You are on page 1of 21

Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510 www.elsevier.

com/locate/jvb

The relationship between the three components of commitment and employee performance in Chinaq
Zhen Xiong Chen* and Anne Marie Francesco1
School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong Received 30 May 2001

Abstract This study examined the relationship between the three components of organizational commitment and performance, dened as in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), using a sample of 253 supervisorsubordinate dyads from the Peoples Republic of China. Results showed that aective commitment (AC) related positively to inrole performance and OCB, while continuance commitment (CC) was not associated with in-role performance but negatively correlated with OCB. In addition, normative commitment (NC) moderated the relationship between AC and in-role performance as well as OCB. The linear relationship between AC and in-role performance/OCB was stronger for those with lower NC. Limitations of the study, directions for future research, and implications of the ndings are discussed. 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
Keywords: Organizational commitment; In-role performance; Organizational citizenship behavior; Peoples Republic of China

This research was supported by grants from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project HKBU 2025/98H), the Research Committee, Hong Kong Baptist University (Project FRG/97-98/II-22), and a Direct Allocation Grant from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology during the time that the second author was a visiting scholar there. The authors would like to thank Samuel Aryee and Donald Campbell for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. * Corresponding author. Fax: +852-3411-5209. E-mail addresses: georgezx@hkbu.edu.hk (Z.X. Chen), mnamf@hkbu.edu.hk (A.M. Francesco). 1 Fax: +852-3411-5583. 0001-8791/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00064-7

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

491

1. Introduction Organizational commitment has attracted considerable attention in the organizational behavior literature over the past few decades (cf., Benkho, 1997; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) as it has been demonstrated to predict various important work and nonwork behaviors (e.g., Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Gon, & Jackson, 1989; Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990). Although some have questioned its relevance in an era of downsizing (Baruch, 1998), others (Mowday, 1998; Rousseau, 1998) believe that OC is still a meaningful concept to study. Over the years, the denition of the organizational commitment construct has been further rened and developed. Drawing on early work on organizational commitment (e.g., Becker, 1960; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Wiener & Vardi, 1980), Meyer and Allen (1984) proposed a three component conceptualization of organizational commitment. The three components are aective commitment (AC), continuance commitment (CC), and normative commitment (NC). The rst component, AC, refers to the employees emotional attachment to, identication with, and involvement in the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). According to Meyer and Allen (1984), organizational commitment as measured by the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) proposed by Mowday and associates (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) can be regarded as AC. This perspective of commitment emphasizes employees attitudinal or emotional attachment, and has been the most commonly studied component in organizational commitment studies (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). The second component, CC, refers to commitment based on the costs that an employee associates with leaving the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). This perspective of commitment originated from Beckers (1960) side-bets theory. Becker regarded commitment as consistent lines of activity. When people can not continue their activities, they will have a sense of loss. Due to the exchange nature of CC, this component of commitment has been called exchange oriented commitment (Stevens, Beyer, & Trice, 1978) or calculative commitment (Kidron, 1978). The third component, NC, refers to the employees feelings of obligation to remain with the organization. These feelings are thought to result primarily from early socialization processes that could be family or culturally based, but they may also be inuenced by the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996). For example, societal norms towards the meaning of work as an obligation or entitlement (England, 1986) could be an inuence on NC. Common to the three components of commitment is the view that commitment is a psychological state that (a) characterizes the employees relationship with the organization and (b) has implications for the decision to continue or discontinue membership in the organization. However, the nature of the psychological state for each component of commitment is quite dierent. Employees with a strong AC remain with the organization because they want to, those with a strong CC remain because they need to, and those with a strong NC remain because they feel they ought to do so (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Based on the results of previous studies (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990; Hackett et al., 1994; McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990; Shore & Tetrick, 1991), Meyer et al. (1993) concluded that factor

492

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

analytic studies of the Aective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment scales have shown that they measure relatively distinct constructs (p.539). In other words, the three components of commitment can be regarded as three dierent constructs. In spite of the multidimensionality of organizational commitment, only a few researchers have investigated all three components of commitment in the same study (cf., Hackett et al., 1994; Meyer et al., 1993; Randall et al., 1990), and much of the research has examined only the main eects of AC and CC (cf., Angle & Lawson, 1993; Meyer, Bobocel, & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 1989; Shore & Wayne, 1993). In addition to the main eects of the three components of commitment, Meyer and Allen (1991) also emphasized the importance of studying their moderating or interactive eects. They noted that the relationship between any component of commitment and behavior will be complicated by the fact that all three components can exert independent (and possibly interactive) eects on a particular behavior (p. 74). Somers (1995) suggested that the moderating/interactive eects of the three components of commitment are useful in understanding the nature of commitment and should be a direction for future studies. However, so far, only a few studies have investigated the moderating eects of the components of commitment (cf., Randall, 1990; Somers, 1995). In particular, the moderating eect of NC on AC and employee performance has not been examined in the literature. Since the nature of NC is somewhat dierent than the other components, studying its role as a moderator may provide some interesting insight. In recent years, in order to investigate the cross-cultural applicability of Meyer and Allen (1984)s three components of commitment model, more and more researchers have considered the models dynamics in other cultures, including Australia (Iverson & Buttigieg, 1999; Noordin, Zimmer, & Williams, 1999), Belgium (Vanderberghe, 1996), Hong Kong (Chiu & Ng, 1999), Korea (Chang, 1999; Ko, Price, & Muller, 1997), Malaysia (Noordin et al., 1999), and the United Arab Emirates (Yousef, 2000). The current study was designed to contribute to the organizational commitment literature by (1) demonstrating the generalizability of the three component model of commitment in China; (2) investigating the main eects of AC and CC on in-role/extra-role performance; and (3) examining the moderating effects of NC on the relationship between AC and in-role/extra-role performance. Researchers have generally concluded that there is a positive relationship between AC and in-role performance (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). AC has also been regarded as an important factor in predicting extra-role behaviors (Scholl, 1981; Wiener, 1982) such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). OCB refers to discretionary behaviors that are neither explicitly enforced nor required by the formal job contract or a traditional job description (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1990). Empirically, several studies conducted in Western settings have supported the AC-OCB relationship (cf., Becker, 1992; Moorman, Nieho, & Organ, 1993; OReilly & Chatman, 1986; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Therefore it can be anticipated that an employees liking for and attachment to the organization as manifest by AC will lead to both improved in-role and extra-role performance. We expected that similar results would be found in the Chinese setting, i.e., AC would associate positively with in-role and extra-role performance. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

