorsample comprises only non-supervisory par-ticipants. Therefore it could be suggestedthat the differences observed between publicand private sector participants in fact stemfrom status and hierarchical variation. It isnot possible to test this proposition with thedata available, but it should be controlled forin future studies.

One feature that has perhaps not beensufficiently explored in this article, however,is the extent to which the direct translation ofscales might introduce error. While the trans-lation processes were checked for accuracy,the interpretation of the construct understudy may not be so direct. Items generatedin an English-speaking frame might be inter-preted differently from a Greek perspective:they might be difficult to understand or inter-pret for such a different audience. This may also go some way towards explainingthe relatively modest internal reliabilitiesreported for the organizational identification,job involvement and loyalty sub-scales.Clearly there is a judgement to be madebetween identifying culturally appropriate‘emic’ measures, and enabling direct com-parisons of data through direct translation ofmeasures assumed to be ‘etic’ (Vanden-berghe, 2003). This study has opted to pursue the latter line; however underlyinginterpretation of the issues associated withorganizational commitment in a Greek con-text requires further investigation.


Directions for Future Research

This research verifies the conceptual frame-work developed by Meyer and Herscovitch(2001), however it raises issues that need further investigation. These are: (1) an exam-ination of commitment profiles with respectto focal and discretionary behaviours inGreece; (2) a study of the forms of commit-ment as predictors of more specific job atti-tudes, such as satisfaction from payment orsatisfaction from job security, or as predictorsof employee performance; and (3) a cultur-ally specific analysis and interpretation of themeaning of organizational commitment inGreece, as highlighted above. The first ofthese proposals requires an extension of thecurrent work in line with other publishedwork focusing on behavioural rather thanattitudinal outcomes of commitment. Thiswould also in due course overcome the diffi-culties of common-method variance high-lighted in the previous section. The secondsuggestion represents an elaboration of theconstructs already under study.

The third proposition, however, posesmore significant difficulties. The local mean-ing of organizational commitment may notbe captured by either Cook and Wall’s (1980)or Meyer et al.’s (1993) measures, howeverthe similarities observed in the data withthose reported elsewhere do provide somereassurance of the transportability of the con-structs. A more comprehensive investigationof the meaning of organizational commit-ment in Greece will be a welcome addition toresearch in this field. This study providessome baseline data for such elaboration.


ReferencesAlbrecht, S. and Travaglione, A. (2003) ‘Trust in

Public Sector Management’, InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management 14:76–92.

Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990) ‘TheMeasurement and Antecedents of Affective,Continuance and Normative Commitment tothe Organization’, Journal of OccupationalPsychology 63: 1–18.

Arvey, R.D., Abraham, L.M., Bouchard, T.J. Jrand Segal, N.L. (1989) ‘Job Satisfaction:Environmental and Genetic Components’,Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 187–92.

Bar-Hayim, A. and Berman, G.S. (1992) ‘TheDimensions of Organizational Commitment’,Journal of Organizational Behavior 13: 379–88.

Biggs, D. and Swailes, S. (2006) ‘Relations,Commitment, and Satisfaction in AgencyWorkers and Permanent Workers’, EmployeeRelations 28: 130–43.

Bond, M.H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., deCarrasquel, S.R., Murakami, F. et al. (2004)‘Culture-level Dimensions of Social Axiomsand their Correlates across 41 Countries’,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35: 548–70.

Bourantas, D. and Papalexandris, N. (1999)‘Personality Traits Discriminating betweenEmployees in Public- and in Private-sectorOrganizations’, International Journal of HumanResource Management 10: 858–69.

Bourantas, D., Anagnostelis, J., Mantes, Y. andKefalas, A.G. (1990) ‘Culture Gap in GreekManagement’, Organization Studies 11: 261–83.

Buchanan, B. (1974) ‘Building OrganizationalCommitment: The Socialization of Managersin Work Organizations’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 19: 533–46.

Chen, Z.X. and Francesco, A.M. (2003) ‘TheRelationship between the Three Componentsof Commitment and Employee Performancein China’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 62:490–510.

Cheng, Y. and Stockdale, M.S. (2003) ‘TheValidity of the Three-component Model ofOrganizational Commitment in a ChineseContext’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 62:465–89.

