Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View

Author(s): Yoash Wiener

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 418-428
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257334 .
Accessed: 16/05/2013 18:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?Academy of Management Review 1982, Vol. 7, No. 3, 418-428

Commitment in Organizations:
A Normative View
YOASH WIENER
Cleveland State University

A model of work attitudes, distinguishing between normative and in-

strumental processes as behavioral determinants, serves as the framework
within which commitment is conceptualized. Commitment is defined as
the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way that meets
organizational interests. Organizational identification and generalized
values of loyalty and duty are viewed as its immediate determinants. Thus
commitment can be influenced by both personal predispositions and
organizational interventions. The role of recruitment, selection, and
socialization in affecting members' commitment is discussed.

A model of commitment in work organizations, extension and reconceptualization of this approach.

like all useful theoretical models, should meet at
least three important criteria: definitional precision,
theoretical integration with other relevant con-
structs, and predictive power. Existing models of
commitment do not seem to satisfy these require-
ments. The need for a more coherent, comprehen-
sive, and systematic conceptualization often has
been expressed (Salancik, 1977; Steers, 1977; Stev-
ens, Beyer, and Trice, 1978).
This paper presents a model of individual com-
mitment in organizations that attempts to meet the
above criteria. Commitment is viewed as a norma-
tive motivational process clearly distinctive from in-
strumental-utilitarian approaches to the explana-
tion of work behavior. To date, most explanations
of work behavior have focused on behavior-out-
come contingencies models, such as expectancy and
reinforcement theories. A basic premise of this
model, however, is that a fuller explanation of indi-
vidual behavior in organizations requires a consid-
eration of internalized normative pressures, such as
personal moral standards, as well. Such pressures,
once established, may have long term effects on
behavior, independent of rewards or punishments.
The identification approach to the definition of
commitment continues to be the most prevalent in
guiding commitment research. The model of com-
mitment proposed in this paper is consistent with
the identification approach and can be viewed as an
The Identification Approach
The identification approach postulates commit-
ment to be an attitudinal intervening construct,
mediating between certain antecedents and out-
comes, and views this attitudinal process as primari-
ly affective, rather than cognitive-calculative.
Buchanan's definition is typical: "Commitment is
viewed as a partisan, affective attachment to the
goals and values of an organization, to one's role in
relation to goals and values, and to the organization
for its own sake, apart from its purely intrumental
worth" (1974, p. 533). This process of accepting
organizational goals and values and integrating
them into a system of personal goals and values is
viewed by all researchers as "organizational iden-
tification." Some writers equate identification with
organizational commitment (Hall & Schneider,
1972; Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970; Kidron,
1978; Lee, 1971). Others (Dubin, Champoux, &
Porter, 1975; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian,
1974; Steers, 1977) include, in addition to iden-
tification, other components in their conception of
commitment. However, theoretical justification for
such components often has been lacking.
Research guided by the identification approach
attempted, for the most part, to ascertain anteced-
ents and outcomes of commitment. Essentially

