Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes

Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 47–71

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Affective commitment to theorganization, supervisor, and workgroup: Antecedents and outcomes

Christian Vandenberghe,* Kathleen Bentein,and Florence Stinglhamber

Psychology Department, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Place Cardinal Mercier 10,

Louvain-la-Neuve B-1348, Belgium

Received 10 May 2002

Abstract

Three longitudinal studies investigated the usefulness of distinguishing among employees�affective commitments to the organization, the supervisor, and the work group. Study 1, with

199 employees from various organizations, found that affective commitments to these entities

were factorially distinct and related differentially to their theorized antecedents. Study 2, with

a diversified sample of 316 employees, showed that organizational commitment (a) had an

indirect effect on turnover through intent to quit, (b) partially mediated the effect of commit-

ment to the supervisor on intent to quit, and (c) completely mediated the effect of commitment

to the work group on intent to quit. Study 3, with matched data collected from 194 nurses and

their immediate supervisors, determined that (a) commitment to the supervisor had a direct

effect on job performance and (b) organizational commitment had an indirect effect on job

performance through commitment to the supervisor. However, Study 3 failed to show any

effect of commitment to the work group on performance. These findings are interpreted in

light of the relative salience of commitment foci with regard to the outcome under study.

� 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multiple commitment; Intent to quit; Turnover; Job performance

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Vandenberghe).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00029-0

mail to: [email protected]

48 C. Vandenberghe et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 47–71

1. Introduction

Recent research has emphasized the value of distinguishing among multiple foci of

employee commitment in the workplace (Becker, 1992; Becker & Billings, 1993; Bec-

ker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000; Greger-sen, 1993; Siders, George, & Dharwadkar, 2001). Commitment foci represent those

individuals, groups, or entities to which an employee is attached. Research has shown

that just as employees develop affective attachments to the global organization, they

may feel committed to their supervisor (Becker, 1992; Becker & Billings, 1993; Becker

et al., 1996; Clugston et al., 2000; Siders et al., 2001) and to their work group or team

(Bishop & Scott, 2000; Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000; Ellemers, de Gilder, & van

den Heuvel, 1998; Lawler, 1992; Yoon, Baker, & Ko, 1994; Zaccaro & Dobbins,

1989). Whatever the foci of interest, affective commitment to a given entity may bebroadly defined as an attachment characterized by an identification to and involve-

ment in the target entity (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).

Researchers have begun to examine the incremental value of the multiple foci per-

spective on commitment in influencing work outcomes (e.g., Becker, 1992; Becker

et al., 1996; Bishop et al., 2000; Siders et al., 2001). Meyer and Herscovitch (2001)

went a step further and developed a general model of workplace commitment in

which commitment is defined as a mind set that binds an individual to a course of

action that is of relevance to a particular target. Along this line, Herscovitch andMeyer (2002) found that commitment directed to a specific target was a better pre-

dictor of behavior relevant to that target than was the more general organizational

commitment. Actually, they found commitment to an organizational change to be a

stronger predictor of behavioral support to the change than was organizational com-

mitment. The specific behavior one wants to predict also determines the level of anal-

ysis of relevance to the relationship between commitment and the outcome. For

example, if one chooses to examine commitment to the supervisor, outcomes that

are relevant to that entity will be more easily explained. This issue is a question ofboth proximality or salience of behavior (Lewin, 1943) and matched levels of analysis

in the commitment–behavior relationship. The present research examined this issue.

We recognize that employee behavior reflects multiple commitments that are not

totally independent, and may have either direct or indirect effects. Based on their rel-

evance to organizations, three commitment foci were addressed in the present re-

search: the global organization, the supervisor, and the work group. We examined

whether affective commitments to these specific foci could be distinguished from

one another and whether they related differentially to theorized antecedent variables(Study 1). The validity of these measures was further examined by determining how

the commitments influenced major work outcomes such as intent to quit and turn-

over (Study 2) and job performance (Study 3). All three studies were longitudinal.

The specific contribution of this research was thus to propose a thorough exam-

ination of the validity of measures of affective commitments to the organization, the

supervisor, and the work group, and to assess (a) their unique relationships with

presumed antecedents and (b) their specific role in the withdrawal process and the

generation of job performance.

C. Vandenberghe et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 47–71 49

2. Study 1: Development of measures and relationships with antecedents

A prerequisite to construct validity is the ability of measures to capture differen-

tially what they are supposed to tap (Hinkin, 1995). Several arguments plead for the

distinctiveness of affective commitments to the organization, the supervisor, and thework group. First, employees have been shown to engage in separate exchange

relationships with their organization and with their supervisor (Aryee, Budhwar,

& Chen, 2002; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997), sug-

gesting that they may feel differentially committed to these two foci. In a similar vein,

Lawler�s (1992) choice-process theory states that employees develop separate com-

mitments to the ‘‘distal’’ organization and to the more ‘‘proximate’’ work group

because they attribute to these foci a different ability to generate positive emotions.

Third, because the formal status of the work group (co-workers) and of the supervi-sor is likely to be different (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, &

Rhoades, 2002), commitments to these foci should differ as well. Finally, on empir-

ical grounds, there is some evidence that measures of affective commitment to the

organization, the supervisor, and the work group are distinguishable (Becker,

1992; Clugston et al., 2000). We thus hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1a: Affective commitments to the organization, the supervisor, and the

work group are factorially distinct.

An important antecedent of affective commitment to the organization should beperceived organizational support (POS). POS reflects the global beliefs employees

develop concerning the extent to which their organization values their contribution

and cares about them (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). POS

should lead to stronger affective organizational commitment because organizational

support theory suggests that, by virtue of the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960), em-

ployees who feel supported by their organization will attempt to repay their debt

through affective commitment (Settoon et al., 1996). Although this relationship

has been documented in previous research (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch,& Rhoades, 2001; Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne et al., 1997), it has never been dem-

onstrated that POS specifically and uniquely contributes to affective commitment

to the organization and does not simultaneously reinforce affective commitment to

the supervisor and to the work group. Because POS and affective organizational

commitment involve an exchange relationship with the organization, POS should

not contribute to commitment to the other two foci.

Hypothesis 1b: POS relates uniquely and positively to affective organizational

commitment.Social exchange interpretations of employee–organization relationships have also

been used to explain the exchange processes involving employees and their supervi-

sor. For example, when compared with POS, the quality of leader–member ex-

changes (LMX) has been found to be uniquely related to such favorable outcomes

as in-role performance and citizenship behavior (Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne

et al., 1997). Relatedly, Gerstner and Day (1997) reported the corrected meta-ana-

lytic correlation between LMX and satisfaction with the supervisor to be stronger

than the corresponding correlation between LMX and organizational commitment


(r ¼ :71 vs. r ¼ :42). The latter suggest that LMX should be primarily related to em-

ployee attitudinal outcomes that specifically benefit the supervisor. In other words,

LMX should be uniquely related to affective commitment to the supervisor, but

not to affective commitment to the organization and to the work group.

