The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

Employee commitment: Employee

commitment
academic vs practitioner
perspectives
Jeryl L. Shepherd and Brian P. Mathews 555
University of Luton, Luton, UK Received July 2000
Revised August 2000
Keywords Employees, Commitment, Employers, Human resource management, Accepted August 2000
Private sector, United Kingdom
Abstract Employee commitment has been extensively researched by academics. Theories about
commitment towards the organisation have enjoyed much interest. The concept is a central part
of HR models. Research to date, however, has not examined the extent to which such ``academic''
perspectives are compatible with the views of practitioners. Hence, this research establishes
practitioner's understanding of employee commitment in a variety of UK private sector
organisations. The findings of a national survey, distributed to 300 HRM managers (response
rate 32 per cent), indicate a wide recognition of the desirability and benefits of commitment, but
clear disparity between the way academics and practitioners conceptualise and measure it. Despite
the variety of formal measuring tools available, organisational monitoring of commitment can be
described as ad hoc and subjective. We conclude that the subjective approach adopted by
practitioners could inform the approaches of academics just as the structured ``objective''
approaches of academics should inform practitioners.

Introduction
Research into employee commitment has generated much debate and extensive
literature of late. The desire for employee commitment is supported by
numerous human resource management (HRM hereafter) writers, for example:
Bratton and Gold; 1999; Beardwell and Holden (1997); Beer et al. (1985); Guest
(1995; 1998); Legge (1995b); Sisson (1994); Tyson (1995) and Wood (1995).
Bratton and Gold (1999, p. 357) suggest that ``. . . the new HRM model seeks
to elicit high commitment from workers and thereby cultivate proactive
behaviour with committed workers expending effort levels `beyond contract'
for the enterprise''. Moreover, according to the philosophy of HRM, employee
commitment is a shared responsibility between line management and the HR
function, indeed this is one of the characteristics that differentiates HRM from
the traditions of personnel management. The classical notion of corporate
loyalty suggests that individuals are recruited for a specific task for which they
should show their gratitude by behaving in a loyal and committed manner
(Kiechel, 1985). However, where once the objective was employee compliance to
organisational rules and regulations this has been superseded by employers
striving for the much more ambitious aim of obtaining commitment to the
organisation expressed voluntarily by employees (Storey, 1995; Tyson, 1995).
Nevertheless, despite an extensive academic literature on the subject of
commitment there appears to be little, if any, attention paid to managerial Employee Relations,
Vol. 22 No. 6, 2000, pp. 555-575.
practice or opinion in the area. # MCB University Press, 0142-5455
Employee This paper seeks to explore academic and employer perspectives of
Relations commitment and how the parties might learn more about commitment from
22,6 each other. In particular, it investigates employer perceptions of employee
commitment and establishes if, and how, commitment is measured in practice.
The imperative of the HRM model (discussed below) places commitment as a
central issue and so we also explore the means by which it is engendered in
556 practice and the location of responsibility within the organisation.
We compare and contrast the perspectives of employers in UK private sector
organisations with current academic standpoints about the construct. This is
important since it appears that it is the HRM rhetoric, derived principally from
academics, that provides the context and focus of our understanding of
commitment rather than managerial perspectives of the construct.

Employee commitment and human resource management

Writers in the UK concerned with employee commitment, for example Guest
(1995), Storey (1995) and Tyson (1995), have identified that committed
employee behaviour is at the heart of human resource management and is a
``central feature that distinguishes HRM from traditional personnel
management'' (Guest, 1995, p. 112). Similarly, Legge (1995b, p. 174) states that,
``employee commitment is contrasted favourably with the resigned behavioural
compliance seen as characteristic of employment relationships under
conventional personnel management. Compliance is maintained by externally
imposed bureaucratic control systems'' which generate reactive rather than
proactive employee behaviours. Commitment on the other hand, is an
internalised employee belief, often associated with ``soft HRM'' and a high trust
organisational culture.
HRM has been described as a philosophy centred on emphasising the
mutuality between employer and employee in the workplace (Farnham and
Pimlott, 1990; Legge, 1995b; Walton, 1985). It has increased in popularity in
recent years since the aim of managing people at work, ``no longer appears to be
containment and compliance [orientated] but competence and commitment''
(Farnham and Pimlott, 1990, p. 354).
Beer et al.'s (1985, p. 16) Map of Harvard Territory (shown as Figure 1) is a
``broad causal mapping underlying the determinants and consequences of HRM
policies,'' which demonstrates, ``implicit theory in the listing and the advocacy
of four HR outcomes'' (Guest, 1987, p. 510). Commitment towards the
organisation results from the maximisation of human resources and increasing
employee loyalty, and this in turn results in less absenteeism from the
workplace and lower labour turnover. These elements, when coupled together,
ultimately lead to improved performance for the organisation.
Employee commitment has been further highlighted in the more recent
works of Storey (1995) Tyson (1995) and Legge (1995a; 1995b). These have
reinforced the importance that the concept of commitment occupies within the
HRM framework.
 Employee
commitment

557

Figure 1.
A broad causal mapping
of the determinants and
consequences of HRM
policies