418

This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 three classes of variables seem to emerge as
antecedents of commitment. The first category in-
cludes pesonality-need variables and value orienta-
tions (Brown, 1969; Dubin et al., 1975; Hall et al.,
1970; Kidron, 1978; Patchen, 1970; Steers, 1977).
Such findings led Hall et al. to conclude "that some
'right type' of person would be most likely to iden-
tify strongly with a particular organization; the
specific component characteristic...would depend
upon the particular goals and climate of the em-
ploying organization" (1970, p. 187). Thus, an im-
portant determinant of commitment seems to be
person-organization fit.
The second category of antecedents includes job
characteristics and work experiences such as job
challenge, feedback, opportunity for social interac-
tion, task identity, group attitudes, and organiza-
tional dependability (Buchanan, 1974; Hall &
Schneider, 1972; Lee, 1971; Porter & Steers, 1973;
Steers, 1977). A common theme linking many of
these variables is their traditional role as
antecedents and correlates of other affective-
motivational responses, such as job satisfaction
(Stone & Porter, 1975). It is possible, then, that job
satisfaction serves as an intervening variable in the
job characteristics-commitment relationship. Some
support for this possibility was found by Hall and
Schneider (1972).
A third category of antecedents of commitment
includes personal-demographic variables, par-
ticularly age and tenure (Hall et al., 1970; Lee,
1971). Presumably the positive relationships of
these variables with commitment reflect processes
of growth and personal change involved in the
development of identification (Buchanan, 1974;
Hall et al., 1970).
Research concerning outcomes of commitment
indicates that the behavioral outcomes showing the
strongest relationships with commitment have been
turnover and intention to stay in the organization
(Hom, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979; Mowday, Steers,
& Porter, 1979; Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977;
Wiener & Vardi, 1980). The relationship between
performance and commitment was found to be mix-
ed and modest (Mowday, Porter, & Dubin, 1974;
Steers, 1977; Wiener & Vardi, 1980).
Although some general trends could be discerned
from the accumulation of research studies, the
research effort as a whole has been too fragmented
and unsystematic to provide a satisfactory under-
419
This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
standing of commitment as a unique and psycho-
logically meaningful phenomenon. The lack of a
strong theoretical foundation probably is the major
reason for this state of affairs. Perhaps the most
important conceptual deficiency has been the fail-
ure to specify theoretical relationships and links of
commitment to other work attitudes and motiva-
tional processes such as job satisfaction and moti-
vation. The suggested model responds to such theo-
retical needs by offering a comprehensive attitu-
dinal-motivational system within which commit-
ment is defined. The emerging concept of commit-
ment remains consistent with the identification
view, although it is broader in scope.
A Normative-Instrumental Framework
As an intervening process, mediating between
certain antecedents and behavioral outcomes, com-
mitment can be viewed as a motivational phenome-
non. Furthermore, the central element in most defi-
nitions of commitment-the acceptance of organi-
zational expectations and values as guides to an in-
dividual's behavior, i.e., identification-represents
a form of normative control over a person's ac-
tions. Thus, it seems useful to conceptualize com-
mitment within a motivational framework that dis-
tinguishes between normative and instrumental pro-
cesses as determinants of human behavior. An im-
portant model that can be adapted to provide such a
framework is Fishbein's behavioral intentions mod-
el (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
Fishbein's Model
The model deals primarily with the prediction
and understanding of behavioral intentions. Ac-
cording to the model, an individual's behavior is a
function of the intention to perform that behavior.
His behavioral intention, in turn, is determined by
two basic factors: (a) his attitude toward perform-
ing the act, that is, his evaluation or affect with
respect to the act, and (b) his subjective norm, or
his perception of the totality of the normative pres-
sures concerning the behavior.
The first component, or the person's attitude
toward performing a particular act, is a function of
his beliefs concerning the consequences of the act
and their value to him. These can be referred to as
instrumental-cognitive beliefs. The second compo-
nent, the subjective norm, is a function of a
person's beliefs about what important referents
think he should do, weighted by his motivation to
comply with the referents. Referents may include
relevant others, a reference group, or the society at
large. Such beliefs may be termed social-normative
beliefs.
The Fishbein model as a whole, then, can be for-
malized as a multiple regression equation in which
there are two predictors, "attitude" and "subjec-
tive norm," and a criterion, the "behavioral inten-
tion" under consideration. The two components
are given empirical weights in a prediction equation
proportional to their relative importance in the
determination of behavioral intentions.
and their underlying attributes (e.g., extent of per-
sonal sacrifice involved in the behavior).
Cognitive-Instrumental Motivation
The attitudinal component in Fishbein's model is
referred to as instrumental motivation (Figure 1). It
is evident that this component reflects processes
similar to those involved in work motivation as rep-
resented by the expectancy/valence models (Lawler,
1973; Vroom, 1964). The utilitarian, calculative,
and self-oriented character of the attitudinal pro-
cess underlying the approach is apparent. Quite
properly it has been referred to as "a sort of hedo-
nism of the future" (Steers & Porter, 1979, p. 13).