Hypothesis 1c: LMX relates uniquely and positively to affective commitment tothe supervisor.

Research on self-directed teams has shown that perceived team support and sat-

isfaction with co-workers related more strongly to team commitment than to orga-

nizational commitment (Bishop & Scott, 2000; Bishop et al., 2000), while the

strength of the relationship involving perceived task interdependence did not differ

across these outcomes (Bishop & Scott, 2000). The latter finding may be explained

by the fact that the responsibility for creating interdependence among tasks within

teams is partly shared by the organization and the work group. Although the gener-alizability of the above findings to more traditional work groups remains uncertain,

these results suggest anyway that variables that are specifically linked to the group

interpersonal dynamics may be critical to predict attachment to the group. In this

regard, Wech, Mossholder, Steel, and Bennett (1998), using a cross-level design, re-

ported perceived group cohesiveness to significantly contribute to organizational

commitment. Should they have added affective commitment to the work group as

a dependent variable, one could reasonably hypothesize that group cohesiveness

would have been more strongly correlated with it than with organizational commit-ment. As group cohesiveness reflects the quality of work-related interactions within

the group (Hackman, 1992), employees� affective commitment to the work group

should be one of its primary consequences (Heffner & Rentsch, 2001).

Hypothesis 1d: Perceived work group cohesiveness relates uniquely and positively

to affective commitment to the work group.

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Sample and procedure

A random sample of 710 French-speaking Alumni who graduated from a Belgian

university between 1990 and 1999 was selected for this study. Measures were taken at

two points in time, separated by a 6-month interval. First, prospective participants

received a survey questionnaire including measures of POS, LMX, and work group

cohesiveness. Six months later, those who responded at Time 1 received a second

questionnaire comprising the commitment measures. Questionnaire packets, sent

to the subjects� private address, contained a cover letter explaining the purpose ofthe study and providing assurances of confidentiality, the survey, and a postage-paid

return envelope. Two weeks after survey delivery, we mailed follow-up letters to non-

responders stressing the value of the survey and the importance of their participa-

tion. Questionnaires were coded so as to allow researchers to match responses at

the two measurement occasions.

Out of the 710 prospective participants, 301 provided usable returns (42.4%) at

Time 1, of which 212 (70.4%) also responded at Time 2, for an overall response rate

of 29.8%. Excluding the incomplete questionnaires, 199 responses were usable for


conducting the analyses. This final sample of subjects averaged 30.7 years ðSD ¼ 5:0Þin age and had been employed by their organization for an average period of 4.0

years ðSD ¼ 3:7Þ at Time 1. Among participants, 56.0% were male. Respondents

worked in industries (13.5%), banking and insurance (14.5%), consulting (8.8%),

computer science (9.8%), teaching (4.1%), construction (.5%), public administration(18.7%), transportation and communication (2.1%), trade (3.1%), environmental

agencies (1.6%), leisure and sports (3.6%), media and advertising (5.2%), research

(6.2%), or were unclassified (8.3%).

2.1.2. Measures

Because the study was conducted in a French-speaking environment, all measures

previously developed in English (POS, LMX, group cohesiveness, and organiza-

tional commitment) were translated into French using a standard translation-back-translation procedure (cf. Brislin, 1980). Minor discrepancies among original

and back-translated versions were observed and were solved by a short discussion

among translators.

POS. We used the shortened 8-item version of POS developed by Eisenberger,

Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997) to assess employees� perception that the orga-

nization valued their contribution and cared about their well-being. A typical item is

�My organization really cares about my well-being.� Previous research has reported

good reliability for this scale (Cronbach�s a ¼ :90 in Eisenberger et al., 1997).LMX. We used the multidimensional LMX scale developed by Liden and Maslyn

(1998). This scale captures four dimensions of LMX: (a) affect, defined as ‘‘the mu-

tual affection members of the dyad have for each other’’ (3 items; e.g., �My supervisor

is a lot of fun to work with�), (b) loyalty, defined as the ‘‘expression of public sup-

port’’ from the superior to the employee (3 items; e.g., �My supervisor would come

to my defense if I were ‘‘attacked’’ by others�), (c) contribution, referring to the per-

ceived work-related efforts put forth by the employee toward the goals of the dyad

(2 items; e.g., �I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified inmy job description�), and (d) professional respect, defined as the perceived reputation

and excellence of the superior (3 items; e.g., �I respect my supervisor�s knowledge ofhis/her job�) (Liden & Maslyn, 1998, p. 50). Liden and Maslyn (1998) reported reli-

abilities of .90, .78, .59, and .89 for the affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional

respect sub-scales, respectively. In this study, the 4-factor model of LMX yielded a

good fit to the data, v2ð38Þ ¼ 58:54, p < :05, GFI¼ .96, AGFI ¼ .94, TLI¼ .99,

and CFI¼ .99.

Perceived work group cohesiveness. The 6-item scale developed by Wech et al.(1998) was used to measure the extent to which members have positive attitudes to-

ward each other as well as spirit of teamwork among co-workers. A typical item is

�Members of my work group take a personal interest in one another.� Wech et al.

(1998) reported an a coefficient of .81 for this scale.

Commitment. For measuring commitment to the organization, we relied on a

revised version of Meyer, Allen, and Smith�s (1993) affective commitment scale that

was elaborated for international replication (Meyer, Barak, & Vandenberghe, 1996).

This scale has shown a reasonable reliability of .82 in previous work conducted in


French-speaking environments (Vandenberghe, Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Delhaise,

2001). For measuring commitment to the supervisor (6 items) and to the work group

(6 items), we adapted somewhat the organizational commitment items, based on

their suitability to these targets as evaluated by 20 interviewees from various occu-

pations and organizations. Commitment to the supervisor items addressed the feel-ing of pride in working with, and appreciation of, the supervisor, while commitment

to the work group items captured the feeling of belongingness and emotional attach-

ment to the work group.

For all variables, a 5-point Likert-type scale was used for measuring respondents�level of agreement with each statement (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree).

2.2. Results and discussion

2.2.1. Confirmatory factor analysis

We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses using the LISREL 8.3

package (J€ooreskog & S€oorbom, 1993) to determine the distinctiveness of affective

commitments across foci. We tested, successively, a null model in which all items

were constrained to independence, a 1-factor model, three alternative 2-factor mod-

els in which commitment foci were combined on a two-by-two basis, and the hypo-

thesized 3-factor model. As some items were identical across commitment foci, with

only the referent target being changed, the error terms for these items were likely tobe correlated. Hence, we allowed the estimated error terms of these items to freely

covary (Clugston et al., 2000; Markel & Frone, 1998; Mueller & Lawler, 1999).