Defining employee commitment

``The use of the term commitment to describe very different constructs has led
to considerable confusion in the literature'' (Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 14).
Academic research in this area has proved both inconsistent and confusing
because studies in the area do not seem to be guided by a consistent and
specific model of commitment (Coopey and Hartley, 1991).
Many researchers (for example, Buchanan, 1975; Mowday et al., 1982; Porter
et al., 1974, Staw and Salancik, 1977; Steers, 1977) have developed definitions
identifying the key characteristics considered to be demonstrated by
committed individuals, yet there are notable differences between the various
conceptualisations of commitment.
The following sections present the main approaches to defining employee
commitment. The academic literature also contains a range of measurement
tools for commitment. Most are questionnaire-based. In the following sections
we also provide a very brief summary of the best known approaches for each of
the conceptualisations.
Attitudinal commitment. Probably the most popular method of examining
the concept is through an individuals' attitudes and feelings towards his or her
employing organisation (Legge, 1995b). Featured in the works of Buchanan
(1974) and extended by Porter et al. (1974) and Mowday et al. (1982), attitudinal
commitment is, ``. . . the relative strength of an individual's identifications with
and involvement in a particular organisation'' (Porter et al., 1974, p. 604). It is
characterised by three components namely identification, involvement and
loyalty. These translate to: an understanding and strong belief in and
acceptance of the organisation's goals and values; a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organisation, or to ``go the extra mile''
(Guest, 1995, p. 113) for the good of the company and; a strong desire to
maintain membership in the employing organisation, or the aspiration to
remain in the employ of the organisation.
Employee Findings from studies using the attitudinal commitment model have shown
Relations that it is negatively correlated with employee turnover (Allen and Meyer, 1990;
22,6 Mowday et al., 1982). It is also considered that committed individuals will have
a good attendance record and work hard for the good of the organisation
(Mowday et al., 1982). All in all, this makes attitudinal commitment most
desirable for employers.
558 Amongst the most popular of scales in the field is that of the Organisational
Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Porter et al., in 1974. It uses 15
items rated on a seven point Likert scale to measure three components:
(1) identification ± pride in the organisation and the internalisation of its
goals and values;
(2) involvement ± psychological absorption in the actives of one's role for
the good of the employing organisation; and
(3) loyalty ± affection for, and attachment to the organisation; a sense of
belongingness manifested as a wish to stay.
Cook and Wall (1980; 1981) argue that since the OCQ was designed for
employees in the USA, the phrasing may not be for a wider global audience.
This has led to their development of the British Organisational Commitment
Scale. This also measures commitment on the three dimensions of
identification, involvement and loyalty but uses only three scale items for each.
Its strength lies in the clarity of its language and wording, being developed
specifically for the needs of blue collar workers.
Normative commitment. The concept of normative commitment developed
in the works of Wiener and Vardi (1980) and Wiener (1982) (and later furthered
by Allen and Meyer, 1990) suggests that individuals attach themselves to one
organisation since this is the proper way to behave. Normative commitment is
defined as, ``. . . the totality of internalised normative pressures to act in a way
that meets organisational goals and interests and suggests that individuals
exhibit behaviours solely because they believe this is the right and moral way
in which to behave'' (Wiener, 1982, p. 421). Thus, normative commitment is one
of obligation.
Normative commitment is presented within a motivational framework as an
extension of the largely accepted identification approach to viewing
commitment which has been shown to underpin the attitudinal commitment
model. Wiener (1982) refers to identification as the acceptance of organisational
expectations and values by the individual, which in turn guide employee
behaviour. Hence, commitment is based on the strength of an individual's
personal obligations. There is little evidence in the literature to demonstrate the
take-up of the normative view. Weiner and Vardi (1980) however, developed an
early measure for this construct, comprising of three items. Given that
Cronbach's alpha increases in relation to the number of items in a scale it was
not surprising that this scale obtained a low reliability score. A more robust
version, the Normative Commitment Scale (NCS) was constructed by Allen and
Meyer in 1990. It comprises eight items, three of which are negatively worded Employee
(and reversed scored so that all answers relating to high commitment receive commitment
high ratings) in an attempt to reduce bias amongst respondents. The procedure
of using negatively worded questions is common practice amongst scales
developed in the commitment literature.
Behavioural commitment. Behavioural commitment, as outlined in the works
of Staw and Salancik (1977), develops as a result of an individual's past actions 559
which are ultimately binding. It occurs, ``. . . when an individual has identified
himself with a particular behaviour'' (Salancik, 1977, p. 64), and adjusts his
attitude to fit that behaviour. It incorporates the notion of cognitive dissonance
(Festinger, 1957), which suggests that the behaviour of the individual causes
the development of congruent attitudes. Individuals pursue a reinforcing cycle
of congruency as they strive to create consistency in their organisational lives.
Guest (1987, p. 513) notes that although the behavioural model of commitment
is more specific than attitudinal commitment, ``it is less useful in general [HRM]
policy formulation,'' which may explain its lack of adoption amongst
practitioners.
Studies that provide a formal measure of Staw and Salancik's (1977)
approach to commitment of it have been limited and no formal
operationalisation has been widely used.
Calculative commitment. Some researchers (for example; Becker, 1960;
Kanter, 1968) prefer to define commitment in calculative terms. This involves
the number of investments an individual makes as a result of their employment
with an organisation and the associated costs of leaving their current
organisation, together with their perceived availability of other job alternatives.
Becker (1960) argues that when individuals are offered better alternatives
with other organisations which they choose to decline, it may be that this is as a
result of sets of rewards or ``side bets'' (p. 32) associated with their present job,
which make it difficult for them to move. Thus, the individual's decision to
remain with their current employing institution is secured by binding
mechanisms. Kanter (1968) demonstrates support for the side bet theory,
concluding that some types of investments ``. . . help explain why it is that
members of some groups are highly committed while others are not. . .'' (Kanter,
1968, p. 516).
Probably the first scale devised to explicitly measure the side bets theory as
conceptualised by Becker (1960) was that of Ritzer and Trice (1969). The scale
attempted to establish what specified increments or additional rewards
employees would require before considering leaving their current organisation.
The factors proposed were; increase in pay, freedom, status, responsibility and
opportunity to get ahead. Other studies in the area (for example; Meyer and
Allen, 1990; 1984) suggest that a more appropriate measure would be to
question individuals about the number of, and their perceptions of, their
organisational investments. Together with their perceptions of alternative
employment opportunities, these elements comprise the Continuance
Commitment Scale (Allen and Meyer, 1990).
Employee Methodology
Relations The research was conducted via a mailed self-completion survey distributed to
22,6 named HR managers in a variety of UK organisations. Individuals functioning
within this capacity were chosen as the target group since employee
commitment features heavily in HR models. It makes good research sense for
those individuals who will benefit from research results to participate with data
560 collection (Selltiz et al., 1973). The investigation sought to find out if
practitioners and academics might learn something from being informed about
each other's approaches to understanding and measuring commitment.

