Commitment or entrenchment? Convergent and discriminant validation of affective and continuance dimensions of the three-component model.

Autorde Aguiar Rodrigues, Ana Carolina
  1. Introduction

    When joining an organization, the worker enters a complex environment, consisting of technical and social structures. Even though the organization may be considered a socially constructed system and constantly changing, it can also take on the role of an entity to which the worker relates. This relationship can be volitional, reflecting dedication and responsibility to the organization (Klein, Molloy & Brinsfield, 2012). On the other hand, the worker may also notice that there are advantages in continuing the relationship with the organization and that there would be disadvantages to break it. Permanence, when it occurs, may reflect necessity and can be the result of the investments accumulated in one's experience with the organization, in addition to the evaluation of costs and benefits of staying (Rodrigues & Bastos, 2011b).

    These two forms of bond have always been treated as different types, despite the fact that for a long time they have been considered dimensions of the three-component model (TCM) of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). New studies have suggested that organizational commitment (OC) should be assessed as a one-dimensional construct (Klein, Cooper, Molloy & Swanson, 2014). Other scholars have suggested the demarcation between these two types, for the purpose of assigning them to different conceptual bodies (Klein & Park, 2016, Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005, Solinger, Olffen & Roe, 2008). To support this separation, we argue that the first bond, long known as affective commitment (AC), is the essence of OC, which should be, in turn, considered a one-dimensional construct. We also argue that the second type of bond, called continuance commitment (CC), becomes part of a construct that explains the permanence of the worker through necessity: organizational entrenchment (OE). This bond refers to the set of investments and arrangements made by the individual in the organization that, if not available in other employment alternatives, could force the individual to stay with the organization.

    Rodrigues, Bastos & Moscon (2019) managed to gather theoretical arguments and empirical evidence to support that OE and the CC represent the same psychosocial phenomenon. In a recent handbook organized by Meyer (2016), both possibilities (uni or multi-dimensional commitment) are discussed (Allen, 2016; Klein & Park, 2016), as the research on commitment has been experiencing a transition moment on its conceptualization.

    To gather arguments in defense of this restructuring, it is essential to first investigate the convergence of validated measures of CC and OE, as a way of demonstrating the existence of a single phenomenon that until now has been given two denominations. Second, one should evaluate whether, in fact, this phenomenon sufficiently differs from AC, to the point of being considered a distinct construct. In the present study, we tested the convergent and discriminant validity of these bonds, by comparing models that incorporate some of its main antecedents and outcomes: perception of employability, human resources management practices and behavioral intentions. The discussion about the relationships between such phenomena and the constructs investigated in this paper will be further explored in the section dedicated to formulating the research hypotheses.

    Next, we begin with a brief discussion on conceptual problems with commitment. We present arguments that support the search for empirical evidence toward a greater delineation of OC, with the removal of its continuance basis. We then recover some preliminary evidence of overlap between CC and OE, and present the approach to validity used for the convergence and divergence tests. Finally, we present the variables of the models to be tested and the hypotheses of the study.

    The research contributes to the literature on OC and demonstrates why CC cannot be part of the OC construct. The practical contribution is to allow managers in a more appropriate way to identify the dynamics of employee ties with organizations.

    1.1 Why shouldn't CC be considered part of the commitment construct? Over the years, the expansion of the multidimensionality of commitment contributed to what Osigweh (1989) called "concept stretching": what initially seems a gain in terms of extension results in less precise concepts. Rodrigues & Carvalho-Freitas (2016) also point to overlaps and ambiguities of the commitment concept due to extensions and borrowing processes. To minimize this stretching, Osigweh (1989) proposes that definitions be stated about what the construct is not, thus seeking to arrive at a definition of its boundaries, to a central essence, which has a higher level of abstraction and a wider range of applications.