To examine which model was the best fit to the data, we used v2 difference tests

for comparing lower factor models with the next higher factor model in which they

were nested (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980).

Table 1 shows the results of these analyses. As can be seen, fit improves signifi-

cantly along the sequence of models as one moves from the null to the 3-factor mod-

el. Of major interest, the 3-factor model displays significant improvement over thebest lower factor model (a 2-factor model), Dv2ð2Þ ¼ 225:51, p < :001. Although

the absolute GFI, AGFI, and TLI values for the 3-factor model are below the con-

ventional standard of .90, the value for the CFI which is particularly suited for the

comparison of theoretical models (Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994) reaches the

.90 criterion. A check at the modification indices provided in the LISREL output for

this model also indicated that only 3 items had significant expected cross-loadings on

non-hypothesized factors. Moreover, these cross-loadings were far less sizeable than

their corresponding loadings [differences between loadings and expected cross-load-ings were .53 (item 3), .65 (item 10), and .49 (item 14)]. Thus, the 3-factor model was

the best fit to the data, lending support to Hypothesis 1a. The item loadings for the

3-factor model appear in Table 2.

2.2.2. Relationships with antecedents

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables appear in Table 3. Re-

liability coefficients were reasonably high for all variables. Of greatest interest, among

hypothesized antecedent variables, the strongest correlation with organizational

Table 2

Study 1: Confirmatory factor analytic item loadings

Item AC-ORG AC-SUP AC-GR

1. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me .87

2. I really feel a sense of ‘‘belonging’’ to my organization .83

3. I am proud to belong to this organization .74

4. I do not feel emotionally attached to my organization (R) .61

5. I really feel as if my organization�s problems are my own .58

6. I do not feel like ‘‘part of the family’’ at my organization (R) .56

7. I feel a sense of respect for my supervisor .89

8. I appreciate my supervisor .89

9. I feel proud to work with my supervisor .88

10. My supervisor means a lot to me .86

11. I am not really attached to my supervisor (R) .83

12. I feel little admiration for my supervisor (R) .73

13. I really feel a sense of ‘‘belonging’’ to my work group .89

14. I feel proud to be a member of my work group .79

15. My work group means a lot to me .74

16. I do not feel emotionally attached to my work group (R) .64

17. I do not feel like ‘‘part of the family’’ in my work group (R) .60

18. I do not feel a strong sense of ‘‘belonging’’ to my work group (R) .59

Note. N ¼ 199. (R), reverse scored. All loadings are standardized.

Table 1

Study 1: Confirmatory factor analysis fit indices for affective commitment models

Model v2ðdf Þ GFI AGFI TLI CFI Model

comparison

Dv2 ðDdf Þ

1. Three-factor 363.53� (126) .82 .76 .87 .90 1 vs. 3 225.51� (2)

2. Two-factor

(AC-ORG and

AC-SUP¼ 1 factor)

775.53� (128) .64 .51 .66 .72 2 vs. 5 402.19� (1)

3. Two-factor

(AC-ORG and

AC-GR¼ 1 factor)

589.04� (128) .72 .63 .76 .80 3 vs. 5 588.68� (1)

4. Two-factor

(AC-SUP and

AC-GR¼ 1 factor)

829.69� (128) .60 .47 .63 .69 4 vs. 5 348.03� (1)

5. One-factor 1177.72� (129) .51 .35 .45 .54 5 vs. 6 1247.65� (24)

6. Null 2425.37� (153) .29 .20 — — — —

Note. N ¼ 199. AC-ORG, affective organizational commitment; AC-SUP, affective commitment to the

supervisor; and AC-GR, affective commitment to the work group. GFI, goodness-of-fit index; AGFI,

adjusted goodness-of-fit index; TLI, Tucker and Lewis index; and CFI, comparative fit index.* p < :001.


commitment involved POS, the strongest correlation with commitment to the super-

visor involved two LMX dimensions, affect and professional respect, while commit-

ment to the work group was most strongly associated with perceived work group

cohesiveness.

Table 3

Study 1: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. AC-ORG 3.21 .86 .84

2. AC-SUP 3.18 1.09 .38�� .94

3. AC-GR 3.34 .87 .41�� .25�� .86

4. Perceived organizational

support

2.72 .85 .40�� .30�� .22�� .90

5. LMX: affect 3.18 1.19 .35�� .70�� .16� .35�� .93

6. LMX: loyalty 3.35 1.12 .36�� .46�� .12 .26�� .61�� .93

7. LMX: contribution 3.49 .94 .19�� .17� .12 .24�� .21�� .35�� .69

8. LMX: professional

respect

3.21 1.20 .29�� .61�� .07 .28�� .67�� .54�� .17� .95

9. Perceived work group

cohesiveness

3.47 .89 .16� .27�� .41�� .29�� .35�� .36�� .19�� .29�� .89

Note. a coefficients are reported on the diagonal. LMX, leader–member exchange.* p < :05.** p < :01.


These linkages were further examined by regressing hypothesized antecedents on

commitment variables. As can be seen from Table 4, POS was the single significant

predictor of affective organizational commitment, providing support to Hypothesis

1b. Similarly, only LMX was significantly associated with affective commitment to

the supervisor, though its effect was attributable solely to the affect and professional

respect dimensions. Hypothesis 1c was thus supported. Finally, work group cohe-

siveness was the unique predictor associated with affective commitment to the work

group, lending support to Hypothesis 1d.Overall, these results indicate that the proposed antecedents of commitment vari-

ables relate differentially and in the expected direction with their attitudinal out-

comes, hence further substantiating the results obtained from the confirmatory

factor analysis of commitment scales.

Table 4

Study 1: Regression analysis for affective commitment variables

Variable AC-ORG AC-SUP AC-GR

Perceived organizational support .35� .07 .13

LMX: affect .03 .49� .11

LMX: loyalty .04 .04 ).06LMX: contribution .08 .01 .03

LMX: professional respect .09 .26� ).13Perceived work group cohesiveness ).01 ).04 .37�

Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients. For AC-ORG, F ð6; 193Þ ¼ 7:26�; for AC-SUP,

F ð6; 193Þ ¼ 36:00�; and for AC-GR, F ð6; 190Þ ¼ 6:84�.* p < :001.


3. Study 2: Relationships with intent to quit and turnover

Field theory (Lewin, 1943) asserts that individuals� behavior is primarily influ-

enced by those elements from the environment which are perceived as being proxi-

mal and salient (Mathieu, 1991; Mathieu & Hamel, 1989). Along this line, it islikely that the notion of salience is determined by the type of behavior one is willing

to predict. For example, the organization focus may be viewed by an employee as

salient when it comes to predict turnover behavior. This is because turnover is the

kind of behavior for which cognitive deliberations about the viability of one�s mem-

bership in the organization are activated (Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griff-

eth, 1992). In order to decide to pursue or to stop organizational membership, the

employee will primarily evaluate the current status of his/her relationship with the

organization, hence his/her level of commitment to the organization. In contrast,it is likely that the nature of relationships with, and level of commitment to, other

foci (e.g., supervisors or work groups) will be less relevant for predicting turnover.