Questionnaire design
The questionnaire was spilt into three parts. The first section comprised
simple, factual information, such as organisational details to enable sample
composition to be confirmed and the analysis of the data to be contextualised.
Section two requested an evaluation of the organisation's perspective of
employee commitment. It assessed the level of importance attached to
committed employees; identified with whom the responsibility for
implementing and maintaining employee commitment within the organisation
currently lies.
Section three required the personal viewpoint of the respondent. It asked
employers how they distinguish committed employees from non-committed
individuals at work and required them to indicate the methods to measure
commitment amongst employees in their organisation (and also the ``best''
method). It also attempted to find out what they consider their role to be in
implementing and maintaining commitment amongst employees. Furthermore,
it sought to establish who, in their opinion, should be responsible for
generating and sustaining commitment in their organisation.
The majority of questions were presented in closed format, requiring the
respondent to make an informed choice between alternatives, although space
for additional comments was made available at the end of the questionnaire.
Questions were developed following an extensive review of the commitment
literature. Ethical guidelines were adhered to and the confidentiality of all
individual questionnaires was guaranteed and the identification of
participating organisations was concealed.

Pre-testing the questionnaire

Questionnaire piloting was conducted on two separate days with two sample
groups totalling thirty five HR professionals studying on the Institute of
Personnel Development Course at the University of Luton. These managers
were from a variety of local organisations. Here the main concern was
understandability of the questions and hence content validity.
Following feedback from the first group, some amendments were made to
simplify the questioning approach and some re-arrangement of question
sequence took place. Following these revisions, the questionnaire was
re-piloted and approved with the second group.
Sampling frame and target audience Employee
The sampling frame used was drawn from a nationwide database held by a commitment
local company specialising in producing labels for mailings. Larger small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) located in the manufacturing and service
environments were specified to capture a variety of organisational perspectives
and diverse range of opinion.
SMEs were the focus of the study for two reasons. First, there is little 561
research conducted in the area using these types of organisations. Second, one
of the aims of the study sought to assess the extent to which commitment
measures in the area are adopted by organisations. By the nature of the
industrial structure of the UK, the majority of firms are SMEs. A study
concentrating solely on larger organisations may well significantly
overestimate the sophistication of commitment monitoring approaches because
of their better developed systems and know how. On the other hand,
concentrating on SMEs will not necessarily identify areas of ``best practice''.
The database comprised private sector and manufacturing organisations.
This was seen as an advantage as much of the work on commitment has
focused on blue collar workers located in the private sector manufacturing
industry (see, for example, Cook and Wall, 1980; 1981). Questionnaires
were targeted at the individual having responsibility for HRM. Usually
this would be a personnel manager (or general manager in the case of some of
the smaller organisations). Such individuals would be well placed to
understand both the notion of commitment and the organisational practices
concerned with it. On the other hand, they may also be prone to provide
``desirable'' responses.

Response rates
To assist in increasing response rates, guidelines were followed from authors in
the social sciences (for example, Oppenheim, 1992; Schmitt and Klimoski, 1991,
Selltiz et al., 1973). The names of respective HR managers were printed on
mailing labels to provide a more personalised approach. A full explanatory
letter accompanied the questionnaire, (detailing its purpose and outlining how
the data provided would be used) and a self-addressed, freepost envelope was
also provided. Further, a synopsis of the general responses was available on
request. Ethical guidelines were also followed and the confidentiality of all
responses was guaranteed.
Schmitt and Klimoski (1991) also suggest that follow up procedures
typically improve response rates. In the case of this research, employers were
given a three week time period in which to complete and return the
questionnaire, after which a follow up procedure was adopted with a two-week
deadline.
A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed. A total of 69 were returned in
the three week period and a further 27 after the follow up. A total of 97 responses
were finally received, a highly satisfactory 32 per cent overall response rate for a
postal survey (although three responses had to be discounted as they were
Employee returned from organisations in the public sector). Responses to the follow up
Relations were compared to those initially received as a means of determining
22,6 non-response bias. In the event, the diversity of responses and the small numbers
involved resulted in no discernible patterns being present ± although this should
not be interpreted to prove lack of non-response bias.
Before moving to the substantive issues it is appropriate to provide a
562 description of the sample achieved. The majority (64 per cent) of usable
questionnaires were returned from UK manufacturing enterprises (as
intended), followed by other private sector organisations (29 per cent), which
broadly included; aircraft maintenance, industrial services, hotels, logistics and
computing services. Retailing and financial services comprise some 7 per cent.
It is recognised that this pattern is not fully representative of UK organisations
or employment, but, as explained earlier, does represent a meaningful
comparative baseline.
In terms of size of responding organisation (determined by the number of
employees) the majority of participants were representing small and small to
medium sized organisations. Definitions from the European Commission
include micro-organisations (0-9 employees) of which none were represented in
the sample frame. Their next cut-point is 500, above which an organisation is
``large''. Our sample contains 52 per cent under 250 employees and a further 24
per cent under 500. Thus, only 24 per cent of the sample are larger
organisations, giving an adequate representation of SMEs.
A total of 77 per cent of respondents' were employed within the HR/
personnel department and/or training and development. Remaining
respondents all held managerial status. Their titles included; managing
directors, general managers, accountants, financiers and quality strategists.
Hence, the respondent base are well placed to comment on commitment within
their organisations.