493

H1: Aective commitment is associated positively with in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior in the Chinese setting. Although a positive relationship between AC and performance has been demonstrated in the majority of studies, in certain cases this relationship was quite strong (cf., Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), while in some cases this relationship was very weak or even not signicant (cf., Keller, 1997). This indicates that the link between aective commitment and performance might be moderated by other factors (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997). For both scientic and practical purposes, we must learn much more about the conditions under which strong AC will be most likely to inuence behavior at work and, conversely, those under which the impact of commitment will be reduced (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 39). In other words, it should be meaningful to examine the moderating eect of certain variables on the AC-performance relationship. Following Meyer and Allens suggestion, in the current study, we investigated the moderating role of NC in the AC-performance relationship. To date, the main eect of NC on performance has been examined by many researchers. Unfortunately, the results have been unclear: NC has been shown to be related positively and negatively or unrelated to performance in dierent studies (cf., Allen & Meyer, 1996). We are unaware of any research examining the moderating eect of NC on the AC-performance relationship. Although NC is correlated with both AC and CC (Meyer & Allen, 1991), it has been suggested that NC diers qualitatively from the other two components of commitment, both in concept and measurement (Angle & Lawson, 1993). NC may develop based on socialization experiences provided by the family, culture, and employing organization. A young person will learn about the general appropriateness of organizational loyalty from his or her family and the surrounding cultural environment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Wiener, 1982). Later, when joining an organization, the employee will be subject to a socialization process that indicates the expected level of loyalty to that particular organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). NC may also be rooted in feelings of indebtedness arising from an organizations providing certain benets, for example, tuition reimbursement or in-house training. The feelings of obligation may continue until the employee feels that he or she has paid back the debt (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Scholl, 1981). In contrast with NC, AC seems to develop more specically in relation to work experiences within a particular organization. People who feel that they are treated well by an organization, for example in terms of such things as fair treatment (Allen & Meyer, 1990) or participation in decision making (Rhodes & Steers, 1981), are more likely to develop AC. Thus, if we consider NC may have been more deeply rooted in the individual by family, culture and later the organization, it is likely that it will have a greater impact on behavior than more recently developed feelings of AC. Employees with strong NC may feel a more deep seated obligation to act in a way which meets organizational goals and interests (Wiener, 1982, p. 421). Thus, NC may moderate the relationship between AC and performance. Employees with strong NC may be more willing to do a good job or to be a good organizational

494

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

citizen and this feeling may be unaected by their (more recently developed) emotional attachment to the organization (AC). In other words, we are suggesting that high levels of NC will temper the relationship between AC and performance. In contrast, employees with low levels of NC may not feel any obligation to support the organization unless they are specically motivated. Thus, AC may serve as a motivator of performance when NC is low and there is no felt obligation to the organization. The moderating eect of NC on the relationship between AC and performance may be more obvious in a Chinese setting. Since NC implies a sense of obligation to contribute to the organization and NC is inuenced by early socialization experiences, cultural norms regarding obligation will be relevant. Within traditional Chinese society, obligation has been heavily emphasized and along with other social norms has acted as a social mechanism to govern order within the social system (Yang, 1993). We anticipate that for employees with low levels of NC, AC will have a stronger eect on in-role and extra-role performance, whereas, for employees with high NC, AC will have a weaker inuence on their performance. Specically, we hypothesized that: H2: Normative commitment moderates the relationship between aective commitment and performance, dened in terms of in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior. The relationship between aective commitment and performance is stronger for employees whose normative commitment is weaker than for those whose normative commitment is stronger. It has been suggested that CC may be negatively linked to certain work behaviors (cf., Meyer & Allen, 1997). One of the explanations is that employees with strong CC believe they are trapped in a no choice situation (i.e., they have to stay with the organization even though they do not want to); as such they react with anger to the situation and, accordingly, behave negatively (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Another explanation is that strong CC may promote a sense of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975); thus employees with strong CC may perform their jobs in a passive way (Meyer & Allen, 1997). We believe the above proposition might only be true in predicting extra-role performance but not in-role performance. For employees with strong CC, continued employment in an organization is a necessity; thus the nature of the link between commitment and behavior is likely to be dependent on the implications of that behavior for employment (Meyer et al., 1991). Since in-role performance required by an organization is not a discretionary behavior, employees have to meet the basic requirements of the job, even if they (with strong CC) are unwilling to put in extra effort to do a better job for the organization. Failure to do so may result in loss of their employment. Therefore, CC will not necessarily be associated negatively with in-role performance. In fact, several researchers have reported that CC had no statistically signicant relationship to employees in-role performance (cf., Hackett et al., 1994; Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Moorman et al., 1993; Somers & Birnbaum, 1998). Thus, based on the ndings in the extant literature, we did not expect CC to relate to in-role performance in the Chinese setting.

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

495

However, we did expect that CC would have a negative relationship with extrarole performance, a discretionary behavior. Since extra-role performance is not required by the job description, failure to perform OCB should not jeopardize continued employment. Thus employees with strong CC may not care to engage in OCB. As Meyer et al. have suggested, under normal circumstances, employees whose tenure in the organization is based primarily on need may see little reason to do more than is required to maintain their membership in the organization (1989, p. 74). Therefore, employees with stronger CC may be more reluctant to perform OCB. Empirically, Shore and Wayne (1993) reported CC to be associated negatively with OCB using a US sample. In their opinion, Employees who are bound by economic exchanges (i.e., side bet theory) are least likely to be good citizens (Shore & Wayne, 1993, p. 779). We believe this may also be true in the Chinese setting. If the nature of organizational commitment is solely a matter of necessity, i.e., if employees are committed to the organization for side bet reasons (e.g., pension or seniority) rather than attitudinal reasons, then the Chinese employees may only maintain the minimum performance needed to survive in the organization. Thus, we expected that those with stronger CC would be more reluctant to make extra contributions to the organization and would therefore be less likely to engage in OCB. It was therefore hypothesized that: H3: Continuance commitment is correlated negatively with organizational citizenship behavior in the Chinese setting.

2. Method 2.1. Sample and procedures Participants in this study were employees of a large pharmaceutical manufacturer in South China with about 800 employees. Separate questionnaires were developed for supervisors and subordinates. The supervisor questionnaires were distributed to 130 supervisors, and the subordinate questionnaires were distributed to 390 immediate subordinates of these supervisors. In other words, three immediate subordinates of each supervisor received the subordinate questionnaires. Those who completed the supervisory questionnaire were asked not to ll in the subordinate questionnaire. The number of questionnaires returned was 106 supervisory questionnaires and 288 subordinate questionnaires, representing response rates of 79.7 and 73.8%, respectively. After deleting records with unmatched supervisorsubordinate pairs, a total of 253 supervisorsubordinate dyads (253 subordinates and 102 supervisors) remained and constituted the sample for this study. 2.2. Measures The two questionnaires contained the measures used in the present study. First, the supervisory questionnaire contained the performance measures, in which supervisors

496

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

were asked to evaluate the in-role performance and OCB of their immediate subordinates. Second, the subordinate questionnaire contained measures of the three components of commitment, i.e., AC, CC, and NC, and demographic variables. All items used in the present study were in Chinese. To assure equivalence of the measures in the Chinese and the English versions, a standard translation and back-translation procedure was performed (Brislin, 1980). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 Strongly Disagree; 7 Strongly Agree). AC, CC, and NC. Three components of commitment were measured by the scales developed by Meyer et al. (1993) with six items for each component. The Cronbach alphas for these scales were .91, .86, and .78, respectively. The items are shown in Table 2. In-role performance. In-role performance was measured by a four item scale taken from Farh and Cheng (1999). The items included This subordinate makes an important contribution to the overall performance of our working unit; This subordinate can always fulll the jobs assigned by the supervisor in time; This subordinate is one of the excellent employees in our work unit; and The performance of this subordinate can always meet the requirements of the supervisor. The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .76. Organizational citizenship behavior. We assessed OCB with a scale originally developed by Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997). The original scale with ve dimensions of OCB was developed in a Chinese context (Taiwan) and was later modied by Hui, Law, and Chen (1999) for a sample of PRC production employees. In the current study, we only focused on two primary dimensions of OCB, i.e., altruism and conscientiousness, which have been used broadly in other research (cf., Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Each of these dimensional scales included three items. A sample item for altruism was: Willing to assist new colleagues to adjust to the work environment; and for conscientiousness: Complies with company rules and procedures even when nobody watches and no evidence can be traced. The alpha reliability for altruism was .87 and for conscientiousness .78. Subordinate demographics. Five demographic attributes were measured and used as control variables in the regression analysis. Age, education, and tenure were measured by number of years. Gender was coded with 1 designating men and 0 designating women. Position was coded with 1 for non-supervisor, 2 for rst-line supervisor, 3 for middle manager, and 4 for top manager. These variables were included because demographics may inuence the in-role and extra-role performance of employees. For example, Organ and Ryan (1995) have suggested that demographics may somehow aect the likelihood of particular individuals rendering OCB. Since the study of the relationship between the three components of commitment and employee performance in Mainland China is rare, how individual demographics relate to the various components of commitment and performance is unknown. However, it has been suggested that age, gender, education, and position may correlate with employees eorts (Tang & Feng, 1996). In turn, eort may correlate with in-role and extra-role performance. A recent study in Mainland China found a signicant positive relationship between position and AC but no relationship between

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

497

tenure and AC (Chen & Francesco, 2000). Thus, the ve demographic variables above were chosen as control variables in the current study. 2.3. Data analysis To examine the structure of the three components of commitment measures (Meyer et al., 1993) in a Chinese setting, we conducted conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). Some researchers have sugo o gested that CC may consist of two dimensions, i.e., Low Perceived Alternatives and High Personal Sacrice, reecting the specic source of the cost associated with leaving the organization (cf., McGee & Ford, 1987). Thus it is necessary to examine the dimensionality of the CC measure. Following Meyer et al.s (1990) approach, before testing the three components of commitment measures, we rst assessed the factor structure of the CC scale. We compared the single-factor structure proposed by Allen and Meyer (1990) with the two-factor structure suggested by McGee and Ford (1987). In the model corresponding most closely to the structure obtained by McGee and Ford, a two-factor orthogonal solution was specied. We also tested an oblique two-factor model. In sum, four models were compared. Following Allen and Meyers suggestion (1996) to examine the AC, CC, and NC models, we compared a one-factor general model (all commitment items were loaded on one factor), a two-factor model (AC and NC items on one factor and CC items on the other; Meyer et al., 1993), a three-factor model (AC, NC, and CC), and a four-factor model (AC with three positively keyed items, AC with three negatively keyed items, NC, and CC) with a null model. For the two to four-factor models, we also compared orthogonal with oblique models. Thus in total, eight models were compared. We compared the two-factor model with the three-factor model because some researchers (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1996) have been concerned about the lack of discriminant validity between AC and NC. We compared the three-factor model with the four-factor model because Magazine, Williams, and Williams (1996) found strong evidence of a reverse-coding factor in the AC component. We also conducted CFAs to examine the distinctiveness of the three performance measures, i.e., in-role performance, altruism (OCB), and conscientiousness (OCB). We compared the hypothesized three-factor oblique model, a two-factor oblique model (all items of the two OCB dimensions, i.e., altruism and conscientiousness, on one factor), and a one-factor model with a null model. For each CFA, we analyzed the covariance matrix using maximum likelihood estimation. To assess if the observed covariance matrix t our hypothesized model, we used the overall model chi-square measure (v2 ), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI, Tucker & Lewis, 1973), goodness-of-t index (GFI, Jreskog & Srbom, 1993), and the o o comparative t index (CFI, Bentler, 1990). To test the hypotheses proposed in this study, hierarchical moderated regression procedures were used (cf., Aiken & West, 1991; Dooley & Fryxell, 1999). For the dependent variables, since we requested one supervisor to provide performance ratings for up to three subordinates, there may have been unique variance shared among

498

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

subordinates with the same supervisor that needed to be factored out. Therefore, we created N 1 dummy codes representing supervisor, where (N 92) is the number of supervisors, in order to partial out all between supervisor variance in the performance ratings. For each dependent variable (in-role performance and OCB), we ran initial regressions with the control variables including supervisor and individual demographics. This procedure was followed by regression with only main eects entered (AC, NC, and CC). Then, in the next step the regression included the two control moderating eects (NC CC and AC CC). Finally, the hypothesized interaction (NC AC) was added. To eliminate potential problems of multicollinearity resulting from the interaction terms, we followed the advice of Aiken and West (1991) by centering the independent predictor variables (AC, NC, and CC) prior to computing the interaction terms. Furthermore, we also examined the rst-order eects of the independent variables of AC on the dependent variables (in-role performance and OCB) over the range of the moderator variable (NC) (cf., Aiken & West, 1991).

3. Results 3.1. Conrmatory factor analyses For the two CC sub-scales, four models were compared: a null model, a one-factor general model, a two-factor orthogonal model, and a two-factor oblique model. Our results show that the two-factor oblique model (v2 79:59, df 8, p < :01) provided the best t. The two-factor orthogonal model (v2 190:70, df 9, p < :01) provided a poorer t than the one-factor model (v2 165:43, df 9, p < :01). Furthermore, the t indexes showed a better t for the two-factor oblique model (TLI .82, CFI .91, GFI .91) than the one-factor model (TLI .66, CFI .79, GFI .81) or the two-factor orthogonal model (TLI .60, CFI .76, GFI .84). This indicates that the two proposed CC dimensions are not independent. In other words, our results do not support the two-factor structure of CC suggested by McGee and Ford (1987). Furthermore, the two sub-dimensions of CC are highly correlated (r .81) in the current study. This is another indication that the two sub-dimensions of CC are not independent. Thus, like Ko et al. (1997), we treated CC as a unidimensional measure in the current study. For the AC, CC, and NC scales, the overall t indexes for the models tested are reported in Table 1. In total eight models were compared: a null model, a one-factor general model, a two-factor orthogonal model, a two-factor oblique model, a threefactor orthogonal model, a three-factor oblique model, a four-factor orthogonal model, and a four-factor oblique model. The three-factor oblique model (v2 431:80, df 132, p < :01) t the data better than the one-factor model (v2 947:98, df 135, p < :01), two-factor orthogonal model (v2 575:04, df 135, p < :01), two-factor oblique model (v2 541:46, df 134, p < :01), the three-factor orthogonal model (v2 475:04, df 134, p < :01), the four-factor