The Overall Conceptual System Organizational Commitment

Figure 1 represents the attitudinal-motivational Definition. The second component in Fishbein's
system within which commitment is defined, as model, the subjective norm, can serve as the frame-
adapted from the Fishbein model. The core of the work for the definition of commitment. Several
relationships can be summarized as follows: inter- researchers (Fishbein, 1967; Jaccard & Davidson,
nalized normative beliefs and instrumental beliefs 1975; Pomazel & Jaccard, 1976; Schwartz & Tess-
concerning organization-related behaviors lead to ler, 1972) have suggested that the subjective norm is
organizational commitment and instrumental moti- determined not only by social normative beliefs
vation, respectively. Instrumental motivation and (i.e., a person's beliefs of how others expect him to
commitment, in turn, simultaneously determine or- act) but also by personal normative beliefs, that is,
ganization-related intentions and behaviors. The personal moral standards with respect to a given
analysis of behavioral outcomes is conducted in behavior. Personal moral standards concerning a
terms of both their specific type (e.g., attendance) particular mode of conduct are established when a
Figure 1
A Model Representing Relationships Between Organizationally-Related Behaviors,
Beliefs Concerning These Behaviors, and Commitment and Instrumental Motivation

420

This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 person internalizes expectations of others concern-
ing this behavior. When behavioral acts are guided
by such internalized normative pressures, they are
no longer dependent on their linkage with the rein-
forcements and punishments on which they were in-
itially based. For a detailed discussion of inter-
nalization, see, for example, Jones and Gerard
(1967). It is this aspect of the subjective norm that
defines organizational commitment.
Organizational commitment is viewed as the to-
tality of internalized normative pressures to act in a
way that meets organizational goals and interests.
The stronger the commitment, the stronger is the
person's predisposition to be guided in his actions
by such internalized standards rather than by a con-
sideration of the consequences of these actions.
Thus, committed individuals may exhibit certain
behaviors not because they have figured that doing
so is to their personal benefit, but because they
believe that it is the "right" and moral thing to do.
The above definition focuses specifically on inter-
nalized normative pressures because such a defini-
tional focus helps to establish organizational com-
mitment as a distinct and unique construct. Social
normative pressures that have not become inter-
nalized may be more readily subjected to the argu-
ment that they control and maintain behavior
through linkages with rewards and punishments.
Thus, they are seen by some as a special case of
cognitive-instrumental motivation. For a discussion
of this issue, see Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). In con-
trast, the thrust of the model presented here is a
concept of commitment that is clearly distinct from
instrumental-utilitarian processes.
The distinction between instrumental-utilitarian
and normative processes is not entirely new in the
commitment literature. Several researchers (Alutto,
Hrebiniak, & Alonso, 1973; Hrebiniak & Alutto,
1972) explicitly espoused a utilitarian-calculative
concept (and measure) of commitment based on
Homan's (1958) exchange notion and Becker's
(1960) "side-bets" formulation. Kidron (1978) and
Wiener and Vardi (1980) compared "calculative
commitment" with "moral" and "normative"
commitment, respectively, as correlates of attitu-
dinal and behavioral work outcomes. Although
these formulations made clear distinctions between
calculative and normative processes, they still con-
sidered both processes as commitment types. How-
ever, it is not theoretically parsimonious to regard
421
This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
calculative processes as commitment, especially
when the construct of cognitive-instrumental moti-
vation has been available all along for just such a
purpose.
Behavioral Attributes. Consistent with the Fish-
bein model, commitment and instrumental motiva-
tion may result in exactly the same types of specific
organization-related behaviors (e.g., effort, attach-
ment, attendance). They differ, however, in the
characteristics of a whole sequence or pattern of
such behaviors. The defining elements of commit-
ment-internalized normative pressures to meet the
wishes and interests of the organization-imply that
a behavioral pattern resulting from commitment
must possess in varying degrees, depending on the
strength of commitment, the following characteris-
tics: (1) It should reflect personal sacrifice made for
the sake of the organization; (2) It should show per-
sistence-that is, the behaviors should not depend
primarily on environmental controls such as rein-
forcements or punishments; and (3) It should indi-
cate a personal preoccupation with the organiza-
tion, such as devoting a great deal of personal time
to organization-related actions and thoughts
(Wiener & Gechman, 1977).
A behavioral sequence may or may not possess all
or any of the above attributes. Furthermore, the
achievement of a given level of performance effec-
tiveness does not require such attributes. However,
when the attributes of sacrifice, persistence, and
preoccupation do characterize a behavioral se-
quence, i.e., when commitment exists, the emitted