Results
HRM and employee commitment
In this section we examine the extent to which linkages can be made between
commitment and the HRM orientation.
Employee and organisational importance attached to commitment. Our first
analysis concerns the level of importance placed by respondents on
commitment in their organisation from an employee and an employer
perspective. Should it be considered unimportant this would undermine any
subsequent analysis or conclusions.
All respondents indicated that their organisation does view employee
commitment with a high degree of importance, although the majority
suggested that it is not the most important corporate issue (as illustrated in
Table I). No respondents indicated that employee commitment is either an
``unimportant'' issue or ``not very important'' to the organisation.
Similarly, employers indicated that, in their opinion, employees in their
organisations also consider that employee commitment is important. However,
 Your org. views Employees view Employee
EC as EC as commitment
(%) (%)

Most important issue 10 11 3 3

A very important issue 68 72 23 25
Important 16 17 51 54 563
Not very important 0 0 14 15
Unimportant 0 0 1 1
Do not know 0 0 2 2 Table I.
The importance of
Note: Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, Z = ±6.58, two-tailed P = 0.000 employee commitment

the perception of respondents is that they consider commitment to be more

important than they feel the workforce do in general. While this finding does
not prove that the workforce are genuinely concerned with commitment it does
demonstrate that the managers involved in engendering commitment believe it
to be the case.
Responsibility for employee commitment. Respondents were asked to indicate
who in the organisation has current responsibility for implementing and
maintaining commitment amongst the workforce. They indicated a range of
organisational groups, the most frequently cited being ``all management to a
certain extent'' and ``senior management'' (as shown in Figure 2).
Surprisingly, only 4 per cent of responses outlined that the function of
human resource management/personnel has current responsibility for the
upkeep of employee commitment in their organisation. Given that the

Figure 2.
Employee commitment
implementation and
maintenance
Employee background information to this study shows that 73 per cent of respondents
Relations maintain that they work in the HRM or training department, it is demonstrated
22,6 that the role of the HR function in maintaining employee commitment is
limited. Indeed, these results support the supposition that the role of HR is in
advising the function of line management (Guest, 1998).
When asked to indicate the extent to which respondents perceive that they
564 have a personal role to play in creating and upkeeping commitment levels
amongst employees, 39 per cent suggested that it was ``one of their key
management tasks'' whilst an additional 44 per cent stated that it is ``one of
their many responsibilities'' (as shown in Figure 3).
The apparent discrepancy between these results and the previous ones may
be interpreted as confirmation that they as managers recognise the importance
of engendering commitment amongst their own staff, whereas their role as
HRM professionals is not to be responsible for the commitment of the staff of
other managers. This result is consistent with Guest (1998) who suggests that
HRM advocates are giving more responsibility for managing human resources
to line managers. This perspective is also consistent with other views of
management practices, for example, Wood (1995) has ``preferred to talk in
terms of high commitment policies as a working substitute for HRM'' (Storey,
1995, p. 6) and high commitment management as a mechanism for generating
commitment so that employee behaviour is ``primarily self-regulated rather
than controlled by sanctions and pressures external to the individual and
relations within the organisation are based on trust'' (Wood, 1996, p. 41).

Managerial perspectives of employee commitment

In this section we explore the respondents' understanding of the nature of
commitment. Given that certain academic definitions of commitment are not

Figure 3.
Respondents' perceived
responsibility for
employee commitment
readily transferred into direct questions (e.g. side bet theory) a variety of Employee
questions are posed in a variety of formats from which we can infer the relative commitment
prominence of the alternative interpretations.
Participants were asked to indicate up to five ways (from nine options) in
which committed employees could be distinguished from non-committed ones
(see Table II). Given the multiple response requested some non- or incomplete
responses values above about 50 should be considered preferred responses. 565
The results identify four main characteristics which employers cite enabling
a committed individual to be differentiated from a non-committed employee
within the workplace. Employee attitude is the most common, thus reinforcing
the prominence of attitudinal commitment. Attendance comes out as an
important factor on the behavioural side, as does ``general'' behaviour at work.
Other behavioural traits are indicated, namely promotion seeking within the
organisation and amount of unpaid hours worked. Employment seeking
outside the organisation, (which notably obtained a count of only two), is more
in keeping with normative and calculative theories.
In order to find out the level of importance attached to the identification
approach by employers, Porter et al.'s (1974) elements of attitudinal
commitment (identification, involvement, loyalty) were segregated and
presented separately together with one statement expressing the behavioural
view of commitment (see Table III). Wiener (1982) points out that, ``some
writers equate identification with organisation commitment''. He refers largely
to writers in the area of attitudinal commitment, (Hall and Schneider, 1972;
Porter et al., 1974, Steers, 1977) for which identification is a one of three major
components. Respondents were requested to rank each of these in terms of the
level of importance attached to each (1 = most important).

% of
Criteria Count responses % of cases

Attitude 92 24.4 97.9

General behaviour 68 18.0 72.3
Demonstration of job satisfaction 61 16.2 64.9
Attendance record 60 15.9 63.8
Promotion seeking within the organisation 37 9.8 39.4
Amount of extra unpaid hours worked 28 7.4 29.8
Length of service 22 5.8 23.4
Employment seeking outside the organisation 5 1.3 5.3 Table II.
Amount of paid overtime 2 0.5 2.1 Distinguishing between
committed and
Do not know/other 1 0.3 1.1 non-committed
Total responses 376 100.0 402.1 employees
Employee Table III illustrates that employee involvement emerged as the most favourable
Relations element of Porter's (1974) definition of attitudinal commitment. Hence it is the
22,6 most preferred element of commitment according to the employers surveyed.
Employee identification with organisational goals and values and employee
loyalty were second and third respectively. Behavioural commitment was
ranked least important (out of the four possible choices) by respondents.
566 However, one manager commented that in dealing with employee commitment,
the notion of identification ``cannot be understated since commitment towards
the organisation, means total absorption of our company's goals and values''.
Thus, it appears that practitioners associate highly with the attitudinal
elements of commitment (Table III) and this further supports the evidence
provided in Table II.

Measuring employee commitment

It was noted earlier in the paper that attitudinal scales, which are often
presented in questionnaire format, have become popular instruments for
academics to measure the construct. However, little is known about the
mechanisms used by employers in UK organisations to measure levels of
commitment towards their organisation. Thus, in order to find out if
practitioner and academic perspectives of measuring commitment are
compatible respondents were asked to rank, in order of importance (where 1 =
most important), the number of formal mechanisms used by their organisation
to measure employee commitment levels. This also establishes the extent to
which attitudinal scales of measurement are recognised and accepted by
employers. They were further asked to indicate their assessment of what
constitutes the ``best methods''. Thus, any disparity between the results of
these two questions would indicate employers' understanding of ``best practice''
if it differs from current practice. The combined top answers are shown in
Table IV.
Overall rankings were determined by the number of times a variable has
been indicated (count) and two measures of central tendency, the mean and

Statement Mean rank Median/mode

Individuals who exert effort to enable the organisation

to accomplish its goals and values (involvement) 1.65 1
Individuals who identify with the goals and values of
the organisation (identification) 2.06 2
Individuals who are loyal to and wish to remain with
Table III. their organisation (loyalty) 2.58 3
Employers Individuals who see the organisation as their best bet
identification with and wish to stay (behavioural commitment) 3.71 4
employee commitment
definitions Note: Friedman two-way Anova: Chi-square 135, DF 3, Significance 0.000
 Mechanism used Best method Employee
Mean Median Mean Median commitment
Response Rank Count rank rank Rank Count rank rank

Regular group meetings

with management and
staff 1 58 2.2 2 1 68 2.6 2
567
Appraisal 2 55 2.4 2 2 64 2.8 2
Management by walking Table IV.
around 3 53 3.2 3 3 57 3.1 3 Formal mechanisms
used by employers to
Meetings with individual
measure employee
employees 4 39 3.2 3 4 54 2.9 3
commitment and
Examining absentee employers' perception
levels 5 41 4.4 4 5 44 4.6 4 of the best methods

median rank. In interpreting the results, the rule of thumb is that the higher the
count, the more respondents have indicated that the policy is used by their
organisation to elicit commitment. The lower the value of mean and median,
the greater the importance attached to the response.
Table IV illustrates that regular group and individual meetings between
management and employees, staff appraisal and management by walking
around are the most popular mechanisms used by participating UK
organisations to measure employee commitment levels. Such measures can
best be described as ``soft'', may be haphazard rather than systematic and are
subject to considerable interpretation. There is only one method that
approximates to anything systematic and that is monitoring of absentee levels.
While this is associated with attitudinal commitment (Mowday et al., 1982) it is
a consequence or outcome rather than a measure of the construct.
Other response alternatives offered to respondents included anonymous
questionnaires and surveys, but disappointingly, these scored low counts of 23
and 19 respectively for current use. Interestingly 13 other respondents
indicated that they made no formal measurement attempts. In terms of `best'
methods, anonymous questionnaires and questionnaires received slightly
higher counts of 28 and 20 respectively. This indicates that practitioners do not
consider them to be particularly desirable methods of measuring commitment
in relation to group meetings, appraisal, individual meetings, management by
walking about.
Possibly unsurprisingly, the results show a clear discrepancy between the
formal methods used to measure commitment and employers' perception of the
best methods. In other words, it is evident that employers regard that the
subjective ways they currently use are by and large the best and do not need to
be replaced by other forms of measurement.
More importantly, the result suggests that whilst some managers do
recognise the value of structured measurement, the majority do not, preferring
Employee to rely on mechanisms that defy objective measurement and rely more on the
Relations ``gut feel'' that really only an experienced HR practitioner can offer. This result
22,6 highlights a need for practitioners to be aware of, and accept the advantages of,
attitudinal questionnaires like the OCQ and BOCS.

Discussion and conclusions

568 Employee commitment is firmly entrenched in HRM theory, but to date little
has been known about its role in relation to HRM practitioners. This study
sought to determine the nature of employee commitment in UK organisations
from an employer's perspective. It drew from their knowledge and
understanding of the concept and the mechanisms used by their organisations
in which to measure this.
The questionnaire has provided useful perspectives about employee
commitment from UK practitioners and compared these responses to those of
academics. Since the sample base was from the private sector, the findings
themselves are not necessarily generalisable to the wider organisational
audience.
It is evident that importance is attached to employee commitment by both
employees and organisations, although divergent results have emerged
regarding the issue of responsibility for ensuring commitment in the
organisation. In short, the evidence indicates, ``all management to a certain
extent'' and ``senior management'' are currently the groups most involved in
building and sustaining a committed workforce.
The findings also indicate that it is difficult to be clear about the
responsibility HR managers have in the upkeep of employee commitment in
their organisation, since respondents illustrated that the function of HR was not
currently responsible for securing commitment in their organisation. Neither
did respondents consider that human resource managers should be responsible
for employee commitment. In contrast, however, 84 per cent of respondents
indicated that implementing and maintaining commitment amongst employees
is a necessary part of their job.
In a similar vein, Mabey et al. (1998, p. 1) discussing ``the idea of HRM in the
distinctive sense,'' suggest that the managing of human resources is too
important to be left entirely to personnel specialists. Rather ``it has to be an
activity which is owned by all managers''.
The acknowledgement by employers that committed employees can be
distinguished from non-committed colleagues by their attitude is apparent and
compatible with the literature on commitment, since Mowday et al.'s (1979)
definition of the construct is probably the most popular, if not the most
orthodox of definitions (Coopey and Hartley, 1991; Legge, 1995b).
In dealing with practitioners' requirement to obtain commitment, the
analysis suggests that they have a clear perspective of what employee
commitment is and have confirmed the need for attitudinal commitment from
employees. However, concerns are raised about how practitioners expect to
achieve this and in turn this casts doubts about the knowledge managers really
have about the true level of employee commitment in their organisation and Employee
how to measure it. For example, their collective responses do not acknowledge commitment
widespread use of quantitative instruments, like questionnaires. Nor did the
majority of employers cite questionnaires amongst the most preferred
measures. Practitioners placed a high emphasis on communication between
themselves and their employees in eliciting and measuring commitment levels.
The mechanisms used were identified as regular group meetings, appraisal, 569
management by walking about and meetings with individuals. These were also
cited as the most effective methods by which to measure commitment amongst
those surveyed.
This research indicates that the managers surveyed reject objective
measurement as a mainstream method to evaluate commitment. In essence, this
result suggests two key points. First, it is possible that the respondents are
simply unaware of the advantages of the formal measurement scales that are
available. Second, this result might indicate that the commitment of a
workforce can be evaluated by way of subjective techniques. Arguably, such
evaluation can only really be carried out an experienced personnel executive.
Whilst this finding highlights a need for practitioners to become aware of
and accept the advantages of attitudinal scaling, it also suggests that there may
be some credence in utilising ``soft'' techniques to consider commitment. It may
be the academics that are not sufficiently insightful in their operationalisation
of the commitment construct and ignore subtle nuances by the adoption of
restrictive purely quantitative measures. This would provide an alternative
method to assessing the concept, and could be extended by academics in the
form of ethnographic techniques (i.e. participating observation) which, to date
has not been well addressed in the literature.
Given the importance placed on the topic by academics and practitioners
alike, the issue of the relative benefits of alternative approaches to
measurement is an issue worthy of deeper investigation. Further research
would be appropriate which could take the form of a case study-based
approach into organisations that adopt both structured questionnaire-based
strategy and a subjective one, a multimethod multirespondent perspective.

