Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    1/34

    http://gom.sagepub.com/Management

    Group & Organization

    http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

    DOI: 10.1177/1059601112457200

    September 20122013 38: 68 originally published online 13Group & Organization Management

    Caesens and Fabrice De ZanetGraldine Marique, Florence Stinglhamber, Donatienne Desmette, Gatane

    Affective Commitment: A Social Identity PerspectiveThe Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and

    Published by:

    http://www.sagepublications.com

    can be found at:Group & Organization ManagementAdditional services and information for

    http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

    http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

    http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

    http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

    http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68.refs.htmlCitations:

    What is This?

    - Sep 13, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

    - Feb 4, 2013Version of Record>>

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68http://www.sagepublications.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68.refs.htmlhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/11/1059601112457200.full.pdfhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68.full.pdfhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68.full.pdfhttp://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/11/1059601112457200.full.pdfhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68.full.pdfhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    2/34

    Group & Organization Management38(1) 68100

    The Author(s) 2012

    Reprints and permission:

    sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

    DOI: 10.1177/1059601112457200http://gom.sagepub.com

    GOM 38 1 10.1177/1059601112457200Groion ManagementMariqueet al.) 2012

    1Universit catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium2Universit de Lige, Lige, Belgium

    Corresponding Author:

    Graldine Marique, Universit catholique de Louvain, Institute of Psychological Sciences, Place

    Cardinal Mercier 10 bte L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Email: [email protected]

    The Relationship

    Between Perceived

    Organizational

    Support and Affective

    Commitment: A Social

    Identity Perspective

    Graldine Marique1, Florence Stinglhamber1,

    Donatienne Desmette1, Gatane Caesens1,

    and Fabrice De Zanet2

    Abstract

    The present research examines how the social identity perspective contrib-utes to a better understanding of the relationships between perceived organi-zational support, affective commitment, and employees performance at work.Using a sample of 253 employees from an engineering company, Study 1 foundthat organizational identification partially mediates the relationship betweenperceived organizational support and affective commitment. The results ofStudy 1 also indicated that the relationship between perceived organizationalsupport and organizational identification is moderated by organizational pres-tige. In Study 2, using a sample of 179 postal employees, the authors replicatedthe mediating role of organizational identification in the relationship betweenperceived organizational support and affective commitment and found thataffective commitment mediates the relationship between organizational iden-tification and supervisors ratings of extra-role performance.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    3/34

    Marique et al. 69

    Keywords

    perceived organizational support, affective organizational commitment,

    organizational identification, organizational prestige, performance

    Since Allen and Meyers (1990) work, organizational commitment has gener-

    ated a great deal of interest among researchers. Indeed, research has shown

    that committed employees display more positive attitudes and behaviors at

    work (e.g., satisfaction, performance) than noncommitted employees (e.g.,

    Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky,

    2002). More precisely, the affective dimension of commitment (i.e., affective

    organizational commitment) was found to have the strongest relationships withseveral organization- and employee-relevant outcomes (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002).

    Given its consequences for both employees and organizations, a better under-

    standing of the determinants of affective organizational commitment was of

    utmost importance. Numerous studies have thus been devoted to the antecedents

    of affective organizational commitment (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002; Rhoades,

    Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004).

    Among these antecedents, perceived organizational support was found to have

    the strongest positive relationship with affective organizational commitment(Meyer et al., 2002) and is therefore considered as one of its most important

    determinants.

    Over the past decades, the dominant approach has been to conceptualize the

    relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organiza-

    tional commitment in terms of social exchange processes. Based on the norm

    of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), organizational support theory holds that per-

    ceived organizational support increases affective organizational commitment

    by creating an obligation to care about the organizations welfare and to help itto reach its goals (Rhoades et al., 2001). Empirical evidence has supported the

    view that reciprocity and social exchange processes lie at the core of this rela-

    tionship (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001).

    However, some scholars have suggested that some aspects of the

    employeeemployer relationship might be better understood in terms of self-

    definition and self-categorization and not in terms of reciprocity and exchange

    (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006).

    Because perceived organizational support enhances feelings of self-worth and

    esteem, an analysis in terms of social identity perspective would thus be neces-

    sary to complement the social exchange perspective in order to fully under-

    stand its impact on affective organizational commitment (Rhoades et al., 2001).

    Despite these theoretical propositions, empirical research has not examined how

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    4/34

    70 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    social identity processes play a role in the relationship between perceived orga-

    nizational support and affective organizational commitment.

    Filling this gap, the objective of the present research is to empirically inves-

    tigate how the social identity processes may provide a new insight into this

    relationship. More precisely, we examine how two specific variables rooted in

    the social identity theory, that is, organizational identification and organiza-

    tional prestige, contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between

    perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment.

    Furthermore, we examine how these mechanisms related to the social iden-

    tity theory and underlying the perceived organizational supportaffective

    organizational commitment relationship extend to the prediction of employ-

    ees performance at work. Two studies have been conducted to examine thehypotheses that were proposed in the present research. Figure 1 provides with

    an overview of our conceptual model. The theoretical framework and specific

    assumptions examined in our research are presented below.

    The Relationship Between Perceived

    Organizational Support and Affective

    Organizational Commitment

    Affective organizational commitment refers to an emotional attachment to, iden-

    tification with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p.

    67). Affective organizational commitment has been shown to be related to a

    broad range of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes such as job satisfaction,

    in-role and extra-role performance, absenteeism, turnover intentions, and effec-

    tive turnover (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer et al., 2002).

    Concerning its antecedents, perceived organizational support (Eisenberger,Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) has been proposed as a key predictor of

    affective organizational commitment. Perceived organizational support is

    defined as the extent to which employees believe that their organization values

    their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

    Although they both focus on the connection between an individual employee

    and the organization (Bishop, Scott, Goldsby, & Cropanzano, 2005), there is

    evidence at the theoretical and the empirical level that affective organizational

    commitment and perceived organizational support are distinct constructs. Indeed,

    it has been argued that organizational commitment reflects an attitude of

    employees toward the organization whereas perceived organizational support

    reflects employees perceptions about the organization's attitude toward them

    (Shore & Tetrick, 1991). Accordingly, numerous studies have shown that

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    5/34

    Marique et al. 71

    affective organizational commitment and perceived organizational support are

    empirically distinguishable yet strongly related (e.g., Bishop et al., 2005).

    Evidence for a positive relationship between perceived organizationalsupport and affective organizational commitment has been found in numer-

    ous studies (e.g., Bishop et al., 2005; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro,

    1990; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Wayne, 1993). More precisely,

    Rhoades and her colleagues (2001) have shown, using a cross-lagged panel

    design, that perceived organizational support was positively related to changes

    in affective organizational commitment over time, whereas the reverse was

    not true, supporting the antecedence of perceived organizational support on

    affective organizational commitment.The relationship between perceived organizational support and affective

    organizational commitment has been primarily explained in terms of social

    exchange (Lee & Peccei, 2007). Based on the reciprocity norm (Gouldner,

    1960), the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) holds that social life is regu-

    lated by social exchange processes. Social exchange theory posits that when

    an individual does something in favor of another individual, the other individual

    is expected to return the favor. In opposition to economic exchanges, which are

    related to financial and tangible aspects, social exchanges are often associatedto socioemotional aspects of the relationship (Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, &

    Barksdale, 2006). The terms of the exchange are therefore generally unclear and

    mainly based on trust (Blau, 1964). In line with this view, organizational sup-

    port theory holds that perceived organizational support would increase affective

    Figure 1.Conceptual modelNote. *Assessed from supervisor

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    6/34

    72 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    organizational commitment by creating a felt obligation to care about the

    organizations welfare and to help it to reach its goals (Rhoades et al., 2001).