behavior becomes stable, long term, and indepen-
dent of environmental contingencies. The dashed
line in Figure 1 represents such a relationship.
The above attributes also enable inferences con-
cerning the existence of commitment from behav-
ioral sequences. Thus, when a person persists in
staying with an organization in spite of the avail-
ability of better opportunities for himself and his
family elsewhere, commitment may be inferred.
Merely having a long tenure in the organization is
not sufficient to indicate commitment.
Advantages and Costs of Commitment. The ex-
tent to which the impact of commitment, from the
organization's point of view, is likely to be positive
or negative depends primarily on the nature of the
goals and expectations of the organization. When
goals are "improper," a high commitment level of
members may hasten the disintegration of the orga-
nization. Members may exert a great deal of effort
and make personal sacrifices for the wrong reasons
and persist in doing so. On the other hand, when
organizational goals are "proper," a high commit-
ment level is likely to result in effective behaviors,
coupled with stable relationships of members with
their organization, and the possibility of unob-
trusive and inexpensive organizational control of
members' behavior.
Measurement. Commitment can be indicated by
a direct measurement of personal normative beliefs
concerning a mode of conduct reflecting organiza-
tional interests. This can be operationalized by a
basic item format emphasizing a moralistic disposi-
tion: "I have a moral obligation to perform the
behavior." See Hom et al. (1979) and Schwartz and
Tessler (1972).
Job Satisfaction
In the proposed conceptual system, commitment
constitutes a form of a subjective norm, and in-
strumental motivation is viewed as an attitude
toward an act. Job satisfaction also is an attitude.
However, it is an attitude toward an object, i.e., a
work-related condition, facet, or aspect. The dis-
tinction between attitude concerning an object and
attitude concerning an act has important implica-
tions for the prediction of behavior. According to
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), an attitude toward an
object does not enable an accurate prediction of
Figure 2
A Flow Diagram of Processes and Events Leading to Commitment
i-// .
I............
{I/
I II
I I
Ile,,.ntprt71i7Pd
l l UII / l u
Normative Beliefs
of Applicants
Culture
Primary
socializa-
tion
This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM
specific behavioral intentions. A more accurate pre-
diction of specific behaviors can come from at-
titudes and normative pressures concerning such
behaviors. Therefore, instrumental motivation and
commitment are expected to be better predictors of
behaviors than is job satisfaction.
This view of job satisfaction is fully consistent
with traditional definitions and measurements of
the construct (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). In
addition, it is supported by research findings that
consistently show low relationship between job sat-
isfaction and various work behaviors. See the re-
views by Porter and Steers (1973) and Vroom
(1964), for example.
Antecedents of
Organizational Commitment
The processes and events that may lead to com-
mitment in organizations are summarized in Figure
2. The immediate determinants of commitment are
two types of internalized normative beliefs held by
members: (1) generalized loyalty and duty, and
(2) organizational identification. Identification can
be affected by practices of selection and organiza-
tional socialization. Loyalty and duty, however,
may be affected only by selection processes. Thus,
commitment is influenced by both personal predis-
positions and organizational interventions.
-
-.......
-rl ---I
! Internalized I
I
I I Normative Beliefs I
I I of Members I
I
I
I
I
I
Recruitment
and
Selection
422
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Immediate Determinants
Commitment was shown to be a function of in-
ternalized normative beliefs (Figure 1). These, in
turn, may be seen as comprised of two distinct types
of beliefs. First is the belief by an individual that he
has a moral obligation to engage in a mode of con-
duct reflecting loyalty and duty in all social situa-
tions in which he has a significant personal involve-
ment. Such a person tends to believe that it is
"right" to be loyal, for example, to his family,
country, friends, and quite likely to his work orga-
nization as well. This type of normative pressure is
termed generalized values of loyalty and duty. The
second type of normative beliefs includes any inter-
nalized beliefs by a person that are consistent with
organizational mission, goals, policies, and style of
operations. As has been seen, such individual-
organization value congruency reflects the process
of "organizational identification" (Hall et al.,
1970). In effect, generalized loyalty and duty and
identification can be viewed as two immediate
determinants of organizational commitment.
Strengths and Types
The two immediate determinants are largely, but
not entirely, independent. As long as the dimension
of value congruency is not negative, the two dimen-
sions should combine additively to determine the
strength of commitment. However, when the di-
mension of value congruency is negative, regardless
of the level of generalized loyalty and duty, the in-
dividual may experience "alienation." (Although
alienation can be defined as a normative pro-
Figure 3
Strength and Type of Commitment (and the Likelihood of Alienation) as
Determined by Generalized Loyalty and Duty and by Value Congruencya