The match among entities for determining the strength of the commitment–behavior

relationship is thus critical. We suggest that the old conception of Lewin�s (1943)

proximality/salience of behavior corresponds to what current scholars more com-

monly consider to be a levels-of-analysis issue. Indeed, as shown by Meyer and Hers-

covitch (2001), if the level captured by the commitment construct does not fit the

level which is tapped by the behavior, the strength of the relationship is likely tobe diminished.

Consistent with this point of view, organizational commitment has been repeat-

edly reported to relate negatively to intended and actual turnover (Mathieu & Zajac,

1990; Tett & Meyer, 1993). As evidenced by the turnover literature, its influence on

turnover behavior is largely mediated by turnover intentions (Hom et al., 1992; Hom

& Griffeth, 1991; Price & Mueller, 1986; Sager, Griffeth, & Hom, 1998; Tett &

Meyer, 1993). Conversely, and as mentioned above, due to the fact that supervisors

and work groups address a different level of analysis, we do not expect commitmentto the supervisor and to the work group to be as influential on the employee with-

drawal process from the organization. We thus posit the following:

Hypothesis 2a: Affective organizational commitment has a significant indirect ef-

fect on actual turnover through intent to quit.

The tenets of field theory (Lewin, 1943) suggest that the elements from the envi-

ronment that are not salient and proximal to the individual�s action will not affect

his/her behavior directly (Mathieu, 1991). As far as organizational turnover is con-

cerned, such foci as the supervisor and the work group may not be so psychologicallysalient as the organization because it remains possible to maintain membership in the

organization when commitment to these foci is low. For example, in case of low

commitment, the employee may wish to change supervisors or work groups, or avoid

being too much in contact with these target entities (Eisenberger et al., 2002;

Malatesta, 1995). Support for this contention can be found in several studies. First,

re-analyzing Becker�s (1992) data, Hunt and Morgan (1994) found support for a

key-mediating construct model in which commitment to constituencies that are

‘‘cognitively distant’’ from the organization, such as the supervisor, the work group,


and top management, exerted its influence on work behavior through organizational

commitment. As Hunt and Morgan (1994) noted, their findings may be due to the

fact that the outcomes of interest were mainly directed toward the organization

(e.g., intent to quit and organizational citizenship behavior). That is, these outcomes

referred to a level to whom organizational commitment is naturally tied. Similarly,Wayne et al. (1997) found organizational commitment to be more strongly related to

intentions to quit than LMX, a variable thought to lead to affective commitment

to the supervisor. Finally, Bishop et al. (2000) reported organizational commitment

to be more strongly linked with intended turnover than team commitment. All these

arguments suggest that commitments to the supervisor and to the work group may

(a) have less direct influence on turnover than organizational commitment and (b)

mainly exert their effect indirectly, through commitment to the global organization.

This leads us to hypothesize that:Hypothesis 2b: Affective commitment to the supervisor and to the work group

has a significant indirect effect on intent to quit through affective organizational

commitment.

3.1. Method


A random sample of 704 Alumni from a Belgian university who graduated be-tween 1990 and 1996 was selected. Note that this sample was independent from

the sample used in Study 1. As part of a larger survey, respondents received a ques-

tionnaire including, among others, the three-foci commitment and intent to quit

measures. Questionnaires were sent directly to the subjects� private addresses. A cov-

er letter accompanying the questionnaire explained the objective of the study, as-

sured that responses would be confidential, and asked participants to send back

their completed questionnaire to the researchers� office using a pre-stamped enve-

lope. This letter also mentioned that questionnaires were coded so as to allow re-searchers to send a reminder memo to non respondents after a 2-week period, and

to track respondents� organizational membership status after 18 months. In total,

408 subjects responded to the survey. Excluding the incomplete questionnaires,

397 responses were usable for conducting the analyses (a 56.4% response rate).

Among respondents, 353 could be contacted 18 months later to determine if they

voluntarily left their organization during that time lag. Because we were interested in

voluntary turnover, we excluded from the analysis 37 respondents who were laid off,

leaving a final sample of 316 employees. As respondents were asked to report thename of their organization, we were able to contact their employer in order to verify

the accuracy of their membership reports. We did so for a random subset of 50 em-

ployees. No discrepancy was detected between employees� reports of their member-

ship and reason of turnover (voluntary vs. involuntary) if any, and the

corresponding employers� views.The final sample of respondents had an average age of 29.5 years ðSD ¼ 4:6Þ and

an average organizational tenure of 3.5 years ðSD ¼ 4:3Þ at Time 1. Among partic-

ipants, 67.4% were male and 92.0% were employed full-time. Respondents worked in


banking and insurance (16.7%), industries (13.1%), research (11.2%), consulting

(8.7%), public administration (8.3%), computer science (7.4%), public health

(6.7%), transportation and communication (3.8%), law (2.9%), environmental agen-

cies (2.6%), advertising (1.9%), construction (1.6%), trade (1.3%), teaching (1.0%),

media and real-estate (.6%), leisure and sports (.3%), or were unclassified (11.9%).

3.1.2. Measures

Commitment. Affective commitment to the organization, the supervisor, and the

work group was measured using the same scales as in Study 1.

Intent to quit. We measured intent to quit with two items: ‘‘I often think about

quitting this organization’’ and ‘‘I intend to search for a position with another em-

ployer within the next year.’’ These items were adapted from Hom and Griffeth

(1991) and Jaros (1997), respectively.Turnover. Stayers were rated as 1 while voluntary leavers were rated as 2. The

turnover rate in the sample was 20.0%.


Data were analyzed using the structural equations modeling approach using the

LISREL 8.3 package (J€ooreskog & S€oorbom, 1993). The dichotomous nature of the

turnover variable violated a key assumption of standard structural equation model-ing procedures which presume interval-level scaling of variables. To circumvent this

statistical problem, we followed Bollen�s (1989) recommendations and used, as input

for model estimation, a matrix of polychoric correlations and its associated asymp-

totic covariance matrix in place of the traditional covariance matrix of observed vari-

ables, and analyzed the data by the weighted-least-squares method of estimation.

A similar approach for correcting data for noninterval scaling has been used in prior

turnover research (Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; Sager et al., 1998).

Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics and the correlations among latent vari-ables in the confirmatory factor analytic model. As can be seen, intent to quit was

more strongly associated with affective organizational commitment than with com-

mitments to the supervisor (r ¼ �:71 vs. ).56, t½313� ¼ �4:11, p < :01) and to the

work group (r ¼ �:71 vs. ).55, t½313� ¼ �7:66, p < :01). Likewise, turnover was

Table 5

Study 2: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among latent variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. AC-ORG 3.18 .90 .89

2. AC-SUP 3.41 .90 .57� .88

3. AC-GR 3.37 .81 .72� .63� .83

4. Intent to quit 2.40 1.19 ).71� ).56� ).55� .82

5. Turnover 1.20 .40 ).15� ).06 ).23� .47� —

Note. N ¼ 316. a coefficients are reported on the diagonal. For Turnover, stayers were coded as 1 and

leavers as 2. All intercorrelations are estimated by LISREL.* p < :001.


more strongly tied to intent to quit than to commitment to the organization (r ¼ :47vs. ).15, t½313� ¼ 6:47, p < :01), to the supervisor (r ¼ :47 vs. ).06, t½313� ¼ 5:81,p < :01), and to the work group (r ¼ :47 vs. ).23, t½313� ¼ 7:79, p < :01).

Fit indices for structural models are presented in Table 6. The Hypothesized mod-

el, which proposes organizational commitment to be indirectly related to turnovervia intent to quit (Hypothesis 2a) and commitments to the supervisor and to the

work group to influence intent to quit through organizational commitment (Hypoth-

esis 2b), yielded a good fit to the data, as evidenced by its sizeable GFI, AGFI, TLI,

and CFI values. Although not hypothesized in this study, significant bivariate rela-

tionships between commitments to the supervisor and to the work group and intent

to quit have been reported in previous research (Becker et al., 1996), leaving the pos-

sibility that these attitudes could also have direct effects on intent to quit. In order to

test these plausible connections, we estimated two models in which the paths fromthese constructs to intent to quit were alternatively freed (cf. Table 6). Alternate

model 1, which added a direct effect of commitment to the supervisor on intent to

quit, was a significant improvement over the Hypothesized model, Dv2ð1Þ ¼ 58:80,p < :001, indicating that this effect was not trivial. In contrast, Alternate model 2,

which added a path from commitment to the work group on intent to quit, did

not differ significantly from the Hypothesized model, Dv2ð1Þ ¼ 2:73, ns, signalingthat the path of interest was not significant. Finally, in order to test whether the path

from organizational commitment to intent to quit was of the same magnitude thanthe path from commitment to the supervisor to intent to quit, we estimated a model

in which these paths were constrained to equality (Alternate 3, cf. Table 6). Contrast-

ing this model with the Alternate model 1 resulted in a significant decrease in fit,

Dv2ð1Þ ¼ 19:20, p < :001, revealing that the paths in question were not equal.

The standardized weighted-least-squares estimates of the structural parameters

for the retained Alternate model 1 are reported in Fig. 1. As can be seen, affective

commitment to the supervisor (b ¼ :12, p < :001) and to the work group (b ¼ :68,p < :001) were significantly related to organizational commitment which in turn in-fluenced intent to quit (b ¼ �:57, p < :001), with the latter being significantly asso-

ciated with turnover (b ¼ :38, p < :001). Although not hypothesized, commitment to

Table 6

Study 2: Fit indices for structural models

Model v2 ðdf Þ GFI AGFI TLI CFI Model Comparison Dv2 ðDdf Þ

Hypothesized 987.34� (176) .97 .96 .96 .97 – –

Alternate 1 928.54� (175) .97 .96 .96 .97 Hypothesized vs.

Alternate 1

58.80� (1)


Alternate 2

2.73 (1)

Alternate 3 947.74� (176) .97 .96 .96 .97 Alternate 1 vs.

Alternate 3

19.20� (1)

Note. N ¼ 316. GFI, goodness-of-fit index; AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index; TLI, Tucker and

Lewis index; and CFI, comparative fit index.* p < :001.

Fig. 1. Study 2: Standardized path coefficients for Alternate model 1. For the sake of parsimony, param-

eters for the measurement portion and disturbance terms are not presented. *p < :001.


the supervisor had also a significant direct effect on intent to quit (b ¼ �:26,p < :001).

The estimation of direct effects was supplemented by the calculation of the indi-

rects effects predicted by Hypotheses 2a and 2b. We used the technique recommended

by Sobel (1982, 1986) to estimate the indirect effects of organizational commitmenton turnover (Hypothesis 2a) and of commitment to the supervisor and to the work

group on intent to quit (Hypothesis 2b). The indirect effect of organizational commit-

ment on turnover was ).25 ðSE ¼ :03Þ, and its 95% confidence interval ().19/).31)did not contain zero. This indicates that the effect was significant, which supports Hy-

pothesis 2a. Similarly, the indirect effect of commitment to the supervisor on intent to

quit was ).09 ðSE ¼ :02Þ and its 95% confidence interval ().05/).13) did not contain

zero. Finally, the indirect effect of commitment to the work group on intent to

quit was ).42 ðSE ¼ :03Þ and its 95% confidence interval ().36/).48) did not containzero. The latter results lended support to Hypothesis 2b. Worth of noting also is that

the three commitment variables exerted a significant indirect effect on turnover [).16ðSE ¼ :02Þ for commitment to the supervisor, ).17 ðSE ¼ :02Þ for commitment to the

work group, and ).25 ðSE ¼ :03Þ for commitment to the organization].

In brief, the results of this study demonstrated that (a) affective organizational

commitment exerted the strongest direct effect on intent to quit, (b) affective commit-

ment to the supervisor had both a direct and indirect effect on intent to quit, and that

(c) affective commitment to the work group exerted an indirect effect on quitting in-tentions. The fact that the impact of organizational commitment was stronger than

that of commitment to the supervisor suggests that the organization was psycholog-

ically more relevant in the eyes of employees when they were to generate their mem-

bership decisions.

4. Study 3: Relationships with job performance

Prior research regarding the ability of organizational commitment to predict

job performance has provided mixed results (Cohen, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac,


1990; Randall, 1990). In his quantitative review of the relevant literature, Riketta

(2002) reported a true correlation of .20 between attitudinal organizational commit-

ment and performance. He also found that the way commitment was measured (via

the ACS or the OCQ) did not influence the strength of the relationship. Thus, the

reasons for such a weak relationship must be searched elsewhere than in differencesin conceptualization and/or measurement of commitment. Among these, the nature

of performance as well as the foci of commitment seem to be important ones. As far

as in-role activities are concerned, it seems that organizational commitment is not

strongly related to performance (Becker & Kernan, 2001; Bishop et al., 2000; Elle-

mers et al., 1998; Keller, 1997; Settoon et al., 1996). In contrast, when organizational

citizenship behavior is used as criterion, organizational commitment appears to have

a more powerful influence (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Riketta, 2002). This differential re-

lationship may be due to the fact that the performance of in-role activities is moredependent on regular interactions with, and feedback from, proximal entities such

as the work group and supervisor (Becker et al., 1996), these foci being psycholog-

ically more salient and relevant than the distal organization for such purposes. In

contrast, organizational citizenship behavior is concerned with behavior that benefits

the organization as a whole, hence renders the organization a more salient entity to

employees.

