Employee commitment to an organizat

Employee commitment to an organization has been defined in a variety of ways includ- ing an altitude or an orientation that links the identity of the person to the organization, a process by which the goals of the organization and those of the individual become congruent, an involvement with a particular organization, the perceived rewards associated with continued participation in an organization, the costs associated with leaving, and normative pressures to act in a way that meets organizational goals (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982), who did much of the original research about organizational commitment, characterized it as a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, a Willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in an organization. The various definitions reflect three broad themes: commitment reflecting an affective orientation toward the organization, recognition of costs associated with leaving the organization, andmoral obligation to remain with an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
An employee’s liking for an organization is termed affective commitment and includes identification with and involvement in the organization. Employees with a strong affec- tive commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to do so (Cohen, 1993). Continuance commitment refers to an aware ness of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain with their employer because they need to do so. Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Others have argued that commitment reflects the Psychological bond that ties the employee to the organization but that the nature of the bond can take three forms,labeled compliance, identification, and internalization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Compliance occurs when attitudes and behaviors are adopted not because of share d beliefs but simply to gain specific rewards. In this case, public and private attitudes may differ. Identification occurs when an individual accepts influence to establish and maintain a relationship; that is, an individual may respect a group’s values without adopting them. On the other hand, internalization occurs when influence is accepted because the included attitudes and beliefs are congruent with one’s own values (Caldwell, Chatman, & O’Reilly, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991).
Clearly, not all of these views are in agreement. For example, some researchers have questioned whether compliance should be viewed as a component of commitment be- cause it is distinct from other common definitions and can be viewed as the antithesis of commitment. That is, compliance has been found to correlate positively with employee turnover (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986), whereas commitment generally re- duces turnover (Mowday et al., 1982). The studies I reviewed from the 1990s suggest there is a growing consensus that commitment is a multidimensional construct that certainly includes an affective dimension and may include components that reflect normative pressures as well as practical considerations such as the costs of leaving an organization and locating another job with similar pay and benefits.