Values
Congruent
Organization-
Individual Values
Value Irrelevant
Congruency
Values
Incongruent
Strength of commitment if socialization occurs is shown in parentheses.
This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
cess-normative pressures to engage in a conduct
contrary to organizational interests-it is not view-
ed here as merely the other end of a commitment
continuum. Therefore, a detailed discussion of this
concept is beyond the scope of this paper.)
Three qualitatively different types of commit-
ment can be identified. When commitment is based
primarily on generalized loyalty and duty, it can be
viewed as "blind loyalty." When value congruency
plays a major role in determining commitment, it
can be termed "moral obligation." The actual con-
tent of the two commitment types and the desirabil-
ity of resultant behaviors are dependent entirely on
the specific expectations and value systems of the
referent. However, moral obligation implies that
commitments can be broken as personal convictions
change. Therefore, it is perceived as permitting
more individual choice and initiative than does
"blind loyalty." A "balanced" commitment type is
obtained when each of the two dimensions con-
tributes significantly to ultimate commitment.
Figure 3 shows the combined effects of the two
dimensions on the type and strength (high, medium,
no commitment) of the resultant commitment as
well as the likelihood of "alienation." Because
value congruency also may be affected by interven-
tions such as organizational socialization, commit-
ment strength is presented for conditions of
"socialization" and "no socialization" separately.
No existing research is available to help evaluate
the above propositions concerning the strength and
type of ultimate commitment. Future research
should address itself to these questions. Past find-
Generalized Loyalty and Duty
High Low
A) B)
Strength: High Strength: Medium
Type: Balanced Type: "Moral Obligation"
(No Change) (No Change)
C) D)
Strength: Medium Strength: No Commitnient
Type: "Blind Loyalty"
(High) (Medium)
E) F)
Alienation Alienation
423
ings, however, do shed light on the antecedents of
one of the immediate determinants of normative
commitment-organizational identification. These
findings were summarized in the overview section
above. Surprisingly, the other immediate determi-
nant-values of loyalty and sense of duty-has not
received much attention. Abegglen (1958) demon-
strated the importance of culture in determining
loyalty among Japanese workers. Among American
employees loyalty was found to relate positively to
age (Bureau of National Affairs, 1971). Such find-
ings are consistent with the view that cultural forces
and primary socialization patterns are the basic
determinants of all values. Within each culture, fac-
tors such as sex, age, social class, and race are im-
portant (Rokeach, 1973).
A Personal Predisposition
Little attention has been paid in previous theori-
zation and research to personal predisposition as a
factor in organizational commitment. The nor-
mative approach however, due to its focus on per-
sonal normative beliefs as basic determinants of
commitment, explicitly recognizes that some people
are more likely to develop commitment toward a
particular organization than are other people. This
commitment predisposition, or "proneness," is
determined by the particular configuration of the
two dimensions-generalized loyalty and duty, and
value congruency-prior to entry into the organiza-
tion. The above analysis of strength and types of
commitment suggests a typology of individuals in
terms of their commitment predispositions. Figure
3 represents six such predispositions types. A con-
sideration of such types may result in a more effec-
tive recruitment, selection, and socialization prac-
tices.
Recruitment and Selection
Because a particular type of person is more likely
than others to develop commitment toward an or-
ganization, policies and practices of recruitment
and selection may have an impact on the ultimate
level of members' commitment. Commitment-ori-
ented recruitment relies strongly on expressive com-
munications and appeals to values and beliefs.
Similarly, commitment-oriented selection focuses
on assessment of values and beliefs, and on the
degree of their congruency with organizational
values. Such an orientation is typical to normative
424
This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
organizations (Etzioni, 1961). Utilitarian organiza-
tions, on the other hand, do not tend to value such
practices highly.
The commitment predisposition typology pre-
sented in Figure 3 provides some guidelines for
commitment-oriented recruitment and selection
strategies. First, type E and F individuals should
not be selected or recruited. Second, if the organiza-
tion does not plan to carry out a significant sociali-
zation program subsequent to selection, only type A
and B individuals should be recruited and selected.
Finally, type C and especially type D individuals
should be recruited only if socialization is planned.
Organizational Socialization
One of the two basic determinants of com-
mitment-generalized values of loyalty and
duty-cannot be significantly modified by organi-
zational interventions. The second determinant,
however, individual-organization value congruen-
cy, can be affected by organizational practices, par-
ticularly "expressive" organizational socialization.
Such socialization (Etzioni, 1961) refers to the pro-
cess by which the values, norms, and beliefs of
members are brought into line with those of the or-