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510 Table 1 Overall t indexes for the three commitment scales (N 253) Model Null One factor Two-factor orthogonal Two-factor oblique Three-factor orthogonal Three-factor oblique (baseline model) Four-factor orthogonal Four-factor oblique v2 2481.13 947.98 575.04 541.46 475.04 431.80 df 153 135 135 134 134 132 Dv2 516.18 143.24 109.66 43.24 2049.33 Ddf 3 3 2 2 21 TLI .58 .79 .80 .83 .85 CFI .63 .81 .82 .85 .87 GFI .64 .78 .78 .82 .83

499

431.25 426.12

131 129

.55 5.68

1 3

.85 .85

.87 .87

.83 .83

Notes. (1) One-factor model: All items of three components of commitment were loaded on one factor; Two-factor model: AC and NC items were loaded on one factor and CC items on the other; Three-factor model: AC, NC, and CC were treated as three factors; Four-factor model: AC with three positively keyed items, AC with three negatively keyed items, NC, and CC were treated as four factors. (2) Three-factor oblique model was regarded as a baseline model for model comparisons. (3) TLI Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI Comparative Fit Index; GFI Goodness of Fit Index.

orthogonal model (v2 431:25, df 131, p < :01), or the four-factor oblique model (v2 426:12, df 129, p < :01). v2 dierence tests indicated that the three-factor oblique model resulted in a statistically signicant decrement over the one- and two-factor models, the three-factor orthogonal model, as well as the four-factor models at the .01 level. In addition, all t indices of the three-factor oblique model were higher than the one- and two-factor models and the three-factor orthogonal model. Although all t indices of the threefactor oblique model are the same as the four-factor models, the changes in v2 between the three-factor model and the four-factor orthogonal model (Dv2 :55, Ddf 1) and the four-factor oblique model (Dv2 5:68, Ddf 3) are not signicant (cf., Kelloway, 1998). Thus, we conclude that the three-factor oblique model was the best model. Factor loadings for the three-factor oblique solution appear in Table 2. For the in-role performance, altruism, and conscientiousness scales, the results of the CFA conrmed the three-factor structure. The v2 for the three-factor model (v2 148:77, df 32, p < :01) was signicantly lower than those for the null model (v2 1369:03, df 45, p < :01), the one-factor model (v2 330:72, df 35, p < :01), or the two-factor model (v2 299:65, df 34, p < :01). Further, the t indexes showed a better t for the hypothesized three-factor model (TLI .88, CFI .91, GFI .90) than the one-factor model (TLI .71, CFI .78, GFI .78) or the two-factor model (TLI .73, CFI .80, GFI .78).

500

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

Table 2 Factor loadings of the commitment items for the three-factor oblique model Item AC1. AC2. AC3. AC4. AC5. AC6. CC1. CC2. CC3. CC4. CC5. CC6. NC1. NC2. NC3. NC4. NC5. NC6. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization I really feel as if this organizations problems are my own I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization I do not feel like part of the family at my organization This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider working elsewhere One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now I would feel guilty if I left this organization now This organization deserves my loyalty I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it I owe a great deal to my organization AC .80 .63 .89 .83 .79 .77 .66 .46 .70 .84 .69 .84 .67 .66 .59 .65 .42 .69 CC NC

Note. (1) Factor loadings are based on completely standardized solution results; (2) AC aective commitment; CC continuance commitment; NC normative commitment.

3.2. Hypothesis testing The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations appear in Table 3. The internal consistency reliabilities for all of the multi-item scales were reasonable with no reliability coecient lower than .76. Regarding multicollinearity of the data, there is no denitive criterion for the level of correlation that constitutes a serious problem. The general rule of thumb is that it should not exceed .75 (Tsui, Ashford, StClair, & Xin, 1995). In our sample, the highest correlation was between in-role performance and conscientiousness at r :68, suggesting that multicollinearity is not a problem. In addition, we performed a regression diagnostic test to further examine multicollinearity. The results revealed that variance ination factor (VIF) values ranged from 1.04 to 2.42. Our VIF values were much lower than the recommended cuto threshold of 10 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992), also suggesting the absence of multicollinearity in the data. Because the independent variables (AC, NC,

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, reliability, and intercorrelations among study variables Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Aective commitment Continuance commitment Normative commitment Altruism Conscientiousness In-role performance Age Gender Education Position Tenure 5.50 4.50 5.00 5.57 5.52 5.19 38.06 .39 12.00 1.19 13.76 SD 1.09 1.31 1.02 1.17 1.00 .91 8.87 .50 2.71 .53 9.40 1 (.91) 0.32 0.64 0.13 0.19 0.18 0.28 )0.04 )0.18 0.14 0.19 2 (.86) 0.37 )0.17 )0.12 )0.01 0.37 0.05 )0.28 )0.09 0.36 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(.78) )0.02 0.09 0.08 0.30 0.03 )0.25 0.06 0.15

(.87) 0.51 0.57 0.07 )0.10 )0.04 0.14 0.09

(.78) 0.68 0.14 )0.06 )0.10 0.08 0.16

(.76) 0.14 )0.09 )0.07 0.12 0.10

0.07 )0.40 0.14 0.71

0.03 0.06 )0.02

0.19 )0.28

0.09

Note. (1) Correlation coecients of 0.18 or greater are signicant at p < :01; Correlation coecients that are greater than .12 and less than .18 are signicant at p < :05; (2) N 253.

501

502

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

and CC) and the dependent variables (in-role performance and OCB) were obtained from dierent sources (supervisors and subordinates), there is no common method variance problem in this study. Results of the regression appear in Table 4. As predicted (H1), AC related significantly to in-role performance (b :21, p < :05), altruism (b :22, p < :01), and conscientiousness (b :20, p < :05), after controlling for supervisor, ve demographic variables, NC and CC. Thus, H1 received support. Hypothesis 2 stated that NC moderates the relationship between AC and employees in-role performance and OCB. The results of the regression indicate that, after controlling for supervisor, ve demographic variables, AC, NC, CC, and two interaction terms (NC CC and AC CC), NC moderated the relationship between AC
Table 4 Results of regression analysis Variable In-role performance b Step 1 (Supervisor dummy code) DR2 DF Step 2 (Individual demographics) Age Gender Education Position Tenure DR2 DF Step 3 (Main eects) NC CC AC DR2 DF Step 4 (Controlled moderating eects) NC X CC AC X CC DR2 DF Step 5 (Hypothesized moderating eects) NC X AC DR2 DF .31 8.03 .06 ).13 ).02 .08 .02 .03 1.50 ).05 ).08 .21 .03 2.67 ).05 .12 .01 1.07 ).22 .03 9.14 Altruism b .17 6.93 ).02 ).10 ).04 .12 .11 .04 1.85 ).03 ).23 .22 .06 5.05 ).13 .06 .01 1.30 ).16 .02 4.79 Conscientiousness b .27 7.84 ).04 ).05 ).07 .09 .12 .03 1.40 .01 ).15 .20 .04 3.64 .02 .03 .00 .23 ).19 .02 7.00

Notes. (1) N 253; (2) AC Aective commitment; CC Continuance commitment; NC Normative commitment; (3) p < :05; p < :01 (two-tailed test).

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

503

and in-role performance (b :22, p < :05), as well as the relationship between AC and the two OCB dimensions, altruism (b :16, p < :05) and conscientiousness (b :19, p < :01). Thus, H2 received support as well. To facilitate interpretation of the ndings, we divided the sample into high and low NC groups that were plus and minus one standard deviation from the mean and plotted the relationships of AC and each of the three outcome variables accordingly. Figs. 13 present plots of the general patterns of the three signicant results of the moderated eects.

Fig. 1. Aective commitment and in-role performance relationship by normative commitment (NC).

Fig. 2. Aective commitment and altruism by normative commitment (NC).

504

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

Fig. 3. Aective commitment and consientiousness altruism relationship by normative commitment (NC).

To gain further insight into these relationships, we also examined the eects of AC (X1 ) on the three outcome variables [in-role performance (Y1 ), altruism (Y2 ) and conscientiousness (Y3 )] over the range of values for the moderator [NC (Z)] (cf., Dooley & Fryxell, 1999). For this analysis, we followed Aiken and West (1991) and computed the partial derivative of the in-role performance variable in the regression equation with respect to AC as oY1 =oX1 :21 :22Z. Across the observed range of the centered NC values (2:78 6 Z 6 1:96), oY =oX1 was negative for values of NC greater than .95 (when oY1 =oX1 0), and positive for values of NC lower than .95. For altruism, the partial derivative was computed as oY2 =oX1 :22 :16Z. For the centered NC values (2:78 6 Z 6 1:96), oY2 =oX1 was negative for values of NC greater than 1.38 (when oY2 =oX1 0), and positive for values of NC lower than 1.38. Finally, the partial derivative for conscientiousness was computed as oY3 =oX1 :20 :19Z. Using the same range of centered NC values (2:78 6 Z 6 1:96), oY3 =oX1 was negative for values of NC greater than 1.05 (when oY3 =oX1 0), and positive for values of NC lower than 1.05. From these analyses, we concluded that H2 received support. Hypothesis 3 proposed that CC correlates negatively with OCB. As can be seen in Table 4, after controlling for supervisor, ve demographic variables, AC, and NC, CC correlated negatively with the two OCB dimensions: altruism (b :23, p < :01) and conscientiousness (b :15, p < :05). Therefore, hypothesis H3 was supported. The results reported in Table 4 also revealed that CC was not associated with in-role performance. This was consistent with our expectation. 4. Discussion The current study attempted to ll a void by examining the moderating role of NC on the AC-performance relationship. The ndings indicate that NC, unlike