    Indeed, Rhoades and her colleagues argued that the norm of reciprocity

    encourages employees to reciprocate the organizations caring. Consequently,

    affective commitment toward the organization helps employees to maintain a

    positive self-image by avoiding the stigmatization related to the violation of

    the norm of reciprocity (Rhoades et al., 2001). Accordingly, Eisenberger et al.

    (2001) have demonstrated that employees felt obligation toward the organi-

    zation mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support

    and affective organizational commitment. However, their results indicated

    that felt obligation acts as apartialmediator in the perceived organizational

    supportaffective organizational commitment relationship, raising the ques-tion of other potential mechanisms involved in this relationship.

    The Mediating Role of Organizational

    Identification in the Relationship Between

    Perceived Organizational Support and Affective

    Organizational Commitment

    Although most of the empirical studies on the perceived organizational

    supportaffective organizational commitment relationship have been based

    on the social exchange perspective (e.g., Rhoades et al., 2001), several

    researchers argued that other mechanisms should be considered when explain-

    ing this relationship (e.g., Lee & Peccei, 2007). In line with this view, Rhoades

    and her colleagues argued that perceived organizational support would also

    increase affective commitment by fulfilling needs for esteem, approval, and

    affiliation, leading to the incorporation of organizational membership androle status into social identity (p. 825). Social identity theory (Tajfel &

    Turner, 1985; Turner, 1985) holds that individuals classify themselves and

    others into different social categories to define and locate themselves in a

    given environment. Because individuals are motivated to maintain or enhance

    their self-esteem, they tend to identify with groups who are perceived posi-

    tively (Tajfel & Turner, 1985; Turner, 1985) and act in a way supporting these

    groups (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). In line with

    this view, several authors have suggested that, in meeting socioemotional

    needs, perceived organizational support enhances the attractiveness of the

    organization and, therefore, increases the likelihood of employees organiza-

    tional identification (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Sluss, Klimchak,

    & Holmes, 2008). In a similar vein, Bell and Menguc (2002) have argued

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    7/34

    Marique et al. 73

    that high levels of organizational support build employees organizational

    identification during the socialization process. Accordingly, several studies

    have reported a positive relationship between perceived organizational sup-

    port and organizational identification (e.g., Bell & Menguc, 2002; Edwards

    & Peccei, 2010; Sluss et al., 2008). Organizational identification is defined

    as the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization,

    where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the organization(s) in

    which he or she is a member (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104).

    Notwithstanding its conceptual similarities with affective organizational

    commitment, organizational identification was found to be distinguishable

    from this form of commitment both at the theoretical (e.g., Meyer, Becker,

    & van Dick, 2006) and the empirical level (e.g., Gautam, van Dick, &Wagner, 2004; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006).

    Despite the recent interest in the relationship between perceived organiza-

    tional support and organizational identification, no study has investigated the

    role played by organizational identification in the relationship between per-

    ceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment. Yet

    several scholars have proposed that the individuals self-categorization as a

    member of the organization (i.e., organizational identification) represents a

    necessary first step toward the development of an emotional attachmenttoward the organization (i.e., affective organizational commitment) (e.g.,

    Meyer et al., 2006). This view is in line with Ashforth and Mael (1989) who

    argued that organizational identification is a perceptual cognitive construct

    that can enhance support for and commitment to the organization (p. 26).

    In a similar vein, Meyer, Becker, and Vandenberghe (2004) have suggested

    that organizational identification fosters affective commitment toward the

    organization. Finally, Becker and his colleagues (Becker, 1992; Meyer et al.,

    2006) have proposed that identification with a group often involves the adop-tion of attitudes, including commitment, directed toward this group.

    Accordingly, group identification was found to predict group commitment in

    Ellemers, Spears, and Doosjes (1997) experimental studies. These results

    were replicated in field studies conducted by Bergami and Bagozzi (2000)

    and Marique and Stinglhamber (2011), who showed that organizational iden-

    tification influences affective organizational commitment and not the reverse.

    Although the antecedence of organizational identification on affective orga-

    nizational commitment has not been strictly demonstrated in organizational

    settings (i.e., using longitudinal designs with repeated measures of organiza-

    tional identification and affective organizational commitment), we deem it

    reasonable to consider organizational identification as a determinant of affective

    organizational commitment. Therefore, in agreement with this theoretical

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    8/34

    74 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    and empirical evidence, we posited that organizational identification is a rel-

    evant mechanism to explain the relationship between perceived organiza-

    tional support and affective organizational commitment.

    Hypothesis 1: Organizational identification will mediate the relation-

    ship between perceived organizational support and affective organi-

    zational commitment.

    The Moderating Role of Organizational

    Prestige in the Relationship Between Perceived

    Organizational Support and OrganizationalIdentification

    Because individuals are motivated to maintain or enhance their self-image

    (Tajfel & Turner, 1985; Turner, 1985), they are more likely to identify with

    organizations that are perceived to be prestigious in order to maintain or

    enhance their self-esteem (Fuller, Hester, Barnett, Frey, Relyea, & Beu, 2006).

    Indeed, employees use the status or social standing of their organization to

    assess their self-worth (Fuller, Hester et al., 2006; Tyler, 1999). Consequently,employees identification with a prestigious organization allows them to

    enhance their self-esteem and meets their need for self-enhancement (Fuller,

    Hester et al., 2006). In agreement with this view, organizational prestige has

    been considered as one of the key determinants of organizational identifica-

    tion (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Smidts, Pruyn, &

    van Riel, 2001) and numerous studies have shown its positive relationship

    with organizational identification (e.g., Fuller, Hester et al., 2006; Mael &

    Ashforth, 1992; Smidts et al., 2001). Organizational prestige (also calledperceived external prestige) refers to how an employee thinks outsiders

    view his or her organization (and thus him- or herself as a member thereof)

    (Smidts et al., 2001, p. 1052).

    However, the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) holds that

    both employees perceptions of the status of their organization (i.e., organi-

    zational prestige) and employees perceptions of their own status within this

    organization are likely to affect their identification with the organization.

    Yet employees perceptions of their own status within the organization may

    be conceptualized in terms of perceived organizational support since, pre-

    cisely, perceived organizational support informs employees about their value

    and their informal status in the organization (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber,

    2011; Sluss et al., 2008). Though, to the best of our knowledge, only one

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    9/34

    Marique et al. 75

    study has investigated simultaneously the effects of perceived organizational

    support and organizational prestige on organizational identification (Fuller,

    Hester et al., 2006), and no study has examined the possible interaction

    among them.

    According to the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), both

    organizational prestige and perceived organizational support should enhance

    employees organizational identification because they make different contri-

    butions to the employees sense of self. Tyler and Blader argued that the sta-

    tus of the group (i.e., organizational prestige) reflects the categorical self and

    is related to the motivation to enhance or maintain a positive social identity

    whereas the status of the individual within the group (i.e., perceived organi-

    zational support) reflects the reputational self and is related to the motivationto enhance or maintain a positive personal identity.

    However, several authors have argued that being a supportive organization

    also contributes to the overall positive image of the organization (e.g., van

    Knippenberg, van Dick, & Tavares, 2007) and may consequently inform

    employees about the status of their organization too. In line with this view,

    some empirical research showed that perceived organizational support informs

    employees about both their own status within the organization and the status

    of the organization (e.g., Fuller, Hester et al., 2006; Guerrero & Herrbach,2009). Therefore, perceived organizational support would allow employees to

    enhance or maintain a positive personal and social identity.

    On the basis of this, we argued in this research that perceived organiza-

    tional support and organizational prestige interact in the prediction of employ-

    ees organizational identification. More precisely, we assumed that either a

    high perceived organizational support or a high prestige should lead employ-

    ees to strongly identify themselves with their organization, whatever the level

    on the other predicting variable is. Having said this, Tyler and Blader (2002)have shown that employees are more strongly influenced by their own evalu-

    ation of the status of their organization as opposed to evaluations based on

    external references. Therefore, to the extent that organizational prestige is an

    evaluation based on external perceptions about the status of the organization

    (Smidts et al., 2001) and given that perceived organizational support informs

    employees about both their own status within their organization andthe sta-

    tus of their organization (Smidts et al., 2001), we expected that the organiza-

    tional identification level is the highest when perceived organizational

    support is high. Finally, the combination of a low perceived organizational

    support with a low organizational prestige should produce the lowest level of

    organizational identification. In sum, the pattern of the interaction should

    show that the relationship between perceived organizational support and

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    10/34

    76 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    organizational identification is weaker for employees perceiving a high orga-

    nizational prestige.

    Hypothesis 2: The relationship between perceived organizational sup-

    port and organizational identification is moderated by organiza-

    tional prestige.

    The Mediating Role of Affective Organizational

    Commitment in the Relationship Between

    Organizational Identification and Performance

    Both organizational identification and affective organizational commitment

    were previously found to be related to in-role and extra-role performance (e.g.,

    Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005; Riketta & van Dick, 2005; van Dick,

    Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006). Unfortunately, no research has investigated

    simultaneously the impact of organizational identification and affective orga-

    nizational commitment on in-role and extra-role performance. Yet, according

    to Meyer and his colleagues (2006), the effect of organizational identification

    on employees performance is likely to be more indirect than the effect ofaffective organizational commitment. Indeed, they argued that, by definition,

    commitment binds the individual to a course of action of relevance to a par-

    ticular target and tends to be beneficial for this target. In a similar vein, Cheney

    and Tompkins (1987) suggested that identification is the appropriation of

    identity and commitment is the binding to action (p. 8). Finally, Bergami and

    Bagozzi (2000) argued that organizational identification has to be considered

    as the cognitive basis for performance whereas affective organizational com-

    mitment provides the motivational force for performance. Accordingly, theyfound that affective organizational commitment mediates the effect of organi-

    zational identification on organizational citizenship behaviors. Therefore, in

    line with this theoretical and empirical evidence, we posited that organizational

    identification has an effect on performance (i.e., in-role and extra-role perfor-

    mance) by enhancing affective organizational commitment.

    Hypothesis 3a: Affective organizational commitment will mediate the

    relationship between organizational identification and in-role per-

    formance.

    Hypothesis 3b: Affective organizational commitment will mediate the

    relationship between organizational identification and extra-role

    performance.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    11/34

    Marique et al. 77

    Study 1

    Study 1 was designed to examine Hypothesis 1, which holds that the relationship

    between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commit-

    ment was mediated by organizational identification. We also examined

    Hypothesis 2, which holds that organizational prestige moderates the relation-

    ship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification.

    Method

    Sample and Procedure.We surveyed 1,000 employees from an interna-tional engineering company of the private sector, located in Belgium. Thiscompany provides IT consultancy to private and public companies. A total

    of 253 employees returned usable questionnaires (response rate = 25.3%);

    56.9% were male, 17.4 % were female, and 25.7 % did not respond to the

    question. The average age of participants was 40.26 years (SD= 11.62)

    and average organizational tenure was 10.62 years (SD= 12.35). Overall,

    5.1% of the respondents worked in administration, 37.5 % in sales and

    marketing, 28.9 % in project management, and 28.5 % did not respond to

    the question. The questionnaires were given out via an email providing alink to the electronic survey. In addition, in this email all participants were

    guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. One week

    after the initial mailing, a reminder was sent by the head of the HR depart-

    ment to all employees to encourage participation. A second reminder was

    sent 1 week after the first reminder. An examination of the characteristics

    of the initial sample indicates that participants are representative of the

    initial sample in terms of gender, age, organizational tenure, and occupa-

    tional categories.Measures.Because the study was conducted in a French- and Dutch-speakingcontext, all measures were translated from English using the standard

    translation-back-translation procedure recommended by Brislin (1980). A

    5-point Likert-type scale was used to measure respondents level of agree-

    ment with each item (1 =strongly disagree, 5 =strongly agree).

    Perceived organizational support. Due to limited space in the survey, employ-

    ees perception of organizational support has been measured using the four

    highest loading items of the shorter eight-item version of the Survey of Per-

    ceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger et al., 1986). A sample

    item is, [organization name] really cares about me.

    Organizational prestige. We assessed organizational prestige using twoitems from Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar (2003; for example, I find [orga-

    nization name] a prestigious place to work) and one item was specifically

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    12/34

    78 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    constructed for this study (i.e., I think that [organization name] is generally

    considered as a prestigious employer).

    Organizational identification. To assess organizational identification, werelied on the six-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). A sam-

    ple item is, When I talk about [organization name], I usually say we rather

    than they.

    Affective organizational commitment.The revised six-item scale of Meyer

    et al. (1993) was used to measure affective organizational commitment.

    However, several authors have previously underlined the overlap between

    organizational identification and affective organizational commitment at the

    measurement level (e.g., Riketta, 2005). More precisely, they argued that an

    item of the Affective Commitment Scale (i.e., I really feel as if [organizationname]s problems are my own) taps into the organizational identification

    construct (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Riketta & van Dick,

    2009). Therefore, based on Conway and Lances (2010) recommendation, we

    dropped this item to prevent an artifactual inflation of the relationship

    between organizational identification and affective organizational commit-

    ment. A sample item is, I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career

    with [organization name].

    Control variable. Following Beckers recommendations, we carefullyexamined the relationships between potential control variables and the depen-

    dent variables of our model (i.e., the mediator or the outcome variable). We

    found that age and organizational tenure display a significant correlation with

    organizational identification (r= .18,p< .05 and r= .27,p< .001, respec-

    tively). Given the potential redundancy and the high correlation (r = .63,

    p< .001) between age and organizational tenure, a preliminary analysis was

    conducted prior to the test of the hypotheses to avoid the inclusion of impo-

    tent control variables (Becker, 2005). Organizational identification wasregressed on age and organizational tenure, and the results indicated that age

    was no longer a significant predictor of organizational identification when

    controlling for organizational tenure. We therefore decided not to include age

    as a control variable in the subsequent analyses. Only organizational tenure

    was thus introduced as an additional exogenous variable predicting organiza-

    tional identification. Affective organizational commitment being unrelated to

    all demographic variables, no control variable was included as a predictor of

    this variable in the structural model.

    Results

    Data analyses were conducted using the Lisrel package (Jreskog & Srbom,

    1993). Following Anderson and Gerbings (1988) recommendations, data were

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    13/34

    Marique et al. 79

    analyzed following a two-stage process. First, we assessed the measurement

    model to evaluate the discriminant validity of the variables included in this

    research. Second, we assessed the hypothesized structural relationships among

    latent variables using the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach.

    Discriminant Validity.We examined the distinctiveness between perceivedorganizational support, organizational prestige, organizational identification,

    and affective organizational commitment via a sequence of 10 nested models.

    Fit indices for measurement models are displayed in Table 1. As can be seen,

    the four-factor model fitted the data well and the more constrained models

    displayed significant decrements in fit as compared with the four-factor

    model. All the items loaded reliably on their predicted factors, with standard-

    ized loadings ranging from .53 to .79 for perceived organizational support,.73 to .85 for organizational prestige, .61 to .79 for organizational identifica-

    tion, and .52 to .79 for affective organizational commitment. Following

    Anderson and Gerbings (1988) recommendations, the discriminant validity

    of the constructs was further assessed by performing confirmatory factor

    analyses on the different constructs, taking them two by two. Indeed, accord-

    ing to these authors, a non-significant value for one pair of factors can be

    obfuscated by being tested with several pairs that have significant values

    (p. 416). As expected, results indicated a lower chi-square for the less con-strained model for each pair of variables, providing evidence of the discrimi-

    nant validity of the variables included in our model.

    Relationships Among Variables. Descriptive statistics, reliability coeffi-cients, and intercorrelations among variables are presented in Table 2. Surpris-

    ingly, organizational tenure was found to display a significant and negative

    relationship with organizational identification. This result will be addressed

    later in the article, in light of the results of Study 2, which shows a similar pat-

    tern of correlations.Test of Hypotheses.We tested a SEM in which perceived organizationalsupport, organizational prestige, and their interaction were related to organi-

    zational identification, which in turn led to affective organizational commit-

    ment. Since we are dealing with latent constructs, we used indicators for the

    main effects as well as the interaction term. Following Marsh, Wen, and Haus

    (2004) approach, each indicator used to create the interaction term (i.e., the

    indicators of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige)

    was centered to lessen multicollinearity. Second, on the basis of preliminary

    confirmatory factor analysis, we reduced to 3 the number of indicators for

    perceived organizational support using the partial disaggregation method

    described by Bagozzi and Edwards (1998). We then constructed indicators

    for the latent interaction term by multiplying the highest-loading indicator of

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    14/34

    80 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    perceived organizational support with the highest-loading indicator of orga-

    nizational prestige. This procedure was followed for each subsequent pair of

    indicators. Indirect effects were assessed using the bootstrapping method

    (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Accord-ing to MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002) and MacK-

    innon, Lockwood, and Williams (2004), bootstrapping should be preferred to

    other techniques such as the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982, 1986) because it main-

    tains control over the Type 1 error and does not imply the normality of the

    data (see also Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

    As indicated in Table 3, the hypothesized model accurately explained the

    data. However, as indicated by the chi-square difference test, the fit of the

    alternative Model 1, which adds a path between perceived organizational sup-

    port and affective organizational commitment, was significantly superior to

    the fit of the hypothesized model. The alternative Model 1 was thus retained

    as the best depiction of the data. Standardized parameter estimates for the

    alternative Model 1 are displayed in Figure 2, and the effects of organizational

    Table 1.Study 1: Confirmatory Factor Analyses Fit Indices for MeasurementModels

    Model 2

    df 2

    (df) NNFI CFI RMSEA

    1. Four-factor model 292.31 129 .97 .97 .07

    2. Three-factor model (OI and AC = 1factor)

    432.50 132 140.19 (3)*** .94 .95 .10

    3. Three-factor model (POS and OP = 1factor)

    440.11 132 147.80 (3)*** .94 .95 .10

    4. Three-factor model (POS and AC = 1factor)

    415.59 132 123.28 (3)*** .94 .95 .09

    5. Three-factor model (POS and OI = 1factor)

    472.34 132 180.03 (3)*** .94 .95 .10

    6. Three-factor model (OI and OP = 1factor)

    606.11 132 313.80 (3)*** .92 .93 .12

    7. Three-factor model (AC and OP = 1factor)

    530.60 132 238.29 (3)*** .93 .94 .11

    8. Two-factor model (OI, AC and OP = 1factor)

    689.12 134 396.81 (5)*** .90 .92 .13

    9. Two-factor model (POS and OP = 1factor, OI and AC = 1 factor)

    580.00 134 287.69 (5)*** .92 .93 .11

    10. One-factor model 778.68 135 486.37 (6)*** .89 .90 .14

    Note. N= 253. OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment; POS =

    perceived organizational support; OP = organizational prestige; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI =

    comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

    ***p< .001.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    15/34

    Marique et al. 81

    tenure are described in the text. Organizational tenure was not significantly

    related to organizational identification ( = .09, ns). Controlling for organi-

    zational tenure, perceived organizational support was found to be positivelyrelated to organizational identification ( = .49,p< .001), which in turn had

    a significant and positive effect on affective organizational commitment

    ( = .49,p< .001).

    As predicted by Hypothesis 1, the indirect effect of perceived organiza-

    tional support on affective organizational commitment was significant (indi-

    rect effect = .21; BCa 95% CI = [.14, .29]. Perceived organizational support

    was also found to be directly related to affective organizational commitment

    ( = .36, p < .001), indicating that organizational identification partiallymediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and

    affective organizational commitment.

    Although organizational prestige was not significantly related to organiza-

    tional identification ( = .17, ns), the interactive influence of perceived orga-

    nizational support and organizational prestige on organizational identification

    was significant ( = .16,p< .05), supporting Hypothesis 2. To examine the

    interactive effect of perceived organizational support and organizational

    prestige on organizational identification, lines representing the relationship

    between perceived organizational support and organizational identification

    were plotted at high and low level of organizational prestige (plus and minus

    1 SD). As shown in Figure 3, the relationship between perceived organizational

    support and organizational identification was significant when organizational

    Table 2.Study 1: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables

    Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    1. Gender .01 .00 .03 .10 .03 .012. Age 40.26 11.62 .63*** .11 .11 .18* .05

    3. Organizational tenure 10.62 12.35 .24*** .14* .27*** .04

    4. Perceivedorganizational support

    2.81 0.74 (.79) .55*** .53*** .54***

    5. Organizational prestige 2.90 0.70 (.84) .46*** .51***

    6. Organizationalidentification

    3.41 0.70 (.84) .58***

    7. Affective organizational

    commitment

    3.02 0.73 (.80)

    Note. N= 253. Gender was coded 1 = Male, 2 = Female. Alpha coefficients are reported on thediagonal.*p< .05. ***p< .001.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    16/34

    82 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    prestige was high, t(247) = 14.89,p< .001, and when organizational prestige

    was low, t(247) = 27.95,p< .001. The slopes were also significantly different

    from each other, t(247) = 2.74,p< .001, which indicated that the relation-

    ship between perceived organizational support and organizational identifica-

    tion is stronger when organizational prestige is low. Finally, the results of the

    Table 3.Study 1: Fit Indices for Structural Models

    Model 2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA 2(df) Model comparison

    Hypothesized 374.56 179 .96 .96 .07 13.45 (1)*** Hypothesized vs.Alternative 1

    Alternative 1 (path addedbetween POS and AC)

    361.11 178 .96 .97 .06

    Alternative 2 (path addedbetween OP and AC)

    360.41 177 .96 .97 .06 0.70 (1) Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 2

    Alternative 3 (path addedbetween POSxOP and AC)

    361.04 177 .96 .97 .06 0.07 (1) Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 3

    Note. N= 253. POS = perceived organizational support; AC = affective organizational commitment; OP =

    organizational prestige; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root meansquare error of approximation.

    ***p< .001.

    Figure 2.Completely standardized path coefficients for the alternative Model 1(for the sake of clarity, only structural relationships are shown)*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    17/34

    Marique et al. 83

    JohnsonNeyman technique (Johnson & Neyman, 1936; also Aiken & West,

    1991) indicated that organizational prestige has no impact on employees

    organizational identification at a high level of perceived organizational sup-

    port (p > .05). In contrast, when perceived organizational support is low,

    organizational prestige has a strong influence on employees organizational

    identification (p< .01).

    We conducted ancillary analyses to explore whether the interactive effect

    of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige on organiza-

    tional identification carried over to affective organizational commitment.

    Interestingly, we found that organizational identification mediated the inter-

    active effect of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige

    on affective organizational commitment. More precisely, the test of condi-tional indirect effect (Preacher et al., 2007) showed that the indirect effect of

    perceived organizational support on affective organizational commitment via

    organizational identification was significant both when organizational pres-

    tige was high (indirect effect = .11, BCa 95% CI = [.05, .18]) and when orga-

    nizational prestige was low (indirect effect = .21, BCa 95% CI = [.13, .31]).

    These findings suggested that organizational identification mediated the

    interactive effect of perceived organizational support and organizational

    prestige on affective organizational commitment both at high and low levelof organizational prestige.

    Study 2

    Study 2 was designed to assess the generalizability of the results obtained in

    Study 1 regarding the mediating role of organizational identification in the rela-

    tionship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational

    commitment (Hypothesis 1). Moreover, we examined the extent to which therelationship between organizational identification and performance was medi-

    ated by affective organizational commitment (Hypotheses 3a and 3b). In order to

    rely on an objective measure of performance, supervisors were asked to assess

    their employees in-role and extra-role performance. As part of a larger survey, the

    measures used for the present study could only represent a very limited number of

    items due to limited space. Organizational prestige was therefore not measured

    and, consequently, Hypothesis 2 could not be tested again in this study.

    Method

    Sample and Procedure.We surveyed 450 employees from the Belgian postalservice company composed of 30,000 employees. A total of 179 employees

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    18/34

    84 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    returned usable questionnaires (response rate = 39.78%). The majority of thesample participants were male (78.2%), and the average age of the partici-

    pants was 42.46 years (SD= 10.09). On average, respondents were employed

    by this company for 17.43 years (SD= 10.11). Each employee received an

    envelope including the printed questionnaire. The questionnaire was accom-

    panied by a letter explaining the study procedure, the importance of employ-

    ees participation, and providing guarantee that their responses would be kept

    confidential. Three days after the initial distribution of the printed question-

    naires, a reminder was sent by the researcher to each of the 450 employees toencourage them to take part in the survey. An examination of the characteris-

    tics of the final sample provides evidence that participants were representa-

    tive of the initial sample in terms of gender, age, and organizational tenure.

    Measures.As the study was conducted in a French-speaking context, allmeasures were translated using the standard translation-back-translation

    procedure (Brislin, 1980). Respondents rated their agreement with each

    item using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =strongly

    agree).

    Perceived organizational support. We measured employees perception oforganizational support using the shorter eight-item version of the Survey of

    Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger et al., 1986).

    Figure 3.Organizational identification as a function of perceived organizationalsupport at low (minus 1 SD) and high (plus 1 SD) levels of organizational prestige

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    19/34

    Marique et al. 85

    Organizational identification and affective organizational commitment. We

    used the same scales as in Study 1.

    In-role performance. Supervisor evaluated subordinates in-role perfor-mance using the five-item scale of Williams and Anderson (1991). A sample

    item is, This employee fulfills responsibilities specified in his or her job

    description.

    Extra-role performance. Supervisor evaluated subordinates extra-role per-

    formance on the four forms of organizational spontaneity described by

    George and Brief (1992), which are assessable by the supervisor (i.e., helping

    coworkers, protecting the organization, making constructive suggestions, and

    developing oneself). One item was taken from Eisenberger et al. (2001); a

    second item was taken from van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994); andthree items were taken from Eisenberger et al. (2010). A sample item is, This

    employee continues to look for new ways to improve the effectiveness of his/

    her work.

    Control variable. Following Beckers (2005) recommendations and in keep-

    ing with Study 1, we introduced organizational tenure (i.e., the sole demo-

    graphic variable displaying a significant correlation with one of the dependent

    variables of our model) as an additional exogenous variable predicting affec-

    tive organizational commitment.

    Results

    Discriminant Validity.The distinctiveness between perceived organizationalsupport, organizational identification, affective organizational commitment,

    and in-role and extra-role performance was assessed through the comparison

    of 10 nested models. Fit indices for measurement models are reported in

    Table 4. The results indicated that the five-factor model fitted the data welland was significantly superior to all more constrained models. All the items

    loaded reliably on their predicted factors, with standardized loadings ranging

    from .53 to .79 for perceived organizational support, .51 to .79 for organizational

    identification, .50 to .85 for affective organizational commitment, .57 to .93

    for in-role performance, and .77 to .87 for extra-role performance. As in

    Study 1, the discriminant validity of the constructs was also tested by taking

    the constructs by pairs and results indicated a lower chi-square for the less

    constrained model for each pair of variables.

    Relationships Among Variables. Descriptive statistics, reliability coeffi-cients, and intercorrelations among variables are displayed in Table 5. Sur-

    prisingly, as it was the case with organizational identification in Study 1, a

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    20/34

    86 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    significant negative relationship was found between organizational tenure

    and affective organizational commitment. Although organizational tenure has

    been found to be positively correlated with organizational identification and

    affective organizational commitment in several previous studies (e.g., Meyer

    et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005), there is some evidence suggesting that organiza-

    tional tenure might have a negative effect on these variables (e.g., Beck &

    Wilson, 2000; Lok & Crawford, 2001). More generally, longer tenure was

    found to be related to less favorable perceptions of the organization in several

    previous research (e.g., English, Morrison, & Chalon, 2010).

    Test of Hypotheses.Table 6 displays fit indices for the hypothesized struc-tural model and five alternative models. As indicated in Table 6, the hypoth-

    esized model accurately explained the data. However, like in Study 1, the fit

    Table 4.Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analyses Fit Indices for MeasurementModels

    Model 2

    df 2

    (df) NNFI CFI RMSEA

    1. Five-factor model 771.88 367 .92 .93 .08

    2. Four-factor model (OI and AC =1 factor)

    943.01 371 171.13 (4)*** .90 .91 .09

    3. Four-factor model (POS and AC =1 factor)

    936.71 371 164.83 (4)*** .89 .90 .09

    4. Four-factor model (POS and OI =1 factor)

    1079.42 371 307.54 (4)*** .89 .90 .10

    5. Four-factor model (AC and IRP =

    1 factor)

    1657.85 371 885.97 (4)*** .80 .81 .14

    6. Four-factor model (AC and ERP =1 factor)

    1195.80 371 423.92 (4)*** .86 .87 .11

    7. Four-factor model (IRP and ERP =1 factor)

    1445.76 371 673.88 (4)*** .85 .87 .13

    8. Three-factor model (POS, OI, andAC = 1 factor)

    1182.27 374 410.39 (7)*** .87 .88 .11

    5. Three-factor model (AC, IRP, andERP = 1 factor)

    1820.60 374 1048.72 (7)*** .79 .80 .15

    8. Two-factor model (POS, OI, and

    AC = 1 factor; IRP and ERP = 1factor)

    1850.00 376 1078.12 (9)*** .80 .81 .15

    10. One-factor model 3367.51 377 2595.63 (10)*** .64 .67 .21

    Note. N= 179. OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment; POS =

    perceived organizational support; IRP = in-role performance; ERP = extra-role performance; NNFI =

    nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

    ***p< .001.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    21/34

    Marique et al. 87

    of the alternative Model 1, which adds a path between perceived organiza-

    tional support and affective organizational commitment, was significantly

    better than the fit of the hypothesized model. We thus retained the alternative

    Model 1. Standardized parameter estimates for the alternative Model 1 areshown in Figure 4. For the sake of clarity, the effects of organizational tenure

    are described in the text. Organizational tenure was not significantly related

    to affective organizational commitment ( = .14, ns). Controlling for organi-

    zational tenure, the results showed that perceived organizational support was

    positively associated to organizational identification ( = .52, p < .001),

    which in turn has a significant and positive effect on affective organizational

    commitment ( = .23,p< .05). The indirect effect of perceived organizational

    support on affective organizational commitment was significant (indirecteffect = .16, BCa 95% CI = [.07, .26]), supporting Hypothesis 1. As in Study

    1, perceived organizational support was also found to be directly related to

    affective organizational commitment ( = .39,p< .001). Affective organiza-

    tional commitment was found to have a positive impact on extra-role perfor-

    mance ( = .22,p< .05) but not on in-role performance ( = .10, ns), yielding

    no support to Hypothesis 3a. The indirect effect of organizational identifica-

    tion on extra-role performance through affective organizational commitment

    was significant (indirect effect = .06, BCa 95% CI = [.01, .14]). These find-ings suggested that affective organizational commitment mediated the effect

    of organizational identification on extra-role performance, which supports

    Hypothesis 3b.

    Table 5.Study 2: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables

    Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

    1. Gender .18* .22** .01 .01 .11 .13 .02

    2. Age 42.46 10.09 .79*** .01 .03 .13 .14 .02

    3. Organizational tenure 17.43 10.11 .05 .02 .16* .14 .04

    4. Perceivedorganizational support

    2.90 0.71 (.84) .47*** .50*** .15* .17*

    5. Organizationalidentification

    3.15 0.79 (.82) .46*** .04 .02

    6. Affective organizationalcommitment

    3.27 0.79 (.81) .15* .04

    7. Extra-role performance 3.61 0.63 (.89) .54***

    8. In-role performance 4.45 0.52 (.90)

    Note. N= 179. Gender was coded 1 = Male, 2 = Female. Alpha coefficients are reported on the diagonal.

    *p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    22/34

    88 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    Discussion

    The aim of the present research was to examine how the social identity

    perspective provides a new insight into the relationships between perceived

    organizational support, affective organizational commitment, and finally,

    Table 6.Study 2: Fit Indices for Structural Models

    Model 2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA 2(df) Model comparison

    Hypothesized 870.44 400 .90 .91 .08 24.35 (1)*** Hypothesized vs.Alternative 1

    Alternative 1 (path addedbetween POS and AC)

    846.09 399 .91 .92 .08

    Alternative 2 (path addedbetween OI and ERP)

    844.94 398 .91 .92 .08 1.15 (1) Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 2

    Alternative 3 (path addedbetween OI and IRP)

    845.70 398 .91 .92 .08 0.39 (1) Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 3

    Alternative 4 (path addedbetween POS and ERP)

    844.15 398 .91 .92 .08 1.94 (1) Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 4

    Alternative 5 (path addedbetween POS and IRP)

    845.37 398 .91 .92 .08 0.72 (1) Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 5

    Note. N= 179. POS = perceived organizational support; AC = affective organizational commitment; OI =organizational identification; ERP = extra-role performance; IRP = in-role performance; NNFI = nonnormed

    fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

    ***p< .001.

    Figure 4.Completely standardized path coefficients for the alternative Model 1(for the sake of clarity, only structural relationships are shown)*p< .05. ***p< .001.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    23/34

    Marique et al. 89

    employees performance at work. Our research extends previous studies by

    providing evidence that (a) organizational identification is a key mecha-

    nism in the relationship between perceived organizational support and

    affective organizational commitment, (b) organizational prestige moder-

    ates the relationship between perceived organizational support and organi-

    zational identification, and (c) affective organizational commitment is a

    more proximal determinant of employees performance than organizational

    identification is.