ganization.
Not all potential members of a given organization
are likely to benefit equally from socialization. This
is indicated by the commitment predispositions
typology presented in Figure 3. Some individuals,
such as those in cells E and F, are not likely to
develop commitment under any conditions. For
them, socialization is not a good solution. The
socialization task would include not only the in-
stallation of new beliefs, but also the eradication of
old deeply-rooted ones. This might be very difficult
to accomplish in voluntary, noncoercive organiza-
tions. Other individuals, such as in cells A and B,
do not need to go through a socialization process to
build commitment. Their values and beliefs are al-
ready highly congruent with those of the organiza-
tion. Socialization processes, however, are neces-
sary to enhance the strength or quality of commit-
ment for individuals in cells C and D.
The above definition of organizational socializa-
tion is consistent with the general definition of
primary socialization as "the internalization by in-
dividuals of values, beliefs and ways of perceiving
the world that are shared by a group" (Jones &
Gerard, 1967, p. 718). Most researchers would
 agree that internalization depends on standard pro-
cesses such as classical conditioning and instrumen-
tal learning (Jones & Gerard, 1967). Thus, the
establishment of members' commitment in organi-
zations cannot be viewed as independent of instru-
mental processes. Accordingly, at least two condi-
tions should exist if socialization efforts are to be
effective in increasing commitment in organiza-
tions. First, at least in the initial stages of member-
ship in the organization, cognitive-instrumental and
affective evaluations of members should be posi-
tive. That is, the organization must carry out effec-
tive instrumental-motivational programs and create
conditions conducive to job satisfaction. A sociali-
zation process is not likely to result in success if
organizationally relevant feelings and beliefs are
negative. In the long run, when the socialization
process is completed, the resultant commitment
would make it possible for members to exhibit orga-
nizationally desired behaviors under adverse condi-
tions or without the controlling effects of rewards
and punishments.
A second, related condition that can enhance suc-
cess of organizational socialization requires that
utilitarian organizations consider the adoption of
loyalty and duty into their own organizational value
system. This suggestion cannot be construed as a
prescription for action. Acceptance of new values,
especially ones that go against the dominant
cultural grain, is not a matter of formal manage-
ment decision or a policy statement. Nevertheless,
utilitarian organizations should recognize that they
cannot expect loyalty and duty from their members
when their own actions are not at all guided by these
values.
The Japanese experience can serve as a model of
employer-employee relationships based on loyalty
and duty. It includes a strong reciprocal set of
obligations between the organization and the em-
ployee. The company will not discharge the em-
ployee, and the employee will not leave the com-
pany for employment elsewhere. Abegglen long ago
articulated these relationships in terms of normative
commitment: "The worker, whether laborer or
manager...is bound, despite potential advantage, to
remain in the company's employ [and] a system of
shared obligations takes the place of the economic
basis of employment of workers by the organiza-
tion" (1958, p. 17). Some investigators-for exam-
ple, Marsh and Mannari (1977)-do not see this
425
This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
process as affecting behavioral outcomes such as
turnover, but most researchers-for example, Dore
(1973) and Vogel (1963)-do view the "shared obli-
gation" commitment model as a most important
factor in the very low rate of turnover in Japan (as
compared to the United States).
Commitment and Instrumental Motivation
Because, in the conceptual system presented here,
behavior is a function of both commitment and
instrumental-motivation, improved predictions of
work behaviors may result when the relative con-
tribution of each component is known. Fishbein
and Ajzen (1975) dealt with a similar issue in their
model of behavioral intentions. The two com-
ponents can be given empirical weights in a predic-
tion equation, proportional to their relative impor-
tance in the determination of behavioral intentions
and actions. The weights are affected by three types
of factors: (1) the attributes of the situation under
which the behavior is to be performed, (2) the at-
tributes of the individuals performing the behavior,
and (3) the attributes of the behavior to be emitted.
Four propositions reflect processes related to these
attributes:
Proposition 1: The more the organization tends
to apply symbolic and normative control on in-
dividual behavior (i.e., a normative organization),
the greater becomes the importance of commitment
in determining behavior. The more the organization
tends to apply material control (i.e., a utilitarian
organization), the greater the importance of in-
strumental motivation (Etzioni, 1961).
Some support for Proposition 1 comes from a
study by Wiener and Vardi (1980). Although they
did not compare commitment with motivation in
the same design, they did find that commitment had
predicted various work behaviors better in a sample
of staff professionals that in a sample of insurance
salespersons. The former group was assumed to be