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

505

the other two components of commitment (AC & CC), had no main eect on performance. However, NC played a signicant role in tempering the relationship between AC and performance. Employees with weaker NC displayed a stronger AC-performance relationship. Thus, for those employees who were committed to the organization because they felt an obligation (high NC), emotional attachment (AC) was not related to performance outcomes. When such an obligation was not felt (low NC), the positive AC-performance relationship was present. Another contribution of the current study was an initial conrmation of the three component conceptualization of OC in China. The correlational and CFA results demonstrated that the three components of OC are related yet distinct factors in our Chinese sample, which was consistent with results found with American samples (cf., Hackett et al., 1994) and Korean samples (Ko et al., 1997). With respect to our rst hypothesis, consistent with Western ndings, results revealed that AC related to in-role performance and the two dimensions of OCB (altruism and conscientiousness). Although the eects of AC on performance were signicant, the magnitude of the eect was slightly larger for altruism compared to in-role performance and conscientiousness. This could be due to the Chinese cultural value on personalism (cf., Redding, 1990). Traditionally, China has lacked a well-developed legal system; as such, members of society rely more on their personal contacts, rather the rule of law (cf., Redding, 1990; Walder, 1991). Thus, aective organizational commitment may in fact reect more of an emotional attachment to the people within the organization rather than to the organization itself and thus higher levels of AC would associate more with individual or personal forms of OCB (i.e., altruism). Our third hypothesis was also conrmed. Both altruism and conscientiousness were related negatively to CC. Those with higher commitment to the organization based on the maintenance of side bets (Becker, 1960) (CC) were less likely to exhibit either dimension of OCB. Taken together, the results of hypotheses one and three suggest that Chinese may behave similarly to Westerners with respect to the relationships among AC, CC, and OCB. From a practical point of view, the moderating inuence of the obligation norm (NC) suggests that employers eorts to create positive feelings of attachment towards the organization (AC) may have limited impact when NC is high. However, at least among our Chinese subjects, it appears that there is a norm that may inuence the performance level of high NC individuals. If we could understand the origins of that performance norm, then perhaps employers would have a means for inuencing it. In addition, when employee NC is low, employers might be able to enhance employee performance outcomes by fostering aective/emotional attachment to the organization (AC). Particularly for Chinese employees, this may lead them to regard the organization as a family/in-group (Chen & Francesco, 2000) for which they might be willing to exert eort that will be manifested in improved in-role performance and OCB outcomes. Our study also provides some evidence regarding the dimensionality of the three components of commitment. First of all, dierent from the nding of McGee and Fords study (1987), our results suggest that the two subdimensions of CC, i.e.,

506

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

Low Perceived Alternatives and High Personal Sacrice, are not distinguishable. However, our nding is consistent with those in other studies. For example, Ko et al. (1997) and Meyer et al. (1990) found that these two subdimensions were highly correlated (i.e., r :82 in both studies). In addition, Hackett et al. (1994) found that these two subdimensions generally did not have dierent relationships with their determinants and consequences. Thus, we suggest that CC should be regarded as a unidimensional construct. Second, for responding to some researchers (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1996) concern about the lack of discriminant validity between AC and NC, our CFA results demonstrate that AC and NC should be distinguishable. Third, responding to the concern that AC might have two dimensions including a reverse-coding factor (Magazine et al., 1996), our results did not nd a reverse-coding factor. The dierent ndings we obtained may be due to dierent scales we used. In the current study, we used the six-item (or shorter) versions of the OC scales (Meyer et al., 1993). In the shorter measure of CC, there are no reverse-coded items; and in the shorter measure of AC there are only three (rather than four) reverse-coded items. This may be one of the reasons why CC did not have two dimensions, and AC had no reverse-coding factor in our study. Some limitations need to be noted when interpreting the results of this study. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data precludes inference of cause-eect relations among the three components of commitment and performance. Future research that uses a longitudinal design will be particularly useful in establishing the causal order of the relationships reported in this study. Second, because the study was limited to a single culture, we can only infer cross-cultural dierences, but we can not make direct cross-cultural comparisons. Thus, in the future, it would be insightful to gather data from more than one culture in order to make direct comparisons. In future studies, the antecedents of the three components of commitment, including personal and job-related variables, and other work outcomes, such as absenteeism and turnover, should be further studied. For the OCB outcome, we only examined two dimensions in the current study. As we know, OCB may have at least nine dimensions (cf., Farh et al., 2000). Future studies may investigate the eects of the three components of commitment on more dimensions of OCB. Future studies could also consider the origins of the three components of commitment. Is there a cultural basis? With respect to NC, to what extent does it reect a general societal norm of obligation to work as has been investigated by England and the Meaning of Work (MOW) International Research Team (England, 1986; MOW International Research Team, 1987)? It would be particularly interesting to compare countries that have higher and lower obligation norms toward working (England, 1986) to see if this has an impact. In the current study, subjects with higher NC had a more limited range of in-role performance and altruism across all levels of AC. Thus it seemed that when felt obligation (NC) was high, the extent to which that obligation should be carried out (as manifest by in-role performance and altruism) was also dened within a somewhat narrow range. This may be due to the generally collectivistic nature of Chinese.

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

507

When they feel obligated to the organization, how that obligation is expressed may be determined by relevant group norms. Those whose NC is low do not feel the same obligation to the organization and their behavior seems to be governed more by their liking and emotional attachment to the organization (AC). If this explanation were correct, then we would expect that individualists who were high on NC would display a wider range of performance outcomes than the collectivists in this study. We would assume that the manifestation of the obligation norm (in terms of performance) would not be dened by a peer group but rather by the individual. Although China is categorized at the societal level as collectivistic (Hofstede, 1992), at the individual level, there is a full distribution of both individualists and collectivists (Triandis, 1995). Studies done in the US that have measured individualism and collectivism as a within-culture individual dierence variable have found that more collectivistic subjects were more likely to perform OCB (Moorman & Blakely, 1995), and they had higher levels of normative commitment (Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000). A cross-cultural study that included both individualistic and collectivistic societies and measured individual levels of individualism and collectivism could give us further insight into how individualism and collectivism inuenced the relationships between organizational commitment and performance. A study that directly tested the existence of performance norms and the origins of such norms would also be useful. In conclusion, the current study has attempted to generalize and extend the three components of organizational commitment model in a Chinese setting. Our ndings conrmed the importance of the three components of commitment in predicting inrole performance and OCB in China. Perhaps, the most interesting nding of the current study was the demonstrated moderating eect of NC on the relationship between AC and employee performance. Practically, our results suggest that managers can enhance employee performance by understanding and managing the nature of employee commitment to the organization.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of aective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 118. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Aective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252276. Angle, H. L., & Lawson, M. B. (1993). Changes in aective and continuance commitment in times of relocation. Journal of Business Research, 26, 315. Baruch, Y. (1998). The rise and fall of organizational commitment. Human Systems Management, 17, 135 143. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between aect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 587595. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 3242. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232244.

508

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

Benkho, B. (1997). Ignoring commitment is costly: New approaches establish the missing link between commitment and performance. Human Relations, 50, 701726. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative t indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238 246. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Methodology: 2. Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology (pp. 349444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Chang, E. (1999). Career commitment as a complex moderator of organizational commitment and turnover intention. Human Relations, 52, 12571278. Chen, Z. X., & Francesco, A. M. (2000). Employee demography, organizational commitment and turnover intentions in China: Do cultural dierences matter? Human Relations, 53(6), 869887. Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor versus organizational commitment: Relationship with the performance of Chinese employees. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 339356. Chiu, W. C. K., & Ng, C. W. (1999). Women-friendly HRM and organizational commitment: A study among women and men of organizations in Hong Kong. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 485502. Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26(1), 530. Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. F. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The moderating eects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 389402. England, G. W. (1986). National work meanings and patternsConstraints on management action. European Management Journal, 4, 176184. Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (1999). An investigation of modesty bias in self-ratings of work performance among Taiwan workers. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 39, 103118 (in Chinese). Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for extraordinary action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421444. Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. (1994). Further assessment of Meyer & Allens 1991 threecomponent model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 1523. Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: MacMillan. Hofstede, G. H. (1992). Cultural constraints in management theories. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV. Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the eects of negative aectivity, leader-member exchange and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 321. Iverson, R. D., & Buttigieg, D. M. (1999). Aective, normative and continuance commitment: Can the right kind of commitment be managed? Journal of Management Studies, 363, 307334. Jreskog, K. G., & S rbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS o o command language. Chicago: Scientic Software International Inc. Keller, R. T. (1997). Job involvement and organizational commitment as longitudinal predictors of job performance: A study of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 539545. Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researchers guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Kidron, A. (1978). Work values and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 239247. Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Muller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allens three-component model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961 973. Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698707.

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

509

Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams, M. L. (1996). A conrmatory factor analysis examination of reverse coding eects in Meyer and Allens Aective and Continuance Commitment Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 241250. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171194. Mayer, R., & Schoorman, D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes through a twodimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671684. McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two or more? dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the aective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638641. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372378. Meyer, J. R., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 6198. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Aective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710720. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538551. Meyer, J. P., Bobocel, D. R., & Allen, N. J. (1991). Development of organizational commitment during the rst year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre-and post-entry inuences. Journal of Management, 17, 713733. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Gon, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: Its the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152156. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualismcollectivism as an individual dierence predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127142. Moorman, R. H., Nieho, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the eects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209225. MOW International Research Team (1987). The meaning of work: An international perspective. London: Academic Press. Mowday, R. T. (1998). Reections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 8(4), 387401. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247. Noordin, F., Zimmer, C., & Williams, T. (1999). Organizational commitment in Malaysia and Australia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. OReilly III, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The eects of compliance, identication, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492499. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analysis review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775802. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603609. Randall, D. M. (1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361378.

510

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490510

Randall, D. M., Fedor, A. B., & Longenecker, C. O. (1990). The behavioral expression of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210224. Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Rhodes, S. R., & Steers, R. M. (1981). Conventional vs. worker-owned organizations. Human Relations, 12, 10131035. Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 217233. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. New York: Freeman. Scholl, R. W. (1981). Dierentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivation force. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589599. Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637643. Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of aective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774780. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653663. Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction eects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 4958. Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related commitment and job performance: Its also the nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 621634. Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1978). Assessing personal, role, and organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 380396. Tang, W. F., & Feng, T. (1996). Labor relations in Chinese enterprises. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 85103 (in Chinese). Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Tsui, A. S., Ashford, S. J., StClair, L., & Xin, K. R. (1995). Dealing with discrepant expectations: Response strategies and managerial eectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 15151543. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coecient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 110. Vanderberghe, C. (1996). Assessing organizational commitment in a Belgian context: Evidence on the three-dimensional model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 371386. Walder, A. G. (1991). A reply to Womack. China Quarterly., 126, 333339. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418428. Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization and career commitments and work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 8196. Yang, K. S. (1993). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In L. Y. Cheng, F. M. C. Cheung, & C. N. Chen (Eds.), Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected papers from the rst international conference (pp. 1956). Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationship between Islamic work ethic and attitudes toward organizational change. Human Relations, 53(4), 513537.

You might also like