    We argue that commitment does not include the CC based on three main arguments:

    (1) This component explains the employee's permanence, a criterion that guided the first commitment studies (Rodrigues & Bastos, 2010; Klein, Molloy & Brinsfield, 2012) but that does not consider all the behaviors expected of the committed employee;

    (2) The measures developed to assess the CC still present limits. Studies conducted in various countries consistently reveal lower internal consistency levels (Solinger, Olffen & Roe, 2008, Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). Moreover, since the study by McGee & Ford (1987), the debate remains about the factor structure of the measure, originally composed of two dimensions, "high personal sacrifice" and "low alternatives." Different authors argue that "low alternatives" is an antecedent and not part of OC (Jaros, 1997; Ko, Price & Mueller, 1997);

    (3) Unlike what is observed for the affective and normative bases, the CC does not relate to desirable results. Solinger, Olffen & Roe (2008) gathered evidence that the affective dimension presents more significant relationships with desirable behaviors, such as job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors, and predicts a wider range of positive consequences for the organization and its employees. In contrast, the undesirable results of the continuance dimension, such as absenteeism, neglect and intention to leave, have led some authors (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001, Sethi & King, 1998) to discourage its development.

    Based on these arguments, we formulate some thoughts toward a clearer delineation of the commitment construct: Is it possible that, in a single construct, there are factors that are positively related to the desired variables, and a factor that is negatively related to the same variables? If the CC presents negative relationships with desirable variables and positive ones with undesirable variables, how can its stimulus possibly contribute to greater OC? Is it coherent to treat as commitment a factor that should be avoided?

    It seems that the CC would be relevant only if OC was taken strictly as a predictor of the worker staying in the organization. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) state that, although CC presents a non-existent or even negative correlation with desirable behaviors at work, interest in its development should be encouraged in order to avoid it, in the attempt to increase AC. On the other hand, studies focusing on career indicate a strong correlation between CC and entrenchment. The initial theoretical and empirical evidence broaden the argument that the CC does not comprise commitment, but OE, as we discuss in the next section.

    1.2 Prior evidence of overlap between CC and OE

    Over the past decade, the literature has gathered works that contrasted commitment and entrenchment bonds, initially with a focus on career. Carson, Carson & Bedeian (1995) defined career entrenchment as the tendency to remain in a profession due to investments, the search for psychological preservation and perception of few career alternatives. Blau (2001a, b) noted that entrenchment had a theoretical basis and conceptual framework similar to the continuance dimension of the three-dimensional model of commitment defined by Meyer, Allen & Smith (1993). From this insight, Blau & Holladay (2006), and Blau (2009) conducted studies to examine the overlap between the types of bonds, under the assumption that entrenchment should be considered a dimension for career commitment.

    In the organizational focus, studies of overlap between these two bonds are still preliminary. They started after Rodrigues & Bastos (2012) presented the concept of OE and validated its measure. Rodrigues & Bastos (2011a) defined OE as the tendency of workers to remain in the organization due to three factors: (1) Individual adjustment to social position, which are the investments of the individual and the organization in the adaptive process and in the conditions necessary for proper performance of the activities; (2) Impersonal bureaucratic arrangements, representing stability and financial gains which would be lost if the worker left the organization; (3) Low alternatives: the individual's perception that there are no other opportunities, either through market constraints or through beliefs that his/her professional profile would not be accepted by other organizations.

    The measure of CC has been the subject of discussions related to the relevance of the "low alternatives" dimension, also present on the scale of OE. Regardless of its factor structure, the results indicate high correlations between both constructs (Rodrigues & Bastos, 2011b).

    Figure 1 summarizes the main evidence that OE and CC represent the same phenomenon: (1) both are based on Becker's (1960) theory; (2) they present similar sub-dimensions; (3) they represent an individual's attitude toward a behavior (in this case, to remain in the organization), forming a material bond and staying out of necessity; (4) both show positive correlations between them (Carson, Carson & Bedeian, 1995; Blau, 2001a) and negative correlations with variables such as performance (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran...

Para continuar a ler

PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT