Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / jvb

Affective and normative commitment to organization, supervisor,and coworkers: Do collectivist values matter?

S. Arzu Wasti *, Özge CanSabanci University, Faculty of Management, Orhanli, 34956 Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 January 2008Available online 9 August 2008

Keywords:Commitment fociOrganizational commitmentSupervisor commitmentCoworker commitmentCollectivismTurkey

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Incdoi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.08.003

* Corresponding author. Fax: +90 216 4839699.E-mail addresses: awasti@sabanciuniv.edu (S.A. W

a b s t r a c t

Employees’ commitment to their organization is increasingly recognized as comprising ofdifferent bases (affect-, obligation-, or cost-based) and different foci (e.g., supervisor,coworkers). Two studies investigated affective and normative commitment to the organi-zation, supervisor and coworkers in the Turkish context. The results of Study 1 confirmedthat employees differentiate between affect versus obligation-based commitment towardsthe organization, supervisor and coworkers. Study 2 tested the ‘‘cultural hypothesis” whichargues for the moderating influence of collectivistic values on the relationship betweenperson (local) commitments and organizational-level (global) outcomes. The results failedto support the cultural hypothesis and showed that commitment to organization was pre-dictive of organizational-level outcomes (e.g., turnover intentions), and commitment tosupervisor was predictive of supervisor-related outcomes (e.g., citizenship towards super-visor). These findings suggest that the influence of culture may be less straightforward andmay require a more sophisticated measurement of the nature of relationships andorganizational characteristics in general.

� 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The most significant developments in commitment theory over the past two decades have been the recognition that com-mitment can take different forms (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1991) and can be directed toward various targets, or foci such as occu-pation, top management, supervisor, team, coworkers, union and customers (e.g., Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996;Reichers, 1985). Increasingly, researchers have become interested in testing the generalizability of the multiple forms or themultiple foci conceptualization of commitment to other cultural contexts (e.g., Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002; Vandenberghe,Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Delhaise, 2001). Particularly in societies characterized by vertical collectivism (i.e., high collectiv-ism and high power distance; Triandis, 1995), commitment to supervisor has been proposed to be a better predictor of bothglobal (i.e., organization-relevant such as turnover intentions) and local (i.e., supervisor or workgroup-relevant such as extra-role performance) outcomes (e.g., Chen et al., 2002; Cheng, Jiang, & Riley, 2003). Yet, the evidence to date has been incon-clusive, primarily due to the fact that the moderating influence of cultural values has not been directly measured but onlyassumed from the observed differences (e.g., Snape, Chan, & Redman, 2006). Nor has there been any attempt to examine theinfluence of culture on commitment foci-outcomes relationships by considering multiple forms of commitment. It is thesegaps that the present investigation seeks to fill in.

To this end, we conducted two studies using a sample of Turkish employees. In Study 1, we investigated the discriminantand construct validity of affective and normative commitment to organization, supervisor and coworkers. In Study 2, we

. All rights reserved.

asti), ozgecan@su.sabanciuniv.edu (Ö. Can).

S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413 405

tested the moderating influence of vertical collectivism at the individual level on the relationships between the multiplecommitments and job outcomes. Our analysis was founded on the argument that individualism and collectivism exist withincultures in the form of an individual difference and that the full range of individualism and collectivism exists in every cul-ture (Triandis, 1995). At the individual level, collectivism is manifest in the degree to which an individual holds values, atti-tudes, or norms reflective of interdependence, obligations towards and harmony within the ingroup whereas individualismrefers to the endorsement of values, attitudes, or norms consistent with independence and primacy of personal needs orpreferences. Individual-level analysis has the advantage of directly connecting the hypothesized aspect of culture to otherconstructs in the nomological network as it measures the relative degree of value endorsement rather than aggregationaccording to nationality, which presumes that all cultural members are sharing a given perspective identically (Earley &Mosakowski, 1995). In what follows, we present the two studies and conclude with a discussion that aims to further inte-grate culture and commitment theories.

2. Study 1: Discriminant and construct validity of forms and foci of commitment

Of the various foci identified, the theoretical meaningfulness and the discriminant validity of commitment towards theorganization, supervisor and coworkers are well established in the literature (e.g., Becker & Billings, 1993; Vandenberghe,Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004). However, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Becker & Kernan, 2003; Clugston, Howell,& Dorfman, 2000) the evidence is limited to affective commitment. Yet, there is solid psychological theory that speaks tothe importance of norms in predicting behavior, particularly in collectivist cultures (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Triandis,1995). In collectivist cultures, individuals tend to behave according to obligations that are designed to maintain social har-mony among the members of the ingroup. Ingroup membership is stable even when the ingroup places high demands on theindividual because interdependence within the ingroup have primacy over personal goals (Triandis, 1995). As such, norma-tive commitment towards specific foci may be particularly relevant in terms of understanding the implications of collectiv-ism on commitment. Accordingly, we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Employees distinguish both among different forms (affective and normative) and different foci (organiza-tion, supervisor, coworkers) of commitment.

In addition to testing discriminant validity, we further explored the construct validity of the proposed commitment focialong the two forms with respect to their relationships with several antecedent and correlate variables. To this end, we drewon Lawler’s (1992) choice-process theory, which posits that employees develop separate commitments to the ‘‘distal” orga-nization and more ‘‘proximate” foci because they attribute each focus a different capacity as well as a responsibility to gen-erate positive emotions (Mueller & Lawler, 1999). This argument suggests that affective and normative commitment to thethree foci can be expected to differentially relate to various work-related variables.

Specifically, perceived organizational support (POS) has been identified as a major antecedent of affective organizationalcommitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Because POS develops from favorable job conditions, we expect satisfactionwith job security and training opportunities to predict affective commitment to the organization. Based on the argumentthat the relationship between POS and affective commitment is mediated by felt obligation to reciprocate (Rhoades & Eisen-berger, 2002) we also expect satisfaction with job security and training opportunities to predict normative commitment tothe organization.

Because satisfaction with job security, as a facet of overall job satisfaction has an ‘‘affective” tone, we propose that it willcorrelate more strongly with affective than normative commitment to organization (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topol-nytsky, 2002). In terms of training opportunities, Meyer and Allen (1997) argued that organizational investments in the em-ployee may generate feelings of obligation to reciprocate, thereby leading to higher levels of normative commitment. Yet,they also argued that organizations that provide competence-enhancing experiences promote affective commitment. Thus,we propose that:

Hypothesis 2a: Training opportunities and satisfaction with job security will relate uniquely and positively to organiza-tional commitment.

Hypothesis 2b: Satisfaction with job security will relate more strongly to affective than normative commitment to orga-nization whereas training opportunities will relate equally to affective and normative commitment to organization.

With respect to commitment to supervisor, although employee empowerment in may be regarded as an initiative ofthe organization, the actual implementation is typically carried out by the supervisor and as such, its positive effects arelikely to be reflected in employees’ relations with their supervisor (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Another central var-iable in the commitment literature is job satisfaction. Researchers (e.g., Becker & Billings, 1993) have shown that satis-faction from each target is most strongly related to attachment to that target. Hence, satisfaction with supervisor shouldbe most strongly correlated with commitment to supervisor. While both empowerment and satisfaction, by increasingfeelings of self-worth and fulfillment are argued to be associated with affect- rather than obligation-based mindsets(Meyer & Allen, 1997), it is conceivable that such positive experiences would generate a concern to reciprocate (e.g.,Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), and show a positive but weaker relationship with normative commitment as well. Insum, we propose:

Hypothesis 3a: Empowerment in decision-making and satisfaction with supervisor will relate uniquely and positively tocommitment to supervisor.

406 S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413

Hypothesis 3b: Empowerment and satisfaction with the supervisor will relate more strongly to affective than normativecommitment to supervisor.

Extending the above argument to coworkers, we also offer the following hypotheses:Hypothesis 4a: Satisfaction with coworkers will relate uniquely and positively to commitment to coworkers.Hypothesis 4b: Satisfaction with coworkers will relate more strongly to affective than normative commitment to

coworkers.

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants and procedureThe data was collected from 430 employees (74% return rate) in six different branches of an automotive retailer in Istan-

bul, Turkey. The sample was randomly split into two equal halves, each having 215 observations. The first sample was usedto validate the scales, whereas the second sample was employed to test the moderating effect of cultural values, as discussedin Study 2. Sample one consisted of mostly male (79%) and young (83%) employees, and 74% had at least a high school de-gree. The majority of the respondents were employed as operational and technical staff (69%), and the remaining were blue-collar employees (14%), office workers (8%), supervisors and managers (9%).

2.1.2. MeasuresCommitment forms and foci. Organizational commitment was measured by five affective and six normative commitment

items developed by Meyer, Barak, and Vandenberghe (1996) for international research. In adapting the scales to the super-visor and coworker foci, the items were essentially reworded to specify the targets of commitment. The full set of items canbe found in Table 2.

Training opportunities. We used the 7-item scale developed by Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, and Lawler (2000),which evaluates employees’ perceptions of development opportunities for work-related knowledge and skills. A typical itemis ‘‘The company sees to it that I get training to increase my levels of job skills and knowledge”.

Empowerment. We used the Empowering Leadership Questionnaire developed by Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, and Drasgow(2000). Of this 10-item scale, we selected the six items that were worded with the supervisor (not the organization) asthe referent (e.g., ‘‘Supervisors schedule meetings with workers to discuss ways of improving how work gets done”). Thedecision to use a subscale was supported by confirmatory factor analysis, which revealed that a two-factor model reflectingthe organization versus the supervisor as distinct referents fit the data significantly better than a single factor model (Dv2 (1,N = 214) = 32, p < .001).

Satisfaction with supervisor and satisfaction with coworkers. The short form of the Job Description Index (JDI; Smith, Ken-dall, & Hulin, 1969, as revised by Roznowski, 1989) was used to assess satisfaction with supervisor and satisfaction withcoworkers. The two scales asked respondents to indicate (Yes, ?, or No) whether each of a series of adjectives characterizedtheir supervisor (e.g., ‘‘praises good work”) or coworkers (e.g., ‘‘boring”).

Satisfaction with job security. Probst (2003) 6-item Job Security Satisfaction scale, consisting of short illustrative state-ments (e.g., ‘‘excellent amount of security”) to which employees respond using the JDI’s three-point response scale (Yes?or No?) was used to measure employees’ satisfaction with job security in the organization.

Unless indicated otherwise, responses for all variables were made on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). The scales were finalized using translation and back-translation (Brislin, 1980) by academicians fluent bothin Turkish and English. Age, education and organizational tenure were included as control variables in line with prior re-search (Becker et al., 1996; Meyer et al., 2002; Snape et al., 2006).

2.2. Results and discussion

2.2.1. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)To test Hypothesis 1, a 6-factor model composed of three commitment foci and two commitment forms was compared to

a 2-factor model of affective and normative commitment without distinguishing among foci and a 3-factor model differen-tiating the foci but collapsing across commitment forms. Table 1 presents the CFA results. In addition to the full-item ver-sions of the 2-, 3-, and 6-factor solutions, the reduced-item version for the 6-factor model is provided. In this latter version,four negatively worded affective commitment items (OAC2, SAC2, CAC2 and CAC4 in Table 2) were discarded because theirfactor loadings were not significant. As reported by Hinkin (1995), negatively worded items tend to reduce the validity ofsurvey responses and introduce systematic error to the scale. In view of this potential problem and to maintain consistencyacross the affective commitment scales, OAC4 and SAC4, whose factor loadings were similarly suboptimal, were dropped aswell. The factor loadings for the full-item version of the 6-factor model are reported in Table 2.

As Table 1 shows, the full-item 6-factor model fit the data better compared to both the 2- and 3-factor models. While theimprovement over the 2-factor model was notable (Dv2 (14, N = 210) = 846, p < .001) the improvement over the 3-factormodel was modest but nevertheless significant (Dv2 (12, N = 210) = 48, p < .001). Similar improvement was observed forthe models with reduced items (not reported) and the fit indices for the final, i.e., the reduced-item 6-factor model were sat-isfactory (v2 /df = 1.84, GFI = .85, CFI = .91, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .06). An examination of the modification indices further re-vealed that all items loaded significantly on their respective latent constructs with no significant cross-loadings.

Table 2Standardized factor loadings for commitment items

Item Factor loadings

Organizational affective commitment (OAC)OAC1: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization .74OAC2: I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization (a) .10OAC3: I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own .57OAC4: I do not feel a strong sense of belongingness to my organization (a) .33OAC5: This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me .67

Supervisor affective commitment (SAC)SAC1: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with my current supervisor .78SAC2: I do not feel emotionally attached to my supervisor (a) .27SAC3: I really feel as if my supervisor’s problems are my own .74SAC4: I do not feel a strong sense of belongingness to my supervisor (a) .38SAC5: Working with my supervisor has a great deal of personal meaning for me .80

Coworker affective commitment (CAC)CAC1: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with my current coworkers .68CAC2: I do not feel emotionally attached to my coworkers (a) .04CAC3: I really feel as if my coworkers’s problems are my own .52CAC4: I do not feel a strong sense of belongingness to my coworkers (a) .36CAC5: Working with my coworkers has a great deal of personal meaning for me .83

Organizational normative commitment (ONC)ONC1: Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now .62ONC2: It would not be morally right for me to leave this company now .49ONC3: If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere, I would not feel it was right to leave my organization .80ONC4: I feel a personal responsibility to continue working for this organization .69ONC5: I would feel guilty if I left this organization now .52ONC6: I do not feel any obligation to remain with this organization (a) .42

Supervisor normative commitment (SNC)SNC1: Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my supervisor .71SNC2: It would not be morally right for me to leave my supervisor now .71SNC3: If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere, I would not feel it was right to leave my supervisor .67SNC4: I feel a personal responsibility to continue working for my supervisor .70SNC5: I would feel guilty if I left my supervisor now .75SNC6: I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (a) .41

Coworker normative commitment (CNC)CNC1: Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my coworkers .76CNC2: It would not be morally right for me to leave my coworkers now .79CNC3: If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere, I would not feel it was right to leave my coworkers .77CNC4: I feel a personal responsibility to continue working for my coworkers .76CNC5: I would feel guilty if I left my coworkers now .80CNC6: I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current coworkers (a) .50

Note. N = 210.a Reverse coded.

Table 1Confirmatory factor analysis results for Study 1

Model v2 (df) GFI TLI CFI RMSEA Model comparison Dv2 (Ddf)

1. Null 3475* (528) .28 — — .16 — —2. Two-factor (AC–NC) 1724* (461) .59 .51 .57 .12 2 vs. 4 846* (14)3. Three-factor (Commitment to organization–supervisor–coworkers) 926* (459) .79 .82 .84 .07 3 vs. 4 48* (12)4. Six–factor (AC and NC to organization–supervisor–coworkers) 878* (447) .80 .83 .85 .07 — —5. Six-factor (With reduced items) 519* (282) .85 .89 .91 .06 — —

Note. N = 210. AC, affective commitment; NC, normative commitment; GFI, goodness-of-fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; CFI, comparative fit index;RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation. Since each item was identical across different commitment foci with only the referent different, weallowed the estimated error terms for these identically worded items to freely covary in the analysis (Vandenberghe et al., 2004).

* P < .001.

S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413 407

2.2.2. Relationships with antecedents and correlatesTable 3 provides the descriptive statistics, correlations and internal consistency estimates and Table 4 presents the results

of the regressions conducted with the hypothesized antecedent and correlate variables. The regression results failed to sup-port Hypotheses 2a and 2b regarding the relationship between satisfaction with job security, training opportunities andcommitment to organization. Nonetheless, Hypotheses 3a and b were largely supported: satisfaction with supervisor(b = .37, p < .001 for affective and b = .28, p < .001 for normative commitment, respectively) and empowerment (b = .30,

Table 3Descriptive statistics and correlations for Study 1

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. AC ORG 3.83 0.84 (.69)2. AC SUP 2.94 0.95 .37** (.82)3. AC COWORK 3.52 0.76 .43** .27** (.72)4. NC ORG 3.30 0.79 .71** .28** .40** (.76)5. NC SUP 3.82 0.80 .46** .77** .31** .43** (.82)6. NC COWORK 2.92 0.84 .50** .29** .69** .53** .50** (.87)7. Training opportunities 3.59 0.73 .33** .24** .26** .26** .27** .29** (.77)8. Satisfaction with job security 1.65 0.91 .36** .38** .10 .26** .29** .18** .35** (.82)9. Empowerment 3.38 0.77 .37** .51** .26** .20** .42** .19** .35** .42** (.83)10. Satisfaction with supervisor 2.08 0.89 .31** .57** .10 .21** .45** .14* .30** .50** .51** (.84)11. Satisfaction with coworkers 2.38 0.64 .31** .27** .30** .25** .25** .30** .26** .34** .30** .43** (.81)

Note. N = 208–215. (Pairwise deletion of missing values). Reliability coefficients are reported on the diagonal. AC ORG, affective organizational commitment;NC ORG, normative organizational commitment; AC SUP, affective commitment to supervisor; NC SUP, normative commitment to supervisor; AC COWORK,affective commitment to coworkers; NC COWORK, normative commitment to coworkers.

* p < .05.** p < .01 (two-tailed tests).

Table 4Study 1: Regression analysis for antecedent variables

AC ORG NC ORG AC SUP NC SUP AC COWORK NC COWORK

Training opportunities .11 .11 .00 .09 .15* .18*

Satisfaction with job security .15 .08 .06 �.03 �.11 �.01Empowerment .24** .14 .30*** .25** .24** .10Satisfaction with supervisor �.02 �.05 .37*** .28*** �.15 �.08Satisfaction with coworkers .13 .12 .00 .02 .27*** .23**

Note. N = 215. AC ORG, affective organizational commitment; NC ORG, normative organizational commitment; AC SUP, affective commitment to supervisor;NC SUP, normative commitment to supervisor; AC COWORK, affective commitment to coworkers; NC COWORK, normative commitment to coworkers.

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

*** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

408 S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413

p < .001 for affective and b = .25, p < .01 for normative commitment, respectively) were found to be the only significant ante-cedents of commitment to supervisor. Of note, empowerment was the only significant predictor of affective commitment toorganization (b = .24, p < .01) and also explained significant variance in affective commitment to coworkers (b = .24, p < .01).No variable was significantly related to normative commitment to organization. Supporting Hypotheses 4a and 4b, satisfac-tion with coworkers was only related to affective, and less strongly to normative commitment to coworkers (b = .27, p < .001and b = .23, p < .01, respectively). Interestingly, training opportunities correlated significantly with affective and normativecommitment to coworkers (b = .15, p < .05 and b = .18, p < .05, respectively).

Despite partial support, the CFA which supports the 6-factor model as well as the differential relationships of empow-erment and satisfaction to affect- versus obligation-based commitment encourage further investigation of the normative-affective distinction across the three foci. The statistically significant relation between empowerment and affective com-mitment to the organization is in line with the spillover effect regarding the organization and the supervisor as its criticalagent (e.g., Becker et al., 1996). The unpredicted positive relationship between training opportunities, empowerment andcoworker commitment might be explained as the result of a sense of unity among employees who are trained together aswell as encouraged to work as self-managing teams (as implicated in our measurement). Indeed, it is such dynamics thatmake commitment to various foci and their implications worthy of investigation—an avenue we further pursued as de-scribed below.

3. Study 2: Commitment foci, job outcomes and the influence of cultural values

In Study 2, we investigated the relationships between commitment to specific foci and various job outcomes. In the questto understand whether particular commitment foci are differentially powerful in explaining various job outcomes, the main-stream (i.e., North American) literature has drawn on the compatibility principle (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which posits thatthe a given attitude should be related to another attitude or behavior only to the extent that the foci of the two are similar.Indeed, Becker and Billings’ (1993) pioneering study showed that commitment toward global foci (i.e., organization and topmanagement) was more strongly related to organization-relevant outcomes (e.g., overall satisfaction) than local outcomes(e.g., satisfaction with supervisor and workgroup). Likewise, local outcomes were best predicted by commitments to localfoci (i.e., supervisor and workgroup).

S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413 409

However, several researchers have challenged the compatibility argument and proposed a stronger association betweenlocal commitments and global outcomes in vertical collectivist societies (e.g., Cheng et al., 2003; Snape et al., 2006). Triandisand Gelfand (1998) have shown that individualism and collectivism can be categorized as horizontal (emphasizing equality)or vertical (emphasizing hierarchy). In vertical collectivist societies, individuals emphasize the integrity of the ingroup and ifingroup authorities want them to act in ways that benefit the group, they submit to their will even when unpleasant (Tri-andis & Gelfand, 1998). Extending the implications of vertical collectivism to the workplace, the so-called ‘‘cultural hypoth-esis” argues that the emphasis on submission to authority and personalized loyalty render the supervisor a more significantfocus of commitment in such cultures (e.g., Chen et al., 2002). As such, the cultural hypothesis contends that commitment tosupervisor, in addition to explaining local outcomes such as citizenship behaviors, will strongly predict global outcomes liketurnover intentions. While the cultural hypothesis found support in Cheng et al.’s (2003) study in Taiwan, Snape et al. (2006)as well as Chan, Tong-qing, Redman, and Snape (2006) failed to replicate their findings with Chinese samples. Noting thatChinese collectivism also encompasses strong identification with one’s ingroup, both Snape et al. (2006) and Chan et al.(2006) extended the test of the cultural hypothesis to coworkers. Yet, commitment to coworkers also failed to predict globaloutcomes.

The studies by Cheng et al. (2003) and Snape et al. (2006) are neither comparative nor measure culture at the individuallevel. As such, the purported influence of culture on the salience of local foci is ambiguous. Chan et al. (2006) compare the UKand China, yet, using country as a proxy for culture can be problematic because sample differences unique to each researchsetting might be inconsistent with national trends or norms (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003). Further, while these researchersdrew on collectivism and its implications regarding normative obligations towards local foci, they only measured affectivecommitment.

In this study, we not only considered affective and normative commitment towards the organization, supervisor andcoworkers, but also measured vertical collectivism at the individual level. Based on the compatibility argument, we arguethat while commitment to the organization will explain turnover intentions and job stress (as global outcomes), local out-comes such as supervisor-oriented citizenship and impression management behaviors will be predicted by commitment tothe supervisor and not by commitment to the organization or coworkers. In line with the cultural hypothesis, we furtherpropose that commitment to supervisor will predict the global outcomes, and that vertical collectivism will moderate theserelationships. Because vertical collectivism in essence is about prioritizing ingroup preferences, similar to Snape et al. (2006)and Chan et al. (2006) we also test whether commitment to coworkers predicts global outcomes. In sum, we advance thefollowing:Hypothesis 5a: Affective and normative commitment to organization will relate negatively to turnover intentionsand job stress (i.e., global outcomes).Hypothesis 5b: Affective and normative commitment to supervisor will relate positivelyto supervisor-oriented citizenship behaviors and negatively to supervisor-oriented impression management behaviors (i.e.,local outcomes).

Hypothesis 6: Vertical collectivism will moderate the relationships between affective and normative commitment tosupervisor as well as coworkers and global outcomes such that the relationships will be stronger for employees who arehigher on vertical collectivism than those who are lower.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants and procedureThe sample for Study 2 was composed mostly of male employees (83%). Two-thirds had at least a high school degree and

32% was between the ages 25–29. Nine percent of the respondents had supervisory responsibilities, two-thirds were oper-ational or technical staff (68%), and the rest were office workers (10%) and unskilled laborers (13%).

3.1.2. MeasuresCommitment forms and foci. Affective and normative commitment to the organization, supervisor and coworkers were

measured using the same scales as in Study 1.Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were measured with the 6-item Job Withdrawal scale developed by Hanisch and

Hulin (1990, 1991). The scale has a 5-point multiple choice response format where higher scores reflect higher levels of turn-over intentions (e.g., ‘‘How often do you think about quitting your job?”).

Job stress. Job stress was assessed using the Stress in General Scale (SIG; Smith, Sademan, & McCrary, 1992). This scalemeasures job stress by presenting nine adjectives (e.g., ‘‘hectic”, ‘‘hassled”) describing employees’ jobs in general, and therespondents answer using a Yes, ?, or No format. Higher scores indicate higher levels of job stress.

Supervisor-oriented citizenship behaviors. Five items designed to measure supervisor-oriented citizenship behaviors wereadopted from McAllister’s (1995) Affiliative Citizenship Behavior scale. The respondents indicated their agreement with var-ious statements (e.g., ‘‘I would forgo my personal productivity to help my superior”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Supervisor-oriented impression management. We used three items developed by Wayne and Green (1993) that measureself-focused impression management tactics. A sample item (with a 7-point response scale) is ‘‘Based on what I know aboutmy supervisor, it would be important for me to keep my supervisor informed of what I accomplish on the job”.

Vertical Collectivism. We used the vertical collectivism subscale of the INDCOL (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand,1995), which measures the extent to which an individual is concerned with maintaining the social harmony of the ingroup

410 S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413

and willing to subordinate personal interests to the wishes of ingroup authorities (e.g., ‘‘I usually sacrifice my self-interest forthe benefit of my group”). All responses were on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

3.2. Results and discussion

To validate the results of Study 1, we ran a CFA both on the full- and reduced-item versions of the commitment scales. Thereduced-item 6-factor model again provided a better fit than the 2-factor (Dv2 (179, N = 206) = 1102, p < .001) and 3-factor(Dv2 (177, N = 206) = 395, p < .001) models and the fit indices also suggested a satisfactory fit overall (GFI = .85, CFI = .91,TLI = .89, RMSEA = .06). Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics, correlations and internal consistency estimates for thevariables in Study 2.

3.2.1. Regression analysesTo test for the cultural hypothesis, we ran a series of hierarchical regressions after centering all variables around their

means. Due to the highly correlated nature of affective and normative commitment, we ran separate regression modelsfor the two forms. We only report the results for affective commitment in a table (Table 6) as normative commitment yieldedalmost identical results except for one significant interaction.

The regressions on local outcomes yielded full support for the compatibility hypothesis with respect to supervisor-ori-ented citizenship behaviors. Specifically, affective and normative commitment to supervisor were positively associated withcitizenship behaviors (b = .27, p < .001 and b = .25, p < .01, respectively), and supporting the compatibility principle, neitherorganizational nor coworker commitment was related to this outcome. In contrast, no commitment variable was signifi-cantly predictive of supervisor-oriented impression management behaviors.

Regarding global outcomes, again in line with the compatibility argument, affective and normative commitment to theorganization were negatively associated with turnover intentions (b = �.47, p < .001 and b = �.39, p < .001, respectively)and commitment to local foci (i.e., supervisor and coworkers) did not account for any variance in turnover intentions. In con-trast, both affective and normative commitment to supervisor were significantly related to job stress (b = �.29, p < .001 andb = �.19, p < .05, respectively). In terms of the moderating effect of vertical collectivism, the only significant interaction wasobserved for affective commitment to the organization and turnover intentions (b = �.22, p < .01). Using a median split onvertical collectivism and affective commitment to organization, we conducted a two-way ANOVA, which revealed a signif-icant interaction between the two variables (F (1, 212) = 6.02, p < .05). When affective commitment was low, individuals whoscored low or high on vertical collectivism did not differ significantly in their turnover intentions (mean = 2.46 and 2.69,respectively). When affective commitment was high, those endorsing higher levels of vertical collectivism expressed signif-icantly lower levels of turnover intentions (mean = 1.78) than those low on vertical collectivism (mean = 1.99). As noted, jobstress was only predicted by commitment to supervisor, no moderating effect of vertical collectivism was observed.

Taken together, the findings lend stronger support to the compatibility hypothesis: Commitment to the organization isuniquely predictive of turnover intentions and commitment to supervisor is uniquely associated with supervisor-orientedcitizenship behaviors. Though we treated job stress as a global outcome based on prior meta-analytic evidence (e.g., Dowden& Tellier, 2004), it is also a function of supervisor-related antecedents (e.g., Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2007). Therefore, it is not sur-prising that commitment to supervisor is more strongly associated with job stress than commitment to organization. To ourknowledge, this study is the first test of whether commitment to organization versus supervisor is more influential in termsof diminishing the negative experience of job stress and highlights the importance including proximal commitment foci topredict job outcomes.

Table 5Descriptive statistics and correlations for Study 2

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. AC ORG 3.78 .85 (.67)2. AC SUP 3.00 .93 .42** (.79)3. AC COWORK 3.58 .74 .40** .30** (.69)4. NC ORG 3.28 .80 .69** .44** .36** (.78)5. NC SUP 2.91 .84 .42** .75** .21** .53** (.86)6. NC COWORK 3.08 .71 .34** .29** .58** .46** .49** (.80)7. Turnover intentions 2.17 .71 �.53** �.29** �.22** �.52** �.38** �.34** (.79)8. Job stress 1.61 .74 �.16* �.30** �.07 �.27** �.29** �.19* .34** (.78)9. Supervisor OCB 5.46 1.45 .24** .34** .24** .25** .32** .21** �.13 �.12 (.82)10. Supervisor impression management 4.42 1.99 .03 .13 .07 .12 .17* .12 �.08 �.12 .31** (.86)11. Vertical collectivism 3.93 .48 .33** .13 .35** .17* .13 .26** �.08 .04 .25** .04 (.72)

Note. N = 201�215 (Pairwise deletion of missing values). Reliability coefficients are reported on the diagonal. AC ORG, affective organizational commitment;NC ORG, normative organizational commitment; AC SUP, affective commitment to supervisor; NC SUP, normative commitment to supervisor; AC COWORK,affective commitment to coworkers; NC COWORK, normative commitment to coworkers.

* p < .05.** p < .01 (two-tailed test).

Table 6Regression analysis results for Study 2 (affective commitment)

Turnover intentions Job stress Sup OCB Sup imp. man.

Step 1 – ControlsAge �.10 �.07 �.07 �.05 .002 �.01 �.01 �.01 .00 .02 �.06 �.05Education .14* .13* .14* .10 .27*** .27*** .28*** .25*** .17* .17** �.06 �.07Org. tenure �.15* �.09 �.07 �.07 �.004 .02 .04 .05 �.07 .02 .10 .09

Step 2Org AC �.47*** �.50*** �.50*** �.07 �.10 �.11 .07 �.06Supervisor AC �.09 �.08 �.03 �.29*** �.28*** �.23** .27*** .14Coworkers AC .004 �.03 �.06 .04 �.01 �.004 .12 .03

Step 3Vertical coll (VC) .11 .05 .15* .12

Step 4Org AC � VC �.22** .03Sup AC � VC �.06 �.12Cowork AC x VC .04 �.10

Change in R2 .07** .26*** .01 .04** .07** .09*** .02* .02 .03 .13*** .01 .02Final adjusted R2 .06** .31*** .32*** .35*** .06** .14*** .16*** .16*** .02 .14*** .00 .00

Note. N = 201–209. AC, affective commitment; VC, vertical collectivism.* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413 411

Although not explicitly hypothesized, based on cross-cultural theory (e.g., Triandis, 1995) we would have expected to ob-serve the moderating effect of vertical collectivism, if any, to emerge more strongly for normative commitment. The expla-nation for the obtained results may lie in the operationalization of these constructs. The affective commitment scales ineffect tap into belonging to an ingroup and perceptions of common fate, and the normative commitment scales primarilyemphasize socio-normative costs associated with leaving. It is possible that normative commitment, particularly in termsof person commitments, is construed differently in collectivist contexts than in the West. Indeed, based on this argument,Chen et al. (2002) developed and validated a five-dimensional loyalty to supervisor scale for use in the Chinese context. Theyreported that the scale’s indigenous dimensions explained greater variance in job outcomes than the dimensions borrowedfrom the Western literature. Future research may greatly benefit from exploring the meaning of affective versus normativecommitment in collectivist contexts in order to develop culturally appropriate scales.

4. General discussion

In addition to establishing the validity of the multidimensional and multi-foci conceptualization of commitment in a pre-viously unstudied context (i.e., Turkey), the current study presents a more rigorous test of the cultural hypothesis. Indeed, inreference to China, Farh, Hackett, and Liang (2007) advocate measuring cultural values at the individual level as such tran-sitional societies are characterized by great individual diversity in terms of (traditional versus modern) values. Like China,Turkey is also experiencing a rapid transition from a rural, patriarchal society to an urbanized, egalitarian one (Wasti,1998). As such, the present investigation provides a pertinent extension to the commitment foci research that has emergedfrom other transitional contexts. Contradicting the arguments of these prior studies, the results provide stronger support forthe universality of the compatibility principle.

This is not to say cultural values do not matter; on the contrary, we propose that culture may matter in more complicatedways. For instance, in diffuse cultures (see Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993), like China and Turkey (Tan, Wasti, &Eser, 2007), personal and professional life domains overlap to a larger extent than North America. In contrast, in the US,which is a specific culture, social cliques vary across activities and more rarely bridge the work/non-work divide (San-chez-Burks, 2005). This fundamental difference in relationship orientation arguably affects the implications of person com-mitments in organizational settings across cultures. For example, the lack of association between commitment to supervisorand/or coworkers and turnover intentions may be due to the expectation that relationships will continue outside of workand therefore, are less relevant for decisions regarding organizational membership. Even if a certain level of professional let-ting down is incurred, it can be made up for by continued loyalty in the personal domain.

Cultural values may also be relevant in terms of the emergence of certain profiles (or clusters) of commitment foci andforms. Compared to North American samples, for instance, a greater percentage of employees may fall into clusters charac-terized by various combinations of local commitments in collectivist contexts. Further, although individualists treat ingroupsand outgroups similarly to some extent, collectivists differentiate the two very clearly and treat the latter harshly in cases ofconflict (Triandis, 1995). It is thus possible that in collectivist contexts, commitment to specific local foci might come at theexpense of other organizational constituencies or the organization itself.

412 S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413

We also note that measuring the impact of cultural values requires more sophisticated research designs, which incorpo-rate organizational characteristics and the nature of work. For instance, an employee in a small company with loose super-vision is more likely to perceive the organization as more proximal than an employee in a large company with tightsupervision (Becker & Kernan, 2003). Likewise, the frequency of interaction with the supervisors and/or coworkers is likelyto influence the salience of various foci (e.g., Bentein, Stinglhamber, & Vandenberghe, 2002) and may be particularly relevantfor organizations that rely on various forms of technology (e.g., telecommuting) for their operations.

4.1. Limitations and future research directions

As a first attempt to integrate the implications of the multiple forms and foci of commitment in a cultural framework, thisstudy is no doubt limited in its sample and design. Firstly, the sample was from a single organization and composed of amostly male, young and moderately educated workforce. Secondly, the cross-sectional design of our study does not allowmaking definitive causal statements. Yet, our focus was on testing moderator effects, and a cross-sectional design doesnot compromise the integrity of these analyses (Farh et al., 2007). Thirdly, because our primary focus was vertical collectiv-ism, we prioritized the measurement of supervisor-focused outcomes. It would be interesting for future research to includejob outcomes that are particularly relevant to coworker commitment, such as absenteeism, working overtime or deviantgroup behaviors. Last but not the least, contrary to arguments on the distribution of cultural syndromes at the individuallevel (Triandis, 1995) the vertical collectivism scale had a rather low variance. This was surprising also in view of the evi-dence that shows considerable diversity in the endorsement of traditional values in transitional societies like Turkey (e.g.,Imamoglu & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2004). This may raise concern as to whether observing fewer moderating effects than ex-pected is in fact a statistical artifact. It is only possible to address this issue with broader sampling and better measurementin future research. In view of the validity problems noted with respect to measuring cultural values with attitude scales,employing behavioral scenario methods may prove fruitful (Peng, Nisbett, & Wong, 1997).

Nonetheless, our study raises several exciting avenues for future research, such as the investigation of other culturaldimensions (e.g., diffuseness versus specificity), different work contexts as well as profiles of commitment across formsand foci. Such studies, no doubt, will further enhance our understanding of the complexity of employee attachments.

References

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale formeasuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269.

Becker, E. T., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177–190.Becker, E. T., Billings, R., Eveleth, D., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 39, 464–482.Becker, E. T., & Kernan, M. C. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16,

327–348.Bentein, K., Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Organization-, supervisor- and workgroup-directed commitments and citizenship behaviours: A

comparison of models. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 341–362.Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural

psychology (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Chan, A. W., Tong-qing, F., Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2006). Evaluating the multi-dimensional view of employee commitment: A comparative UK–Chinese

study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1873–1887.Chen, X. Z., Tsui, S. A., & Farh, J. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 339–356.Cheng, S. B., Jiang, Y. D., & Riley, J. H. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment, and employee outcomes in the Chinese context:

Proximal hypothesis or global hypothesis? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 313–334.Clugston, M., Howell, P. J., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26,

5–30.Dowden, G., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31–47.Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (1995). A framework for understanding experimental research in an international and intercultural context. In B. J. Punnett &

& O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook of international management research (pp. 83–114). London: Blackwell.Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome

relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715–729.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1993). The seven cultures of capitalism. London: Piatkus.Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60–78.Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39,

110–128.Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.Imamoglu, O., & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z. (2004). Self-construals and values in different cultural and socio-economic contexts. Genetic, Social, and General

Psychology Monographs, 130, 277–306.Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachments to nested groups: A choice-process theory. American Sociological Review, 57, 327–339.Liu, C., Spector, P. E., & Shi, L. (2007). Cross-national job stress: A quantitative and qualitative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 209–239.McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38,

24–59.Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management, 1, 61–89.Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Meyer, J. P., Barak, I., & Vandenberghe, C. (1996). Revised measures of affective, continuance and normative commitment to organizations. Unpublished

manuscript. Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario.

S.A. Wasti, Ö. Can / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 404–413 413

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysisof antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Mueller, C. W., & Lawler, E. J. (1999). Commitment to nested organizational units: Some basic principles and preliminary findings. Social PsychologyQuarterly, 62, 325–346.

Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 4,329–344.

Probst, T. (2003). Development and validation of the job security index and the job security satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 451–467.

Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465–476.Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. (2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland,

and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 643–658.Roznowski, M. (1989). An examination of the measurement properties of the job descriptive index with experimental items. Journal of Applied Psychology,

74, 805–814.Sanchez-Burks, J. (2005). Protestant relational ideology: The cognitive underpinnings and organizational implications of an American anomaly. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 26, 265–305.Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational

Research Methods, 6, 169–215.Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical aspects of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and

measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275.Smith, P.C., Sademan, B., & McCrary, L. (1992). Development and validation of the Stress in General (SIG) scale. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.Snape, E., Chan, W. A., & Redman, T. (2006). Multiple commitments in the Chinese context: Testing compatibility, cultural and moderating hypotheses.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 302–314.Tan, H. H., Wasti, S. A., & Eser, S. (2007, July). Location, location, location: Antecedents of trust across hierarchical and geographical positions. Paper presented at

the Twenty-Third European Group for Organizational Studies Colloquium, Vienna, Austria.Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 118–128.Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor and work group: Antecedents and outcomes.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47–71.Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Delhaise, T. (2001). An examination of the cross-cultural validity of a multidimensional model of

commitment in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 322–347.Wasti, S. A. (1998). Cultural barriers in the transferability of Japanese and American human resources practices to developing countries: the Turkish case.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, 609–631.Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations,

46, 1431–1440.