characterized by a high level of normative control.
The latter group was characterized primarily by
utilitarian control.
Proposition 2: The greater external-environmen-
tal threats are to the organization and its members,
the greater becomes the importance of commit-
ment. The lesser such threats are, the greater is the
influence of instrumental motivation. In stress
situations, dependency of individuals on others in-
creases, as in Schachter's (1959) study. Therefore,
normative pressures become more salient.
Proposition 3: The higher an individual's level of
generalized loyalty and duty, the more weight is
given to commitment in determining behavior. The
lower an individual's level of loyalty and duty, the
more weight is given to instrumental motivation.
Proposition 4: The more specialized the behav-
ioral act is, the greater will be the weight of instru-
mental motivation. The less specialized the act
(e.g., attachment to an organization, effort ex-
erted), the greater the importance of commitment
(personal moral standards tend to guide general
modes of conduct rather than specific task-oriented
acts).
This proposition is consistent with the line of
research showing that the behavioral outcomes
most strongly associated with commitment are turn-
over and intention to stay in the organization
(Mowday et al., 1979).
The above propositions deal with factors that
may increase or decrease the relative contribution
of either commitment or instrumental motivation to
behavior. They do not compare commitment and
motivation to each other with respect to the size of
their contributions. It is suggested that, usually, in-
strumental processes make the stronger contribu-
tions to behavior, particularly in the framework of
the current cultural climate that places such a high
value on individual need gratification. This "ad-
vantage" of instrumental processes is diminished,
and perhaps disappears, under the conditions speci-
fied in the above propositions.
The scarcity of research reflecting directly on the
above propositions is not surprising. In general,
there has been very little research attempting to
assess the relative contribution of various motiva-
tional-attitudinal processes to work behaviors
under different conditions. For many years, re-
searchers have investigated separately the effects of
the basic processes of motivation, job satisfaction,
and commitment on work behaviors. No single
study, however, relates the three simultaneously
with work behaviors so that their relative contribu-
tion can be ascertained.
Summary and Conclusions
Several basic features differentiate the suggested
426
This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
model from the traditional identifcation view. First,
commitment has been presented as a unique con-
struct within a comprehensive motivational-atti-
tudinal system, clearly distinct from processes such
as instrumental motivation and job satisfaction.
Second, the concept of commitment itself has been
broadened to include, in addition to identification,
a second immediate determinant-possession of gen-
eralized values of loyalty and duty. This conceptual
extension underscores the position that commit-
ment is viewed as a function of both situational-or-
ganizational factors and personal dispositions.
Finally, the model allows prediction of behavioral
outcomes from a simultaneous consideration of
both instrumental and normative processes. The in-
clusion of the normative component should im-
prove predictability of behavior.
In general, the suggested model attempts to
refocus attention at an overlooked but potentially
useful approach to the explanation of work behav-
ior. To date nearly all efforts to explain work be-
haviors have concentrated on behavior-outcome
contingencies models, reflecting primarily instru-
mental processes. Outside the cognitive consistency
literature, very little attention has been given to
behaviors that are not at all guided by their poten-
tial outcomes. The conceptualization of commit-
ment in this paper is founded on the premise that
work behavior may be determined not only by
calculative-instrumental processes, but also by nor-
mative pressures such as personal moral standards.
Such internalized pressures, once established, exert
stable, long term influences on behavior that are in-
dependent of situational circumstances and linkages
to rewards or punishments.
On the practical level, the normative view of
commitment suggests a stronger focus on normative
control by organizations. They must be able to
define explicitly their own value system, to get
members to accept it, and to attract potential
members with compatible value systems and who
also believe in the value of loyalty and duty. Such a
task may not be easy for work organizations that
find themselves trapped between their own tradi-
tional utilitarianism and the pressures of a current
cultural climate highly valuing individual need
satisfaction. Yet, in light of recent productivity
declines, this effort may be worthwhile.
 References
Abegglen, J. C. The Japanese factory. New York: The Free
Press, 1958.
Alutto, J., Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alonso, R. On operationalizing
the concept of commitment. Social Forces, June 1973,
448-454.
Becker, H. S. Notes on the concept of commitment. American
Journal of Sociology, 1960, 66, 32-40.
Brown, M. Identification and some conditions of organizational
involvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14,
346-355.
Buchanan, B. Building organizational commitment: The social-