References
Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990), ``The measurement of antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organisation,'' Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp 1-18.
Beardwell, I. and Holden, L. (1997), HRM: A Contemporary Perspective, Pitman, London.
Becker, H. (1960), ``Notes on the concept of commitment'', American Journal of Sociology, Part 66,
pp. 32-40.
Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Quinn Mills, D. and Walton, R. (1985), HRM: A General
Managers Perspective, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bratton, J. and Gold, J. (1999), Human Resource Management, Macmillian, Hampshire.
Buchanan, B. (1974), ``Building organisational commitment: the socialisation of managers in
work organisations'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 533-46.
Employee Buchanan, B. (1975), ``To walk an extra mile'', Organisation Dynamics, Vol. 3, pp. 67-80.
Relations Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), ``New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitment
and personal need non-fulfilment'', Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.
22,6 Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1981), ``A note on some new scales for measuring aspects of psychological
well being at work'', Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 221-5.
Coopey, J. and Hartley, J. (1991), ``Reconsidering the case for organisational commitment'',
570 Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, Spring, pp. 18-32.
Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1990), Understanding Industrial Relations 4th ed., Cassell, London.
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Goffman, E. (1961), Asylums, Pelican Books, Middlesex.
Guest, D. (1987), ``Human resource management and industrial relations'', Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 503-21.
Guest, D. (1995), ``Human resource management, trade unions and industrial relations'', in Storey,
J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: Still Marching on or Marching out? and Human
Resource Management: A Critical Test, Routledge, London.
Guest, D. (1998), ``Beyond HRM: commitment and the contract culture'', in Sparrow, P. and
Marchington, M. (Eds), Human Resource Management: The New Agenda, Financial Times
Publishing, London.
Hall, D. and Schneider, B. (1972), ``Correlates of organisational identification'', Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 340-50.
Kanter, R. (1968), ``Commitment and social organisation: a study of commitment mechanisms in
utopian communities'', American Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 499-517.
Kiechel, W. (1985), ``Resurrecting corporate loyalty'', Fortune, 9 December.
Legge, K. (1995a), ``HRM: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas'', in Storey (Ed.), Human Resource
Management: A Critical Text, Routledge, London.
Legge, K. (1995b), Human Resource Management, Rhetoric's and Realities, Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Mabey, C., Salaman, G. and Storey, J. (1988) (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management: A
Reader, Sage, London.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1984), ``Testing the side bets theory of organisational commitment'',
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 372-8.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), ``The measurement of organisational commitment'',
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1982), Employee-organisation Linkages: The Psychology of
Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, Academic Press, London.
Oppenheim, A. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Pinter,
London.
Porter, L. Steers, R. Mowday, R. and Boulian, P. (1974), ``Organisational commitment, job
satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians,'' Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.
Ritzer, G. and Trice, H. (1969), ``An empirical study of Howard Becker's side bet theory'', Social
Forces, June, pp 475-9.
Salancik, G. (1977), ``Commitment and control of organisational and belief'', in Staw, B. and
Salancik, G. (Eds), New Directions in Organisational Behaviour, St Clair Press, Chicago, IL.
Schmitt, N. and Klimoski, R. (1991), Research Methods in Human Resources Management, South-
Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. and Cook, S. (1973), Research Methods in Social Relations, Employee
Methuen and Co., London.
Sisson, K. (1994), Personnel Management, Blackwell, Oxford.
commitment
Staw, B. and Salancik, G. (1977), New Directions in Organisational Behaviour, St Clair Press,
Chicago, IL.
Steers, R. (1977), ``Antecedents and outcomes of organisational commitment'', Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 46-56. 571
Storey, J. (1995), ``Human resource management: still marching on or marching out?'', Human
Resource Management: A Critical Text, Routledge, London.
Tyson, S. (1995), Human Resource Strategy, Pitman, London.
Walton, R. (1985), ``Toward a strategy of eliciting employee commitment based on policies of
mutuality'', in Walton and Lawrence (Eds), HRM Trends and Challenges, Harvard
Business School, Boston, MA.
Wiener, Y. (1982), ``Commitment in organisations: a normative view'', Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 418-28.
Wiener, Y. and Vardi, Y. (1980), ``Relationships between job organisation and career
commitments and work outcomes ± an integrative approach'', Organisational Behaviour
and Human Performance, Vol. 26, pp. 81-96.
Wood, S. (1995), ``Can we speak of high commitment on the shop floor?'', Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 215-47.
Wood, S. (1996), ``High commitment management and unionisation in the UK'', International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-77.
Employee
Relations Abstracts from the wider
22,6 literature
``Employee commitment: academic vs
572 practitioner perspectives''
The following abstracts from the wider literature have been selected for their special relevance to
the preceding article. The abstracts extend the themes and discussions of the main article and act
as a guide to further reading.
Each abstract is awarded 0-3 stars for each of four features:
(1) Depth of research
(2) Value in practice
(3) Originality of thinking
(4) Readability for non-specialists.
The full text of any article may be ordered from the Anbar Library. Contact Debbie Brannan,
Anbar Library, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, UK BD8 9BY. Telephone: (44) 1274 785277; Fax:
(44) 1274 785204; E-mail: dbrannan@mcb.co.uk quoting the reference number shown at the end
of the abstract.

Is continuance commitment beneficial to organizations?

Commitment-performance relationship: a new look
Suliman, A. and Iles, P.
Journal of Managerial Psychology (UK), 2000 Vol. 15 No. 5: p. 407 (20 pages)
Tests the assumed link between employees' organizational commitment and
their job performance, looking at the possibility that certain types of
commitment may have different impacts on performance. Based on the
literature, draws up a model of the relationship between factors within the
work climate (supervisory style, task characteristics and employee motivation,
etc.), the aspects of organizational commitment (split into affective
commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment) which are
seen as mediating variables, and aspects of job performance (quantity of work,
quality of work, work enthusiasm, etc.) Studies the relationships proposed in
the model by surveying 55 full-time junior, middle and senior managers
working in three industrial firms in Jordan (45 employees responding).
Assesses their levels of affective, continuance and normative commitment,
investigating how age, gender, education, organizational tenure and work
status are related to these and their impact on job performance. Finds that the
results confirm the idea that organizational commitment is multi-faceted and
concludes that all three aspects of organizational commitment studied have a
positive impact on job performance.
Survey/Wholly theoretical Employee
Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: ** commitment
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: *********
Reference: 29AT656
Cost: £30 (plus VAT)