    More precisely, we found in two studies that the relationship between per-

    ceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment was

    partially mediated by organizational identification. By doing so, the present

    research demonstrates the relevance of the identification process in the rela-tionship between perceived organizational support and affective organiza-

    tional commitment. Indeed, although identification has been suggested as an

    important mechanism in the relationship between perceived organizational

    support and affective organizational commitment (Rhoades et al., 2001), this

    relationship has been primarily studied in terms of social exchange (e.g.,

    Eisenberger et al., 2001), regardless of the identification process. Yet, as sug-

    gested by Rhoades et al., our findings showed that perceived organizational

    support increases organizational identification, which in turn leads to anincreased affective organizational commitment. These results are in line with

    the findings of Lee and Peccei (2007), who argued that felt obligation only

    partially mediates the relationship between perceived organizational support

    and affective organizational commitment and that socioemotional factors may

    also explain this relationship. Moreover, research has shown that the strength

    of the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective

    organizational commitment via felt obligation depends on employees

    exchange ideology (Eisenberger et al., 2001). More the employees apply thereciprocity norm to their relationship with the organization, the more a high

    perceived organizational support will lead them to show greater felt obligation

    and a subsequent stronger affective commitment. Organizational identification

    could therefore be considered as an alternative mechanism explaining a strong

    relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organiza-

    tional commitment in the absence of a strong exchange ideology among

    employees. Overall, our results represent a promising first step toward a better

    understanding of the relationship between perceived organizational support

    and affective organizational commitment. Future research should investigate

    the role played by social identity processes in the relationships between other

    social exchange variables and others attitudes and behaviors at work such as

    job satisfaction, withdrawal behaviors, or well-being at work.

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    24/34

    90 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    In addition, the results of Study 1 showed that the relationship between per-

    ceived organizational support and organizational identification was moderated

    by organizational prestige. Precisely, the pattern of the interaction indicates that,

    at a high level of perceived organizational support, employees are very likely to

    strongly identify themselves with their organization, whatever their perception

    of organizational prestige. On the contrary, when employees perceive little sup-

    port from their organization, organizational prestige has a strong influence on

    their organizational identification. In this case, a high organizational prestige

    induces a fairly high level of organizational identification, even though this level

    is significantly lower than that obtained when perceived organizational support

    is high. These findings are in agreement with Tyler and Blader (2002), who

    found that employees are more strongly influenced by their own evaluation ofthe status of their organization as compared to evaluations based on external

    references. They are also in line with Fuller, Marler, Hester, Frey, and Relyeas

    (2006) assumption that individuals perception that their organization is held in

    high regard by others affects their organizational identification only when they

    need to enhance their self-esteem (i.e., when they perceived low organizational

    support). By showing that organizational prestige influences organizational

    identification only when employees perceived little support from their organiza-

    tion, the present research greatly contributes to the existing literature. It raisesindeed the question on the relative importance of contextual factors such as

    organizational prestige or organizational distinctiveness in the prediction of

    organizational identification when individuals needs are satisfied by their own

    evaluations of the organization. Our results also showed that the interactive

    effect of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige on organi-

    zational identification carried over to affective organizational commitment both

    at high and low level of organizational prestige. These results extend the find-

    ings in some prior studies (e.g., Carmeli, Gilat, & Weisberg, 2006), in whichorganizational identification was found to mediate the impact of organizational

    prestige on affective organizational commitment.

    Finally, Study 2 demonstrated that the effect of organizational identifica-

    tion on extra-role performance was fully mediated by affective organizational

    commitment. This result is in agreement with previous studies that found that

    affective organizational commitment was a more proximal determinant of

    attitudes and behaviors at work than organizational identification was (e.g.,

    Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Marique & Stinglhamber, 2011). However, the

    relationship between affective organizational commitment and in-role perfor-

    mance was not significant, indicating that affective organizational commit-

    ment is related to extra-role performance but not to in-role performance.

    These results are in line with Restubog, Bordia, and Tang (2006) and Williams

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    25/34

    Marique et al. 91

    and Anderson (1991), who argued that in-role performance is not affected by

    employees emotional attachment to their organization because employees

    are expected to meet requirements of their job, independently of their rela-

    tionship with their organization. On the contrary, extra-role performance con-

    sists of discretionary behaviors and is more likely to be influenced by the

    employeeemployer relationship. In the same vein, van Knippenberg (2000)

    argued that extra-role performance is more under volitional control and, con-

    sequently, more likely to be influenced by organizational identification or

    commitment than in-role performance is. Indeed, according to van

    Knippenberg, extra-role performance is less contingent on employees skills,

    ability, or resources than in-role performance is. He also argued that extra-

    role performance is more likely to be influenced by the employeeemployerrelationship to the extent that it is contingent on group-oriented motivations

    while in-role performance is more likely to benefit the self (i.e., in terms of

    performance evaluation). At the empirical level, the results of Vandewalle,

    van Dyne, and Kostova (1995) corroborate our findings by showing that

    affective organizational commitment was significantly and positively corre-

    lated with extra-role performance whereas the correlation between affective

    organizational commitment and in-role performance was not significant.

    Limitations and Perspectives for Future Research

    Several limitations of this research should be acknowledged. First, the cross-

    sectional nature of the research design did not allow us to make any inference

    of causality on the hypothesized links between variables included in our studies.

    Future research should therefore examine the relationships among these vari-

    ables using longitudinal designs with repeated measurements. A second poten-

    tial limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may have exposed ourresults to the common method bias. However, the use of self-reported measures

    seems the most accurate way in regard to the main purpose of our research,

    which was to examine employees perceptions. Moreover, the Harmans single-

    factor test indicated that a one-factor solution provides a poor fit to the data

    (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Finally, as showed by

    Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira (2010), common method variance might lead to an

    attenuation of the interaction effect. Therefore, finding a significant interaction

    in our first study provides strong evidence that an interaction exists. As a whole,

    this evidence suggests that common method bias was not a major weakness of

    our research. Finally, both studies have been conducted in Belgium. Therefore,

    in order to avoid an underestimation of the impact of deeply rooted societal

    norms (Hofstede, 2001), it would be helpful to replicate this research in other

    countries. Just as social exchange processes and reciprocity rules are more or

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    26/34

    92 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    less important depending on cultures (e.g., Whitener, 2006), the extent to which

    employees identify with their organization and the impact of organizational

    identification on work-related attitudes and behaviors have been found to vary

    across cultures (e.g., Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998). It would therefore be

    interesting to examine the generalizability of our findings across cultures.

    In addition, future research would greatly benefit by examining other mod-

    erators in the relationship between perceived organizational support and orga-

    nizational identification, such as socioemotional needs. Indeed, Eisenberger

    and Stinglhamber (2011) argued that perceived organizational support, in ful-

    filling socioemotional needs, will increase the attractiveness of the organiza-

    tion and may result in stronger organizational identification. Furthermore,

    Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Lynch (1998) showed in their research thatthe relationship between perceived organizational support and police patrol

    officers performance increased with the officers needs for esteem, affiliation,

    approval, and emotional support. These findings suggest that future research

    should investigate further how such socioemotional needs can affect the rela-

    tionship between perceived organizational support and organizational identifi-

    cation, which in turn has positive effects on affective organizational commitment

    and its related outcomes (i.e., extra-role performance).

    Finally, research has shown that employees can develop strong relation-ships not only with their organization but also with other organizational tar-

    gets such as their supervisor or their workgroup and, consequently, exert

    extra-effort toward these targets (e.g., Becker, 1992; Christ, van Dick,

    Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). Future research

    should therefore investigate whether the relationships found in the present

    studies may be extended to other organizational entities.

    Practical Implications

    Our findings indicate that perceptions of organizational support lead employ-

    ees to integrate the organization in their self-concept with positive implications

    for their emotional attachment to this company and, finally, an increased extra-

    role performance. These results thus suggested that organizations would

    greatly benefit from having employees who perceive high organizational sup-

    port. Such perceptions can be enhanced via diverse human resources practices

    such as maintaining open channels of communications and providing employ-

    ees with resources they need (i.e., equipment, training, information, or sup-

    plies) or with more job security (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011).

    Our results also indicate that, in case of low organizational support, man-

    agers can develop a higher organizational identification among employees by

    strengthening the prestigious reputation of their company. Managers should

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    27/34

    Marique et al. 93

    develop human resources practices that inform employees that their organi-

    zation is highly valued and regarded by outsiders. For instance, Fuller,

    Hester et al. (2006) have shown that organizational visibility and the pro-

    motion of the organizations success in terms of organizational performance

    are two key antecedents of organizational prestige. Moreover, they sug-

    gested that organizational image may be fostered via both internal and

    external communications. Corporate communications campaigns or social-

    ization programs stressing organizations accomplishments (i.e., awards,

    certifications) are therefore some means that organizations may use to

    enhance perceptions of organizational prestige among their employees

    (Fuller, Hester et al., 2006).

    In conclusion, the present research indicates that organizational identifica-tion plays a pivotal role in the relationship between employees perceptions

    of organizational support and their emotional attachment toward the organi-

    zation. Our findings also show the importance of organizational prestige as a

    determinant of organizational identification when perceived organizational

    support is low. Finally, our results indicate that employees extra-role perfor-

    mance is influenced by employees organizational identification via their

    attachment toward the organization whereas employees in-role performance

    is not influenced by the employeeemployer relationship.

    Declaration of Conflicting Interests

    The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

    authorship, and/or publication of this article.

    Funding

    The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,

    authorship, and/or publication of this article:This work was supported by a grant from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific

    Research, awarded to Graldine Marique

    References

    Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group:

    Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms

    as predictors of worker turnover intentions.Personality and Social Psychology

    Bulletin, 24, 1027-1039. doi:10.1177/01461672982410001

    Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

    interactions. Newbury Park, Sage.

    Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

    continuance and normative commitment to the organization.Journal of Occupa-

    tional Psychology, 63, 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    28/34

    94 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in prac-

    tice: A review and recommended two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin, 103,

    411-423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

    Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organiza-

    tional support and police performance: The moderating influence of socio-

    emotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 288-297. doi:10.1037/

    0021-9010.83.2.288

    Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.Acad-

    emy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. doi:10.2307/258189

    Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing con-

    structs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87.

    Beck, K., & Wilson, C. (2000). Development of affective organizational commit-

    ment: A cross-sequential examination of change with tenure.Journal of Voca-

    tional Behavior, 56, 114-136. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1712

    Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth mak-

    ing?Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244. doi:10.2307/256481

    Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in orga-

    nizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations.Organizational

    Research Methods, 8, 274-289. doi:10.1177/1094428105278021

    Bell, S. J., & Menguc, B. (2002). The employee-organization relationship, organiza-tional citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality.Journal of Retailing, 78,

    131-146. doi:10.1016/s0022-4359(02)00069-6

    Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commit-

    ment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the orga-

    nization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555-577. doi:10.1348/

    014466600164633

    Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., Goldsby, M. G., & Cropanzano, R. (2005). A construct

    validity study of commitment and perceived support variables: A multifociapproach across different team environments. Group & Organization Manage-

    ment, 30, 153-180. doi:10.1177/1059601102355772

    Blau, P. M. (1964).Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.

    Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In

    H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),Handbook of cross-cultural psychology(pp.

    398-444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Perceived external prestige, organiza-

    tional identification and affective commitment: A stakeholder approach. Corpo-

    rate Reputation Review, 9, 92-104.

    Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizational identifi-

    cation and commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 1-15.

    Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers

    go the extra mile: Foci of organisational identification as determinants of

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    29/34

    Marique et al. 95

    different forms of organisational citizenship behaviour among schoolteach-

    ers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 329-341. doi:10.1348/

    000709903322275867

    Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors

    regarding common method bias in organizational research.Journal of Business

    Psychology, 25, 325-334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

    Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2010). Perceived organizational support, organizational

    identification, and employee outcomes: Testing a simultaneous multifoci model.

    Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 17-26. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000007

    Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).

    Reciprocation of perceived organizational support.Journal of Applied Psychol-

    ogy, 86, 42-51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42

    Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational

    support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation.Journal of Applied

    Psychology, 75, 51-59. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51

    Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organi-

    zational support.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037//0021-

    9010.71.3.500

    Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-

    Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member exchangeand affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisors

    organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1085-1103.

    doi:10.1037/a0020858

    Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011).Perceived organizational support: Fos-

    tering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: APA Books.

    Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-

    group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus

    individual mobility.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617-626.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.617

    English, B., Morrison, D., & Chalon, C. (2010). Moderator effects of organizational ten-

    ure on the relationship between psychological climate and affective commitment.Jour-

    nal of Management Development, 29, 394-408. doi:10.1108/02621711011039187

    Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived

    external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identi-

    fication process.Human Relations, 59, 815-846. doi:10.1177/0018726706067148

    Fuller, J. B., Marler, L., Hester, K., Frey, L., & Relyea, C. (2006). Construed exter-

    nal image and organizational identification: A test of the moderating influence of

    need for self-esteem.Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 701-716. doi:10.3200/

    socp.146.6.701-716

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    30/34

    96 Group & Organization Management38(1)

    Gautam, T., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and

    organizational commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts.Asian Jour-

    nal of Social Psychology, 7, 301-315. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00150.x

    George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis

    of the mood at work organizational spontaneity relationship.Psychological Bul-

    letin, 112, 310-329. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.310

    Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.American

    Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

    Guerrero, S., & Herrbach, O. (2009). Manager organizational commitment: A ques-

    tion of support or image? The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-

    ment, 20, 1536-1553. doi:10.1080/09585190902983496

    Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organiza-

    tions.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 986-1001. doi:10.1177/

    0013164403258403

    Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-

    tions, and organizations across nations(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their

    applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1,

    57-93.

    Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993).LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago,IL: Scientific Software International.

    Lee, J., & Peccei, R. (2007). Perceived organizational support and affective com-

    mitment: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem in the context of

    job insecurity.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 661-685. doi:10.1002/

    job.431

    Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the

    mediating role of job satisfaction.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 594-613.

    MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V.(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable

    effects.Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83

    MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the

    indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods.Multivariate

    Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.

    Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the

    reformulated model of organizational identification.Journal of Organizational

    Behavior, 13, 103-123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202

    Marique, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Identification to proximal targets and affective

    organizational commitment: The mediating role of organizational identification.

    Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 107-117. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000040

    by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/
  • 7/23/2019 Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

    31/34

    Marique et al. 97

    Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z. L., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent

    interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator con-

    struction.Psychological Methods, 9, 275-300. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.3.275

    Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organiza-

    tional commitment.Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

    Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (Eds.). (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,

    research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

    occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization.Journal

    of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.7