As supervisors have the formal responsibility to monitor, direct, and provide feed-

back to, employees in the performance of their in-role duties (Eisenberger et al.,2002), supervisors facilitate the acceptance of performance norms by employees

(Becker et al., 1996; Siders et al., 2001). Due to these interactions, the supervisor

should represent the most salient commitment focus when prediction of job perfor-

mance is at stake. Support for this contention has been provided by Becker et al.

(1996) and Becker and Kernan (2001) who found that commitment to the supervisor

was more strongly associated with performance than was overall commitment to the

organization. Similarly, in traditional work settings, commitment to the work group

may also be less important than commitment to the supervisor for predicting jobperformance. This is because co-workers are not formally in charge of monitoring,

guiding, and rewarding employee performance. Note that this may not be the case

in self-directed work teams, in which the completion of tasks and responsibility

for end products are collectively shared by the team (Bishop & Scott, 2000; Bishop

et al., 2000). To summarize, the supervisor should be a more salient and relevant

commitment focus than the organization and the work group when job performance

is the outcome of interest.

Hypothesis 3a: Affective commitment to the supervisor has a significant directeffect on job performance.

The role of affective commitments to the organization and to the work group in

the prediction of job performance should be indirect. Indeed, they may act on per-

formance through commitment to the supervisor, the latter representing the person

who is formally responsible for driving employees in performing competently on the

job. The organization is a more distant entity in this case because it provides the

more general rules and strategic orientation within which the actions of individual

employees should take place. Similarly, the work group is psychologically less salient


because co-workers may only provide informal aid in the performance of duties.

However, we could expect affective commitment to the organization to be more

strongly related to commitment to the supervisor than commitment to the work

group would be, because supervisors are representatives of the organization toward

employees (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Eisenberger et al., 1986)while co-workers do not possess such formal status and prestige (Eisenberger et al.,

2002). Consequently, the indirect effect of organizational commitment on job perfor-

mance should be stronger than the corresponding indirect effect of commitment to

the work group.

Hypothesis 3b: Affective commitments to the organization and to the work

group have a significant indirect effect on job performance via commitment to

the supervisor.

Hypothesis 3c: The indirect effect of affective commitment to the organization onjob performance is stronger than the corresponding indirect effect of commitment to

the work group.

4.1. Method


We obtained the formal agreement of the nursing director of a Belgian hospital to

conduct an attitude survey among its nursing staff. As part of a larger study, allnurses received a questionnaire including the measures of affective commitment to

the organization, to the supervisor and to the work group. A cover letter accompa-

nying the questionnaire explained the objective of the study, assured that responses

would be kept confidential, and asked participants to return their completed

questionnaire to the researchers� office using a pre-stamped envelope. The letter also

mentioned that questionnaires were coded in order to match responses with supervi-

sor-rated performance appraisals. Nurses voluntarily completed the survey during

their regularly scheduled work hours.Of the 530 nurses who were contacted, 278 returned their questionnaire to the

researchers, with 270 of them providing usable returns, for a 50.9% response rate.

Six months later, head nurses were contacted to provide performance ratings for

their ward nurses on a 4-item scale designed by the researchers. Due to missing

data on commitment measures ðN ¼ 19Þ and performance ratings (2 head nurses

for 23 nurses) as well as turnover among nurses ðN ¼ 34Þ, the number of valid

commitment-performance pairings was reduced to 194. These responses involved

performance assessments by 32 head nurses, for an average number of perfor-mance ratings per unit of 6.06 (range¼ 1–16). In the final sample of nurses, aver-

age age was 35.4 years ðSD ¼ 8:3Þ and average organizational tenure was 10.3

years ðSD ¼ 6:7Þ. Among respondents, 82.9% were female and 58.0% worked

full-time.

4.1.2. Measures

Commitment. Affective commitment to the organization, the supervisor, and the

work group were measured using the same scales as in the first two studies.


Performance. Supervisor-rated performance appraisals were obtained 6 months

after Time 1 data collection. Based on a panel discussion with the nursing manage-

ment staff, four criteria were selected as being central aspects of nurses� job in this

hospital. Head nurses rated the performance of their staff on the following criteria:

(a) quality of care, (b) quality of contacts with patients, (c) work-related helping be-havior directed toward colleagues, and (d) work-related helping behavior directed

toward the head nurse. Ratings were provided using a 10-point scale anchored ‘‘ex-

tremely poor’’ (1) and ‘‘outstanding’’ (10). Performance data were submitted to a

principal components analysis. Results suggested a single factor, as indicated by a

strong loading of items on the first factor (mean loading: .85), accounting for

71.5% of the total variance, a clear break in the scree plot, and eigenvalues less than

1.0 for the remaining potential factors. We thus combined the items to create a single

score of performance for each nurse. In addition, as head nurses assessed the perfor-mance of several nurses (range¼ 1–16), we standardized the performance ratings

within raters, i.e., subtracting the mean of each unit from the score of any particular

nurse. These standardized performance ratings were then used as input in the LIS-

REL analyses. Such a procedure allowed us to control for any potential response

bias in supervisor ratings.


The relationships among commitment variables and job performance were ana-

lyzed using the structural equations modeling approach with the LISREL 8.3 pack-

age (J€ooreskog & S€oorbom, 1993). The covariance matrix of observed variables was

used as input for model estimation through maximum likelihood. Table 7 displays

the descriptive statistics and the intercorrelations among latent variables in the con-

firmatory factor analytic model. Of greatest interest, affective commitment to the su-

pervisor was significantly associated with job performance (r ¼ :24, p < :01).Fit indices for structural models are presented in Table 8. The Hypothesized mod-

el yielded a good fit to the data, as indicated by a TLI of .89 and a CFI of .91,

these indices being particularly suited for the comparison of competing models

(Medsker et al., 1994). As some studies have reported significant relationships

between organizational commitment and performance (Angle & Lawson, 1994;

Table 7

Study 3: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among latent variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

1. AC-ORG 2.79 .89 .79

2. AC-SUP 3.29 .94 .46�� .87

3. AC-GR 3.67 .84 .36�� .32�� .83

4. Job performance 7.63 1.14 .05 .24� .11 .86

Note. N ¼ 194. a coefficients are reported on the diagonal. All intercorrelations are estimated by

LISREL.* p < :01.** p < :001.

Table 8

Study 3: Fit indices for structural models

Model v2 ðdf Þ GFI AGFI TLI CFI Model Comparison Dv2 ðDdf Þ

Hypothesized 372.51� (199) .84 .80 .89 .91 —


Alternate 1

.34 (1)


Alternate 2

.05 (1)

Note. N ¼ 194. GFI, goodness-of-fit index; AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index; TLI, Tucker and

Lewis index; and CFI, comparative fit index.* p < :001.


Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989)

and between team commitment and performance (Bishop & Scott, 2000; Ellemers

et al., 1998), we tested for such possibilities by relaxing the corresponding paths in

the Hypothesized model. Alternate model 1, which freed the path from organiza-

tional commitment to performance, did not improve over the Hypothesized model,

Dv2ð1Þ ¼ :34, ns, nor did Alternate model 2, which relaxed the path from work group

commitment to performance, Dv2ð1Þ ¼ :05, ns (cf. Table 8).

Fig. 2 presents the standardized parameter estimates for the Hypothesized model.As can be seen, organizational commitment (b ¼ :40, p < :001) and work group

commitment (b ¼ :18, p < :05) were significantly related to commitment to the su-

pervisor, with the latter being significantly associated with performance (b ¼ :25,p < :01), hence providing support to Hypothesis 3a.

We estimated the indirect effects of affective commitments to the organization and

to the work group on job performance using the procedure outlined by Sobel (1987).

The indirect effect of organizational commitment on performance was .08 ðSE ¼ :03Þand its 95% confidence interval (.02/.14) did not contain zero, suggesting that theeffect was significant. The indirect effect of commitment to the work group on

Fig. 2. Study 3: Standardized path coefficients for Hypothesized model. For the sake of parsimony,

parameters for the measurement portion and disturbance terms are not presented. �p < :05; ��p < :01;

and ��p < :001.


performance was .04 ðSE ¼ :02Þ, with its 95% confidence interval (.00/.08) including

zero, hence revealing that the effect was not significant. The latter results lended only

partial support to Hypothesis 3b. Finally, Hypothesis 3c asserted that the indirect

effect of organizational commitment on performance would be stronger than the cor-

responding effect of commitment to the work group. Although there is no statisticaltest that permits to directly compare the relative strength of indirect effects, the fact

that the 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effects of organizational commit-

ment (.02/.14) and work group commitment (.00/.08) did overlap suggests that their

magnitude cannot be said to differ. Hypothesis 3c was thus rejected.

As one item of the performance scale that we used contained an explicit reference

to behaviors benefitting the supervisor (i.e., ‘‘work-related helping behavior directed

toward the head nurse’’), it could have artifactually inflated the relationship between

commitment to the supervisor and performance. To check for this possibility, weexcluded that item and rerun the analyses using a 3-item, rather than the original

4-item, scale of performance. This shortened scale had a reliability of .82. Results

remained the same. The Hypothesized model yielded a good fit to the data,

v2ð179Þ ¼ 343:18, TLI¼ .89, and CFI¼ .91, and the Alternate models 1 and 2 did

not improve over the Hypothesized model (Dv2ð1Þ ¼ :02, ns, and Dv2ð1Þ ¼ :00, ns,respectively). These results rule out the explanation of our findings being biased

by the inclusion in the measure of commitment to the supervisor of an item referring

to helping behavior benefitting the supervisor.As a whole, the results of this study were consistent with the view that the psycho-

logical salience and relevance of the supervisor with respect to issues related to per-

forming well in one�s job made commitment to this target more critical in explaining

job performance. On the other hand, the reduced salience of the organization and

work group foci rendered the effect of commitment to these entities on performance

only indirect, if any.

5. General discussion

Three longitudinal studies are reported demonstrating that affective commitments

to the organization, the supervisor, and the work group can be reliably distinguished,

have distinct antecedents, and influence turnover in a different manner than they im-

pact job performance.

The results associated with Study 1 provide convergent evidence that employees

do engage in separate exchange relationships with the organization to which theybelong, the supervisor who is in charge of monitoring their performance, and the

co-workers with whom they interact in the completion of their tasks. The data sug-

gest that the perceptions of being supported by the organization, of having a con-

structive and quality exchange relationship with one�s superior, and of working in

a cohesive work group, foster employee commitment specifically directed toward

these entities. That is, POS contributed uniquely to affective organizational com-

mitment, LMX was uniquely related to affective commitment to the supervisor,

whereas perceived group cohesiveness was the sole significant predictor of affective


commitment to the work group. By using a longitudinal design and involving all

predictors of interest in the same regression equation, this study improved over

past research.

In line with Lewin�s (1943) field theory, work commitment foci are likely to vary

in their level of psychological salience to employees. A basic tenet of field theory isthat the most salient foci will have the strongest effect on individual behavior (Mat-

hieu, 1991; Mathieu & Hamel, 1989). When organization-relevant variables such as

intent to quit and turnover are at stake, employees will thus primarily evaluate the

current state of their relationship with the organization, hence the organization will

be the most salient entity to their mind. Consequently, attitudes towards the organi-

zation (e.g., commitment to the organization) will more directly influence employee

turnover whereas the influence of commitments to the supervisor and to the work

group will be mainly indirect. These predictions are also in line with a levels-of-anal-ysis interpretation of the commitment-outcome relationship. That is, if both commit-

ment and the outcome address the same level (the organization, the supervisor, or

the work group), then their relationship will be stronger. That is what we found in

Study 2. More specifically, by including affective commitments to the organization,

to the supervisor, and to the work group together in the same model as potential pre-

dictors of turnover intentions and actual turnover, we were able to tease out their

direct and indirect effects on withdrawal.

Given this, affective organizational commitment was found to have a significantindirect effect on turnover through intent to quit and commitments to the supervisor

and to the work group exerted indirect effects on intent to quit through organiza-

tional commitment. Of interest, commitment to the supervisor had also an unex-

pected direct effect on intent to quit (b ¼ �:26, p < :001). The added value of the

present finding is that the significant effect of supervisor commitment was observed

while accounting for the influence of organizational commitment, which previous re-

search has not done. This should encourage researchers to revise their turnover mod-

els by including commitment to foci other than the global organization as additionalpredictors of voluntary departure. Indeed, our findings highlight the importance of

the three commitment variables in explaining turnover, as all of them exerted a sig-

nificant indirect effect on actual turnover.