The impact of person and organizational values on organizational 573

commitment
Finegan, J.E.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (UK), Jun 2000 Vol. 73
No. 2: p. 149 (21 pages)
Reports the results of a study which examined the degree to which person-
organization fit predicts employee commitment using a measure of fit based on
value congruence. Arguing that a person, whose personal values match the
operating values of the organization, is more likely to be committed to the
organization than an individual whose personal values differ from those of the
organization. Comments on the limitations of previous studies investigating the
relationship between value congruence and commitment (Chatman et al.),
particularly the way in which they measured an organization's value profile
and their failure to appreciate the multidimensional nature of the commitment
concept. Aims to overcome these limitations by using Meyer and Allan's (1991)
commitment scale ± which measures three commitment dimensions, affective
commitment, normative commitment and continuance commitment ± and by
requiring participants to rate items on McDonald and Gandz' (1991) values
taxonomy (adapted from Rokeach's, 1973, list of values), in terms of their own
personal values and in terms of their perceptions of the organization's regard
for these values. Considers the implications of the findings and compares the
methodology of the present study with other measures of work values.
Comparative/evaluation/Theoretical with application in practice
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********
Reference: 29AS017
Cost: £18 (plus VAT)

Four commitment profiles and their relationships to empowerment,

service recovery, and work attitudes
Carson, K.D., Carson, P.P., Roe, C.W., Birkenmeier, B.J. and Phillips, J.S.
Public Personnel Management (USA), Spring 1999 Vol. 28 No. 1: p. 1 (14 pages)
Looks at the relationship between organizational commitment and career
commitment, identifying four groupings according to the strength of these two
types of commitment ± those with high commitment to both career and
organization labelled as being ``dually committed''; those with low commitment
to both career and organization labelled as being ``uncommitted''; those with
high career commitment and low organizational commitment labelled as being
Employee ``careerists''; and those with high organizational commitment and low career
Relations commitment labelled as being ``organizationists''. Develops a number of
22,6 hypotheses concerning these four groupings of employee and their levels of job
satisfaction, intention to quit, career satisfaction, intention to change career,
levels of empowerment, and reactions to supervisors. Tests out the hypotheses
in a survey of US medical librarians and concludes that those employees who
574 were highly committed to both their organization and their career had higher
job and career satisfaction, lower intentions to quit, were more empowered and
regarded their supervisors positively. Concludes that managers should
encourage both organizational and career commitment.
Survey/Theoretical with application in practice
Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: **********
Reference: 28AN785
Cost: £18 (plus VAT)

The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice,

loyalty, and neglect
Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C.
Human Relations (USA), Jul 1999 Vol. 52 No. 7: p. 895 (28 pages)
Develops theoretical explanations for the impact that violations of the
psychological contract will have on employees' intention to leave the firm, to
take up a grievance or complain about the firm, on their feelings of loyalty
towards the firm and on their productivity. Identifies a number of factors which
might moderate these effects, such as the availability of other jobs. Uses a
sample of 804 US managers to test out the hypotheses derived from the
discussion. Finds that psychological contract violations have a pervasive
negative effect on employees' attitudes to the firm, being most strongly
associated with intention to leave and reduced loyalty; less strongly with
lowered productivity and the intention to complain/take up a grievance.
Theoretical with application in practice/Survey
Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: **********
Reference: 28AZ003
Cost: £30 (plus VAT)

Gendered meanings of commitment from high technology

engineering managers in the UK and Sweden
Singh, V. and Vinnicombe, S.
Total Quality Management (UK), Jan 2000 Vol. 7 No. 1: p. 1 (19 pages)
Looks at the reasons why women are often seen as being less committed to
their work than men, using a study of the male-dominated engineering industry
to understand if men and women have a different understanding of the
meaning of commitment at work. Also looks at how organizational culture and Employee
the managerial level achieved by a person affects their views of organizational commitment
commitment. Interviews matched pairs of male and female engineers working
in the Swedish and UK aerospace industries, asking about the meaning they
attach to organizational commitment and inviting them to describe a person
within the company whom they saw as being highly committed to the
organization. Compares these meanings with the views of senior managers on 575
the type of commitment they wanted to see in their employees. Presents a
detailed analysis of the results of these interviews. Concludes that there are
gender differences in the way that men and women perceive commitment, and
that the perceptions of the male employees was more in line with the
perceptions of the senior managers. Also found that managerial level affected
the perception of commitment.
Survey/Theoretical with application in practice
Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: *********
Reference: 29AG292
Cost: £24 (plus VAT)

The managerial drivers of employee satisfaction and loyalty

Eskildsen, J.K. and NuÈssler, M.L.
Gender, Work and Organization (UK), Jul 2000 Vol. 11 No. 4/5&6: p. 581
(8 pages)
Constructs a causal model of human resource (HR) management comprizing
three subsystems (cultural, social, and technical) feeding through to employee
satisfaction, employee loyalty, and corporate performance. Tests the model via
a 76-question survey of Danish HR managers, covering the causal structure of
the model (24 questions), general managerial approach to its subsystems (24),
demographic matters (three), use of staff attitude surveys (two) ± the remaining
questions being subsystem-specific. Analyses 215 returns (32 per cent
response). Displays significant causal paths determined by partial least
squares. Declares the social subsystem has the biggest impact on employee
satisfaction, and the technical subsystem on employee loyalty ± according to
the HR managers' thinking. Declares that firms using employee satisfaction
surveys fare better in employee loyalty and corporate performance. Generates
quality maps of the three subsystems by correlating computed indices with
subsystem questions. Depicts the map for the technical subsystem and
identifies improvement areas within the social. Concludes with six
recommendations to improve employee satisfaction and loyalty.
Survey/Theoretical with application in practice
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********
Reference: 29AR959
Cost: £18 (plus VAT)