ization of managers in work organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 533-546.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. ASPA-BNA survey: Older and
retired employees. Washington, D. C.: Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc., 1971.
Dore, R. British factory-Japanese factory: The origins of nation-
al diversity industrial relations. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1973.
Dubin, R., Champoux, J. E., & Porter, L. W. Central life in-
terest and organizational commitment of blue-collar and
clerical workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 20,
411-421.
Etzioni, A. A comparative analysis of complex organizations.
New York: Free Press, 1961.
Fishbein, M. Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M.
Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement.
New York: Wiley, 1967, 477-492.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Belief, atttitude, intention and
behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. Correlates of organizational identi-
fication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 340-350.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. Personal factors in
organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarter-
ly, 1970, 15, 176-189.
Horn, P., Katerberg, R., Jr., & Hulin, C. L. Comparative exam-
ination of three approaches to the prediction of turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 280-290.
Homans, G. Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of
Sociology, 1958, 63, 597-606.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. Personal and role-related fac-
tors in the development of organizational commitment. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 555-572.
Jaccard, J., & Davidson, A. R. A comparison of two models of
social behaviors: Results of a survey sample. Sociometry,
1975, 38, 497-517.
Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. Foundations of socialpsychology.
New York: John Wiley, 1967.
Kidron, A. Work values and organizational commitment. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, 239-246.
427
This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Lawler, E. E. Motivation in work organizations. Belmont, Cal.:
Brooks/Cole, 1973.
Lee, S. M. An empirical analysis of organizational identifica-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 1971, 14, 213-226.
Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. Organizational commitment and
turnover: A prediction study. Administrative Science Quarter-
ly, 1977, 22, 57-75.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Dubin, R. Unit performance,
situational factors, and employee attitudes in spatially
separated work units. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1974, 12, 231-248.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. The measure-
ment of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 1979, 14, 224-247.
Patchen, M. Participation, achievement, and involvement on the
job. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Pomazal, R. J., & Jaccard, J. J. An informational approach to
altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1976, 33, 217-326.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. Organizational, work, and per-
sonal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism.
Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 151-176.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V.
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover
among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1974, 19, 475-479.
Rokeach, M. The nature of human values. New York: The Free
Press, 1973.
Salancik, G. R. Commitment and the control of organizational
behavior and belief. In B. Staw and G. Salancik (Eds.), New
directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair
Press, 1977, 1-59.
Schachter, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1959.
Schwartz, S., & Tessler, R. A test of a model for reducing
measured attitude-behavior discrepancies. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 225-236.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. Measurement or
satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of
attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.
Steers, R. M. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational com-
mitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22, 46-56.
Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. Motivation and work behavior.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. Assessing personal,
role, and organizational predictors of managerial commit-
ment. Academy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, 380-396.
Stone, E. F., & Porter, L. W. Job characteristics and job atti-
tudes: A multivariate study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1975, 60, 57-64.
Vogel, E. F. Japan's new middle class. Berkeley and Los Ange- Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. Relationships between job, organiza-
les: University of California Press, 1963. tion, and career commitments and work outcomes-An in-
tegrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
formance, 1980, 26, 81-96.
Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A. G. Commitment: A behavioral ap-
proach to job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
1977, 10, 47-52.

Yoash Wiener is Professor of Management and Labor at

Cleveland State University.

428

This content downloaded from 203.176.151.19 on Thu, 16 May 2013 18:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions