Malaysian Management Review, June 1999

A PSYCHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF THE MALAY VERSION OF

MEYER AND ALLEN'S ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
MEASURE

DR ALI YUSOB MD ZAIN School of Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia

DR ROGER GILL The Leadership Trust, Hereford shire, UK

ABSTRACT

Meyer and Allen's (1991) model of organizational commitment

conceptualizes it in terms of three distinct dimensions: affective,
continuance, and normative. The purpose of this study was to examine
its generalizability in Malaysia. Meyer and Allen's research
instrument was translated into Malaysian language and distributed to
non-supervisory employees in 61 organizations in the government, semi-
government and private sectors. Data from 672 respondents were analyzed
using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The results
generally support the cross-cultural generalizability of Meyer and
Allen's model and utility of their questionnaire. The results also
support McGee and Ford's (1987) proposal that continuance commitment
may be better represented by two sub-dimensions: one associated with
the costs of leaving and the other associated with the availability of
alternatives.

INTRODUCTION

Culture plays a dominant role in organizational studies. The importance

of cross-cultural study in management was recognized by many
researchers. Gill (1983) emphasized that "understanding cross-cultural
personality differences can help management and government to achieve
more harmonious adjustment of expectations where managers are
transferred from one country to another". Triandis (1980) suggested
that "for a complete science of behavior we need to tie the
characteristics of the ecology with the characteristics of humans".
Moreover, Bass and Barrett (1976) asserted that "generalizations about
management and supervision in the cross-cultural context are limited ...
concepts and constructs tend to shift in meaning as we move from one
culture to another ... cross-cultural investigations have considerable
utility for industrial and organizational psychology".

Organizational commitment in recent years has become an important

concept in organizational research and in the understanding of
employees' behaviour in the workplace. It reflects the extent to which
employees identify with an organization and are committed to its goals.
A meta-analysis of 68 studies and 35,282 individuals revealed a strong
relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction
(Tett and Meyer, 1993). However, another study showed that only 38 per
cent of employees feel any long-term commitment to their organization
(Today, 1995). Yet greater organizational commitment can aid higher
productivity (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Interest in organizational commitment has led to the development of

several instruments to measure the construct. Morrow (1983) noted that
there were some 25 concepts and measures related to commitment, and
Sutton and Harrison (1993) called for a moratorium on developing
additional measures until existing ones could be further analyzed and
tested. One of the major models of organizational commitment is that
developed by Meyer and Allen (1991), which conceptualizes
organizational commitment in terms of three distinct dimensions:
affective, continuance, and normative.

Affective commitment

For several authors, the term commitment is used to describe an

affective orientation toward the organization. Kanter (1968), for
example, defined what she called "cohesion commitment" as the
attachment of an individual's fund of affectivity and emotion to the
group. Likewise, Buchanan (1974) described commitment as a partisan,
affective attachment to the goals and values, and to the organization
for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth. Porter and
his associates (Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1979; Porter, Crampon and
Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian, 1974) described
commitment as the relative strength of an individual's identification
with and involvement in a particular organization. It is a "partisan
affective attachment to the goals and values of an organization apart
from its instrumental worth" (Popper and Lipshitz, 1992). Employees who
are affectively committed to an organization remain with it because
they want to do so (Meyer, Allen and Gellatly, 1990).

Continuance Commitment

For Stebbins (1970), continuance commitment was the awareness of the

impossibility of choosing a different social identity because of the
immense penalties involved in making the switch. Still others have used
the term "calculative" to describe commitment based on a consideration
of the costs and benefits associated with organizational membership
that is unrelated to affect (Etzioni, 1975; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972;
Stevens, Beyer and Trice, 1978). Finally, Farrell and Rusbult (1981)
suggested that commitment is related to the probability that an
employee will leave his job and involves feelings of psychological
attachment which is independent of affect.

Meyer and Allen (1991) suggested that recognition of the costs

associated with leaving the organization is a conscious psychological
state that is shaped by environmental conditions (e.g. the existence
of side bets) and has implications for behaviour (e.g. continued
employment with the organization). Employees wise primary link to the
organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they
need to do so (Meyer and Allen,1991).