Cho, K.H. and Lee, S.H. (2001) ‘Another Lookat the Public–Private Distinction andOrganizational Commitment: A CulturalExplanation’, International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis 9: 84–102.

Clugston, M., Howell, J.P. and Dorfman, P.W.(2000) ‘Does Cultural Socialization Predict

NotesParts of this article were presented at the 12thEuropean Congress of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, May 2005, Istanbul, Turkey.The authors would like to thank Zeynep Aycanand two anonymous reviewers for their helpfulcomments on previous versions of this article.


Multiple Bases and Foci of Commitment?’,Journal of Management 26: 5–30.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980) ‘New Work AttitudeMeasures of Trust, OrganizationalCommitment and Personal Need Non-fulfillment’, Journal of Occupational Psychology 53:39–52.

Cooper-Hakim, A. and Viswesvaran, C. (2005)‘The Construct of Work Commitment:Testing an Integrative Framework’Psychological Bulletin 131: 241–59.

Gautam, T., Van Dick, R. and Wagner, U.(2001) ‘Organizational Commitment inNepalese Setting’, Asian Journal of SocialPsychology 4: 239–48.

Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U.,Upadhyay, N. and Davis, A.J. (2005)‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior andOrganizational Commitment in Nepal’, AsianJournal of Social Psychology 8: 305–14.

Gellatly, I.R., Meyer, J.P. and Luchak, A.A.(2004) ‘Organizational Commitment andBehavior: It’s the Nature of the CommitmentProfiles that Count!’, paper presented at the19th annual meeting of the Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology,Chicago, USA.

Goulet, L.R. and Frank, M.L. (2002)‘Organizational Commitment across ThreeSectors: Public, Non-profit, and For-profit’,Public Personnel Management 31: 201–10.

Green, E.G.T., Deschamps, J.C. and Páez, D.(2005) ‘Variation of Individualism andCollectivism Within and Between 20Countries’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology36: 321–39.

Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., Denisi, A. andKirchner, W. (1985) ‘A Comparison ofDifferent Methods of Clustering Countries onthe Basis of Employee Attitudes’, HumanRelations 38: 813–40.

Guest, D.E. and Peccei, R. (1993) TheDimensionality and Stability of OrganisationalCommitment: A Longitudinal Examination of Cookand Wall’s (1980) Organizational CommitmentScale (BOCS). CEP Discussion Paper 149,London: London School of Economics.

Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002)‘Commitment to Organizational Change:Extension of the Three-component Model’,Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 474–87.

Herzberg, F. (1968) ‘One More Time: How doyou Motivate Employees?’, Harvard BusinessReview 46: 53–62.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences.London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences, 2ndedn. London: Sage.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M. andDorfman, P.W. (eds) (2004) Culture Leadershipand Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62Societies. London: Sage.

James, L.R. and Jones, A.P. (1980) ‘PerceivedJob Characteristics and Job Satisfaction: AnExamination of Reciprocal Causation’,Personnel Psycholog, 33: 97–135.

Jaramillo, F., Prakash Mulki, J. and Marshall,G.W. (2005) ‘A Meta-analysis of theRelationship between OrganizationalCommitment and Salesperson JobPerformance: 25 Years of Research’, Journal ofBusiness Research 58: 705–14.

Jaros, S.J. (1997) ‘An Assessment of Meyer andAllen’s (1991) Three-component Model ofOrganizational Commitment and TurnoverDecisions’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 51:319–37.

Karassavidou, E. and Markovits, Y. (1994) ‘JobSatisfaction, Job Security, Trust andCommitment in the Greek Workplace’, inEuropean Association of Labour Economists(EALE) (ed.) Models of the Labour Market,Efficiency Wages/Organizational Effects onEmployment and Earnings 6, Proceedings of the6th European Conference of the EALE.Warsaw: Warsaw School of Economics.

Karl, K.A. and Sutton, C.L. (1998) ‘Job Valuesin Today’s Workforce: A Comparison ofPublic and Private Sector Employees’, PublicPersonnel Management 27: 515–27.

Kirkman, B.K. and Shapiro, D.L. (2001) ‘TheImpact of Cultural Values on Job Satisfactionand Organizational Commitment in Self-managing Work Teams: The Mediating Roleof Employee Resistance’, Academy ofManagement Journal 44: 557–69.

Knoop, R. (1995) ‘Influence of ParticipativeDecision-making on Job Satisfaction andOrganizational Commitment of SchoolPrincipals’, Psychological Reports 76: 379–82.

Ko, J.W., Price, J.L. and Muller, C. (1997)‘Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s Three-component Model of OrganizationalCommitment in South Korea’, Journal ofApplied Psychology 82: 961–73.

Lammers, C.J. and Hickson, D.J. (1979) ‘ACross-national and Cross-institutionalTypology of Organizations’, in C.J. Lammersand D.J. Hickson (eds) Organizations Alike andUnalike, pp. 402–19. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.

Lawler, E.E. and Hall, D.T. (1970) ‘Relationship


of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement,Satisfaction and Intrinsic Motivation’, Journalof Applied Psychology 54: 305–12.

Lee, K., Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P. and Rhee, K.-Y.(2001) ‘The Three-component Model ofOrganizational Commitment: An Applicationto South Korea’, Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review 50: 596–614.

McClelland, G.H. and Judd, C.M. (1993)‘Statistical Difficulties of DetectingInteractions and Moderator Effects’,Psychological Bulletin 114: 376–90.

Madsen, S.R., Miller, D. and John, C.R. (2005)‘Readiness for Organizational Change: DoOrganizational Commitment and SocialRelationships in the Workplace Make aDifference?’, Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly 16: 213–33.

Mathews, B.P. and Shepherd, J.L. (2002)‘Dimensionality of Cook and Wall’s (1980)British Organizational Commitment ScaleRevisited’, Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology 75: 369–75.

Mesner Andolsek, D. and S tebe, J. (2004)‘Multinational Perspectives on Work Valuesand Commitment’, International Journal of CrossCultural Management 4: 181–209.

Meyer, J.P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001)‘Commitment in the Workplace: Toward aGeneral Model’, Human Resource ManagementReview 11: 299–326.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993)‘Commitment to Organizations andOccupations: Extension and Test of a Three-component Conceptualization’, Journal ofApplied Psychology 78: 538–51.

Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R.,Goffin, R.D. and Jackson, D.N. (1989)‘Organizational Commitment and Job Per-formance: It’s the Nature of Commitment thatCounts’, Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 152–6.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. andTopolnytsky, L. (2002) ‘Affective,Continuance, and Normative Commitment tothe Organization: A Meta-analysis ofAntecedents, Correlates and Consequences’,Journal of Vocational Behavior 61: 20–52.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W.(1979) ‘The Measurement of OrganizationalCommitment’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour14: 224–47.

Myloni, B., Harzing, A.W. and Mirza, H. (2004)‘Human Resource Management in Greece:Have the Colours of Culture Faded Away?’,International Journal of Cross Cultural Management4: 59–76.

Naff, K.C. and Crum, J. (1999) ‘Working forAmerica: Does Public Service MotivationMake a Difference?’, Review of Public PersonnelAdministration 19: 5–16.

Papalexandris, N. (1992) ‘Human ResourceManagement in Greece’, Employee Relations 14:38–52.

Papapetrou, E. (2006) ‘The Unequal Distributionof the Public–Private Sector Wage Gap inGreece: Evidence from Quantile Regression’,Applied Economic Letters 13: 205–10.

Pendleton, A. (2003) ‘Does Privatisation Create a“New Breed” of Managers? A Study of theUK Railway Industry’, Human Relations 56:85–111.

Rachid, Z. (1995) ‘Organizational Commitmentand Perceived Management Styles: ThePublic–Private Sector Contrast’, ManagementResearch News 18: 9–19.

Randall, D.M., Fedor, D.B. and Longenecker,C.O. (1990) ‘The Behavioral Expression ofOrganizational Commitment’, Journal ofVocational Behavior 36: 210–24.

Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985) ‘ClusteringCountries on Attitudinal Dimensions: AReview and Synthesis’, Academy of ManagementReview 10: 445–54.

Schwartz, S.H. (1994) ‘BeyondIndividualism/Collectivism: New CulturalDimensions of Values’, in U. Kim, H.C.Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi and G.Yoon (eds) Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,Method, and Applications, pp. 85–119, ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, P.B., Fischer, R. and Sale, N. (2001)‘Cross-cultural Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology’, in C.L. Cooper and I. Robertson(eds) International Review of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, 16, pp. 147–93. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F. and Schwartz, S.H.(2002) ‘Cultural Values, Sources of Guidanceand their Relevance to Managerial Behavior:A 47 Nation Study’, Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology 33: 188–208.

Solomon, E.E. (1986) ‘Private and Public SectorManagers: An Empirical Investigation of JobCharacteristics and Organizational Climate’,Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 247–59.

Somers, M.J. (1995) ‘OrganizationalCommitment, Turnover and Absenteeism:An Examination of Direct and InteractionEffects’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 16:49–58.

Sotirakou, T. and Zeppou, M. (2005) ‘How toAlign Greek Civil Service with European

YANNIS MARKOVITS is in the Work andOrganisational Psychology Group, AstonBusiness School, Aston University, AstonTriangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK. [email: [email protected]]

ANN J. DAVIS is in the Work andOrganisational Psychology Group, AstonBusiness School, Aston University, AstonTriangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK. [email: [email protected]]

ROLF VAN DICK is based in Aston University,Birmingham, UK and Goethe University,Frankfurt, Germany.

Please address correspondence to YannisMarkovits or Ann Davis.


Union Public Sector Management Policies’,International Journal of Public Sector Management18: 54–82.

Vandenberghe, C. (1996) ‘AssessingOrganizational Commitment in a BelgianContext: Evidence for the Three-dimensionalModel’, Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview 45: 371–86.

Vandenberghe, C. (2003) ‘Application of theThree-component Model to China: Issuesand Perspectives’, Journal of Vocational Behavior62: 516–23.

Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, F.and Delhaise, T. (2001) ‘An Examination ofthe Cross-cultural Validity of aMultidimensional Model of Commitment inEurope’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32:322–47.

Warr, P., Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1979) ‘Scales forthe Measurement of Some Work Attitudesand Aspects of Psychological Well-being’,Journal of Occupational Psychology 52: 129–48.

Wasti, S.A. (1998) ‘Cultural Barriers in theTransferability of Japanese and AmericanHuman Resources Practice to DevelopingCountries: The Turkish Case’, InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management 9:608–31.

Wasti, S.A. (2003) ‘Organizational Commitment,Turnover Intentions and the Influence ofCultural Values’, Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology 76: 303–21.

Wasti, S.A. (2005) ‘Commitment Profiles:Combinations of Organizational

Commitment Forms and Job Outcomes’,Journal of Vocational Behavior 67: 290–308.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W. andLofquist, L.H. (1967) ‘Manual for theMinnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire’,Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation(Bulletin): 22.

Yousef, D.A. (2002) ‘Job Satisfaction As aMediator of the Relationship Between RoleStressors and Organizational Commitment: AStudy from an Arabic Cultural Perspective’Journal of Managerial Psychology 17: 250–66.


Résumé

Profils d’engagement professionnel et satisfaction dans le travail chez lessalariés grecs des secteurs privé et public (Yannis Markovits, Ann J. Davis etRolf van Dick)Une récente recherche sur l’engagement professionnel tend à plaider pour une approchefondée sur les profils. Or, à l’exception des travaux de Wasti, les études publiées se limitent àdes exemples nord-américains. Cet article se penche sur le lien entre les profils d’engagementprofessionnel et la satisfaction dans le travail en Grèce. Les entreprises grecques ayantrarement fait l’objet d’une étude détaillée, cette étude fournit un premier point de repère surles degrés d’engagement professionnel et de satisfaction dans le travail en Grèce. Les salariésayant participé à l’enquête appartiennent tant au secteur privé (N = 1119) qu’au secteurpublic (N = 476), cette distinction entre secteurs privé et public étant régulièrement associéeaux différents schémas d’attitude par rapport au travail. Le contraste entre les valeursgrecques et anglo-américaines présente un nouveau défi pour l’approche par profils. Lesrésultats confirment l’utilité de l’approche par profils dans l’étude de l’engagement pro-fessionnel. D’après ces résultats, l’engagement professionnel à caractère affectif apparaîtcomme le plus marquant au regard des degrés de satisfaction intrinsèque et extrinsèque dansle travail. Cela concorde avec d’autres études sur les incidences comportementales del’engagement.

Yannis Markovits, Ann J. Davis and Rolf van Dick

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.