Normative Commitment

Finally, a less common, but equally viable, approach has been to view
commitment as an obligation to remain with the organization. Marsh and
Mannari (1977), for example, described the employee with "lifetime
commitment" as one who considers it morally right to stay in the
company, regardless of how much status enhancement or satisfaction the
firm gives over the years. In a similar vein, Wiener (1982) defined
commitment as the totality of internalized normative pressures to act
in a way which meets organizational goals and interests and suggested
that individuals exhibit these behaviours solely because they believe
it is the right and moral thing to do. Normative commitment is
characterized by feelings of loyalty to a particular organization
resulting from the internalization of normative pressures on the
individual (Popper and Lipshitz,1992). Employees with a high level of
normative commitment feel they ought to remain with the organization
(Meyer and Allen, 1991).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

There have been repeated calls since the early 1980s for clarification
of the definition and measurement of organizational commitment (McGee
and Ford,1987; Meyer and Allen, 1984; Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1982;
Reichers, 1985). Several distinct views of commitment have evolved and
become well established over the years, making it unlikely that any one
approach will dominate and be unanimously accepted as the correct
definition of commitment. It is important, therefore, that the various
instruments measuring organizational commitment be tested in order to
clarify the distinctions among the various conceptualizations of
organizational commitment dimensions.

Thus, the main purpose of this study was to examine the factor
structure of the Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of
organizational commitment measure by using data obtained from a sample
in Malaysia. It is hoped that the findings from this study will provide
some indications of cross-cultural generalizability of the model.

The other purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric

properties of the Malaysian version of the three-component
organizational commitment questionnaire. The Malaysian version was
translated from the original questionnaire developed by Meyer and Allen
(1991).

METHODOLOGY

The Sample

The sampling frame used was non-supervisory employees in 61

organizations in the northern states of Malaysia (Kedah, Perlis and
Pulau Pinang). A variant of cluster sampling (Frankfort-Nachmias and
Nachmias, 1996; Aaker, Kumar and Day,1995) was used. Between 10 and 25
sets of questionnaires were sent to each of the 61 organizations for
distribution by the heads of their personnel/human resource departments.

The Instrument

A questionnaire was developed using items taken from Allen and Meyer's
(1990) instrument. Each dimension of organizational commitment -
affective, continuance, and normative - was measured by eight items.
Possible responses were arrayed on a five-point Likert scale (rather
than on Allen and Meyer's seven-point scale) comprising "strongly
disagree" (1), "disagree" (2), "undecided" (3), "agree" (4), and
"strongly agree" (5).
The questionnaire was translated from English into Bahasa Malaysia by a
university lecturer competent in both languages and then back-
translated into English by a different lecturer. Both the English
versions (the original and the translated) were compared to ensure
similarity. The items and the dimensions they measure are shown in
Table 1.

Procedure

It was not possible to obtain all the names of non-supervisory

employees in each of the 61 organizations included in the study. The
selection of the respondents was therefore decided by the heads of the
organization's personnel/human resource departments. They were asked to
distribute the required number of questionnaires to non-supervisory
employees at random in their organizations. A covering letter outlining
the purpose of the study, defining the target sample, and the
procedures of questionnaire distribution was enclosed together with the
sets of questionnaires sent to the organizations.

Statistical Analysis

In addition to descriptive analysis, factor analyses (both exploratory

and confirmatory) were used to determine the dimensions of Meyer and
Allen's organizational commitment instrument. Exploratory factor
analysis, using varimax rotations, was performed on the 24-item measure.
Following Nunnally (1978), only factors with eigenvalues greater than
one were selected for further analysis. Results obtained from
exploratory factor analysis were further analyzed using both orthogonal
and oblique maximum likelihood factor analyses. The confirmatory factor
analyses were carried out for several substantive models as well as for
a null model. The indexes of goodness-of-fit which provide an
indication of the extent to which a factor model can reproduce or
account for the covariation in the correlation matrix were applied to
each of the models (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). For the standardized
solutions provided by the confirmatory maximum likelihood factor
analyses, four indicators - a chi-square test (x2), a x21df ratio, a
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and a root mean square residual (RMSR) -
were used (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989).

Customarily, in the interpretation of the various indicators of the

closeness of fit, the smaller the values of chi-square, chi-square/df
and the RMSR, the superior and closer the degree of fit. On the other
hand, the greater the values of GFI and AGFI, the better the degree of
fit (Al-Samarrai, Michael and Hocevar,1993).

RESULTS

Sample Characteristics

From a total of 1,280 sets of questionnaires distributed, 672 usable

questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 52.5%. The
sample characteristics are shown in Table 2. Of the respondents, 40.6%
were employed in private sector organizations, 27.5% in government
organizations, and 31.8% in semi-government organizations. 53.1% were
male, and most of the respondents (71.5%) were aged 35 years or less.
34.8% had been employed by their organizations for three years or less,
14.6% for four to six years, 6.8% for seven to nine years, 14.7% for 10
to 12 years, and 29% for more than 12 years.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

To examine the factor structure of the Bahasa Malaysia version of Meyer

and Allen's organizational commitment measure, exploratory factor
analyses using orthogonal (varimax) rotations were performed. The first
factor analysis yielded a five-factor solution. One item in the
normative commitment scale ("I think people these days move from
organization to organization too often") loaded on a factor. This might
be due to the way the question was asked: it concerned other people's
commitment. As the purpose of this study concerns measuring
respondents' own commitment, the item was dropped from subsequent
analysis.

A second factor analysis was conducted on the remaining items. The

results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. The analysis yielded four
meaningful factors rather than the three factors that Meyer and Allen
found: their dimension of continuance commitment was found to be
composed of two dimensions, one concerning the costs of leaving the
organization and the other concerning the availability of job
alternatives. The eigen-values were 7.09 for factor 1 (affective
commitment), 2.84 for factor 2 (normative commitment), 1.69 for factor
3 (continuance commitment: costs of leaving), and 1.02 for factor 4
(continuance commitment: availability of alternatives).

The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the dimensions

are shown in Table 4. All but one pair of intercorrelations were
significant at the 0.001 level. The correlation between Affective
Commitment and Continuance Commitment (Availability of Alternatives)
was not significant.
Reliability coefficients (a) were calculated for the measures of the
dimensions of commitment in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the
questionnaire. The measures showed generally acceptable internal
consistency. They are shown in Table 5.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Using the results obtained from exploratory factor analysis, a series

of oblique and orthogonal maximum likelihood confirmatory factor
analyses was conducted. The results of the confirmatory factor analyses
are presented in Table 6.

Based on the goodness-of-fit indexes shown in Table 6, it could be

concluded that substantial support was obtained for the four-factor
oblique model. This indicates that, for the Malaysian sample, the
construct of organizational commitment is best represented by four
correlated dimensions: affective, normative, continuance (costs of
leaving), and continuance (availability of alternatives).

DISCUSSION

Two major conclusions may be drawn from this study. First, Meyer and
Allen's conceptualization of organizational commitment is generally
supported by its findings and therefore is generalizable to Malaysia.
Second, their model might be further refined as a four-component model,
with the third component, continuance commitment having two dimensions:
continuance commitment (costs of leaving) and continuance commitment
(availability of alternatives).

Several reservations, however, must attach, to the findings from this

study. First, the sample employed is assumed to be representative of
non-supervisory employees in Malaysian organizations in general. Also,
it did not encompass supervisory, professional or managerial employees.
Second, there may be further aspects to organizational commitment among
Malaysian employees that are not represented in the questionnaire items.
The questionnaire might suffer from cultural bias in having originally
been designed and tested in the "Western" culture. That this could be
the case is exemplified by Bond and colleagues' (1987) extension of
Hofstede's (1984) essentially "Western" instrument for measuring
dimensions of national cultural differences in relation to Asian values
and the resulting enhanced model. Third, the respondents are assumed
to have been expressing their true feelings and perceptions in respect
of organizational commitment. The findings and conclusions of this
study, therefore, need to be interpreted in the light of these
limitations.

This study suggests that translated versions of questionnaires

developed in one culture can provide reliable and valid measures in
different cultures. There has been much debate about the cross-cultural
transferability of such questionnaires, and indeed of management
policies and practices based on findings of research using them.
Variations in work values across cultures, in the case of North America
and Malaysia, apparently do not necessarily preclude attitudinal and
behaviour commonality.

The results from both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses lend
support to McGee and Ford (1987), who suggested that the continuance
commitment scale consists of two meaningful sub-scales, one concerning
the personal sacrifice associated with leaving the organization and the
other an awareness of the availability of job alternatives.

Future research might usefully include respondents from other job

categories as well as from other regions in Malaysia to obtain more
conclusive evidence of the generalizability of the Meyer and Allen's
model of organizational commitment.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D A, Kumar, V and Day, G S (1995). Marketing research, 5th Ed.

New York: John Wiley.
Al-Sammarai, N, Michael, W B and Hocevar, D (1993). "The development
and validation of an Arabic version of an academic self-concept scale",
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, pp. 249-257.

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

affective, continuance, and normative commitment", Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, pp. 1-18.

Bass, B M and Barrett, GV (1976). "Cross-cultural issues in industrial

and organizational psychology", in: M D Dunnette, ed., Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, New York: Rand McNally.

Becker, H S (1960). "Notes on the concept of commitment", American

Journal of Sociology, 66, pp. 32-42.

Bond, M H and The Chinese Culture Connection (1987). "Chinese values

and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture", Journal of
Cross-cultural Psychology, 18, pp. 143-164.

Buchanan, B (1974). "Building organizational commitment: The

socialization of managers in work organizations", Administrative
Science Quarterly, 19, pp. 533-546.

Etzioni, A (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations, New

York: Free Press.

Farrel, D and Rusbult, C E (1981). "Exchange variables as predictors of

job satisfaction, job commitment and turnover: The impact of rewards,
costs, alternatives and investments", Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 27, pp. 78-95.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C and Nachmias, D (1996). Research methods in the

social sciences, 5th Ed. London: St Martin's Press.

Gill, R (1983). "Personality profiles of Singapore-Chinese, British and

American Managers: A cross-cultural comparison", Singapore Psychologist,
1, pp. 35-39.

Hofstede, G (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences

in work-related values, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.

Hrebiniak, L G and Alutto, J A (1972). "Personal and role-related

factors in the development of organizational commitment".
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, pp. 555-573.

Joreskog, K G and Sorbom, D (1989). LISREL 7: User's reference guide,

1st Ed. Mooreville, Indiana: Scientific Software, Inc.

Kanter, R M (1968). "Commitment and social organizations: A study of

commitment mechanisms in utopian communities", American Sosciological
Review, 33, pp. 499-517.

Marsh, R M and Mannari, H (1977). "Organizational commitment and

turnover: A predictive study", Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp.
57-75.
Mathieu, J E and Zajac, D M (1990). "A review and metaanalysis of
antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

McGee, G W and Ford, R C (1987). "Two (or more?) dimensions of

organizational commitment: Re-examination of affective and continuance
commitment scales", Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, pp. 638-642.

Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (1991). "A three-component conceptualization

of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations",
Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61-98.

Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (1984). "Testing the side-bet theory of

organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations", Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69, pp. 372-378.

Meyer, J P, Allen, N J, and Gellatly, l R (1990). "Affective and

continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and
analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, pp. 710-720.

Morrow, P (1983). "Concept redundancy in organizational research: The

case of work commitment", Academy of Management Review, 8, pp. 486-500.

Mowday, R T, Porter, L W and Steers, R M (1982). Employee-organization

linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover, San
Diego: Academic Press.

Mowday, R T, Steers, R M and Porter, L W (1979). "The measurement of

organizational commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, pp.
224-247.

Nunnally, J C (1978). Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Popper, M and Lipshitz, R (1992). "Ask not what your country can do for
you: The normative basis of organizational commitment", Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 41, pp.1-12.

Porter, L W, Crampton, W J and Smith, F J (1976). "Organizational

commitment, managerial turnover". Organizational Behavior and human
Performance, 15, pp. 87-98.

Porter, L W, Steers, R M, Mowday, R T and Boulian, P V (1974).

"Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among
psychiatric technicians", Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, pp. 603-
609.

Reichers, A E (1985). "A review and conceptualization of organizational

commitment", Academy of Management Review, 10, pp. 465-476.

Stebbins, R A (1970). "On misunderstanding the concept of commitment: A

theoretical clarification", Social Forces, 48, pp. 526-529.

Stevens, J M, Beyer, J M, and Trice, H M (1978). "Assessing personal,

role and organizational predictors of managerial commitment", Academy
of Management Journal, 21, pp. 380-396.
Sutton, C D and Harrison, A W (1993). "Validity assessment of
compliance, identification, and internalization as dimensions of
organizational commitment", Educational and Psychological Measurement,
53, pp. 217-223.

Tett, R P and Meyer, J P (1993). "Job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on
meta-analytic findings", Personnel Psychology, Summer, pp.259-293.

Today (1995). "Slave bosses don't deserve our loyalty", November 15.

Triandis, H C (1980). "Reflections on trends in cross-cultural

research", Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 11, pp. 35-58.

Wiener, Y (1982). "Commitment in organizations: A normative view",

Academy of Management Review, 7, pp. 418-428.