The finding of a significant effect of supervisor commitment on intent to quit may

be explained by the fact that supervisors are formal representatives of the organiza-

tion toward employees (Eisenberger et al., 2002) and that if the employee cannot

change supervisors in case of low commitment to him/her, this would result in the

willingness to leave the organization. Although the effect of organizational commit-ment on intent to quit was stronger than the effect of commitment to the supervisor

(cf. Table 6), future research should examine whether the relative strength of these

effects is moderated by the ease of intra-organizational mobility (McElroy, Morrow,

&Mullen, 1996; Todor & Dalton, 1986). Indeed, if the employee is not provided with

the opportunity to work for another supervisor when commitment to this target per-

son is low, the single remaining option would be to leave. In other words, it is plau-

sible that when there are few opportunities for intra-organizational mobility, the

negative effect of affective commitment to the supervisor on leaving would be


strengthened. Though an alternative to leaving would be to reduce the number of in-

teractions with the supervisor (Malatesta, 1995), this may have a detrimental effect

on job performance because the supervisor is formally responsible for orienting em-

ployees� on-the-job behavior. The employee may not afford such a situation and de-

cide to leave anyway.Another explanation for the significant direct effect of commitment to the super-

visor on intent to quit relates to the nature of the sample involved in Study 2. In-

deed, the sample was composed of young employees with relatively short tenure

(average age was 29.5 years and average tenure was 3.5 years), all having a master

degree. These employees, more than others, may enter organizations with the ex-

pectation that their supervisor will offer them lots of personal development oppor-

tunities. In case this expectation is not met, these employees may reduce their

affective commitment to the supervisor, hence more readily decide to leave thecompany.

Study 3 showed with a sample of 194 hospital nurses that commitment to the su-

pervisor had a significant direct effect on job performance and that organizational

commitment significantly affected job performance through supervisor commitment.

This finding furthers Becker et al.�s (1996) and Becker and Kernan�s (2001) resultsthat commitment to the supervisor is more strongly associated with performance

than is overall commitment to the organization. Because the supervisor has the for-

mal responsibility to monitor and direct employees in the performance of their in-role duties (Becker et al., 1996; Eisenberger et al., 2002; Siders et al., 2001), this entity

becomes particularly salient to employees when they have to direct their efforts at

work. Consequently, affective commitment to the supervisor represents the attitude

which more directly predicts employee performance. In contrast, because the orga-

nization has less direct relevance in this context, the influence of commitment to

the organization on performance has been found to be only indirect in this study.

Probably that, in order to perform well on the job, employees will find more energy

from the emotional bond they have created with their supervisor than with theirorganization. The employee�s relationship with the organization as assessed via

his/her level of affective organizational commitment, provides just a �favorableground,� that needs however to be more focused in order to more directly influence

job performance.

The fact that work group commitment did not exert a significant indirect effect on

performance despite its being a significant predictor of supervisor commitment

(b ¼ :18, p < :05) may be due to the very nature of the nursing occupation. Nurses

are usually recognized as being deeply trained and competent in the performance oftheir in-role duties (Kramer, 1981). This level of expertise and the ability to achieve

one�s job competently plausibly underlies the sense of autonomy valued by nurses as

well as by most professionals (Kerr, Von Glinow, & Schriesheim, 1977). Conse-

quently, interactions with colleagues in performing one�s job may not be crucial

for nurses. In contrast, this may not be the case for interactions with the head nurse

whose role in monitoring care quality to patients and in transmitting physicians� di-rectives to ward nurses is more critical, hence the strong influence of supervisor com-

mitment on job performance.


5.1. Limitations and future perspectives

A strength of our set of studies was their longitudinal nature, and for two of them,

the use of data obtained from an external source. However, as any other research,

the present one has a number of limitations. First, the relationships between commit-ments and the target outcomes were based on predictors being measured at the same

time. So, even though we relied on the structural equations modeling approach for

testing our hypotheses for Studies 2 and 3, one should be cautious about drawing

causality inferences concerning relationships among commitments to the organiza-

tion, the supervisor, and the work group. In the future, it might be worthwhile to

use panel designs in which commitments and their antecedents/outcomes would be

measured at more than one occasion. This type of design would provide stronger ev-

idence for causal relationships among commitments and their presumed antecedents/outcomes than is afforded when variables are measured simultaneously (Finkel,

1995). However, panel designs also have limitations, namely because they test sub-

stantive relationships while auto-correlations among variables across measurement

occasions are accounted for. This might be overly conservative when auto-correla-

tions are high.

Second, in both Studies 2 and 3, commitment to the work group did not exert a

direct effect on work outcomes. This does not mean that its consideration was use-

less. For example, using Sobel�s (1982, 1986) recommendations for the computationof indirect effects in Study 2, commitment to the work group had actually a signif-

icant indirect effect on both intent to quit ().42; SE ¼ :03; 95% confidence inter-

val¼).36/).48) and turnover ().17; SE ¼ :02; 95% confidence interval¼).13/).21). However, future investigations should be conducted in organizational settings

that make the work group a more salient focus of commitment (e.g., self-directed

work teams, cf. Bishop & Scott, 2000; Bishop et al., 2000) with respect to some work

outcomes, or to identify aspects of work behavior that might be more intrinsically

tied to commitment to the work group (e.g., mutual aid among co-workers thatare not explicitly rewarded; cf. McNeely & Meglino, 1994).

The third study reported in this research has been conducted in the nursing staff of a

general hospital. This type of population may display peculiarities that warrant com-

ments. First, in contrast to the samples of university Alumni used in Study 1 and 2, the

nurse sample was predominantly female. Although it is unclear how such characteris-

tic may affect relationships between commitments and job performance, future re-

search is nonetheless needed to examine this issue more closely. Second, and may be

more importantly, the correlations between commitments to the organization, tothe supervisor, and to the work group were lower in the nurse sample from Study 3

(cf. Table 7) than in the samples used in Study 1 (cf. Table 3) and in Study 2 (Table

5). This may be explained by the fact that hospitals have more differentiated structures

than other types of organizations, hence inner entities tend to be more distinct than in

other contexts. Consequently, nurses may bemore capable of differentiating their level

of commitment to the organization, to the supervisor, and to the work group.

Also, it might be argued that the three studies lack overall comparability. For ex-

ample, the fact that Studies 1 and 2 relied on samples of Alumni makes it difficult to


determine whether employees from these samples differ on some important organi-

zational, group or supervisor characteristics. Although this bias is undetermined,

the large variety of industries represented in the samples makes it unlikely that a sys-

tematic bias affects the findings. Indeed, no industry was particularly overrepre-

sented. So, if a bias does exist, it is probably more of a random than of asystematic one. Moreover, as our analyses involved individual attitudes and behav-

iors rather than aggregate phenomena, systematic fluctuations in contexts may be

less relevant for the purposes of this study. However, this should not undermine

the need for more research addressing how characteristics of organizations, groups,

and supervisors affect commitment–behavior relationships.

This research did not consider potential moderators of the relationships between

commitments to the organization, to the supervisor, and to the work group, and

work outcomes. For example, it might be that the ease of intra-organizational mo-bility affects the strength of the relationship between commitment to the supervisor

and to the work group and intent to quit (Todor & Dalton, 1986). Similarly, the ex-

tent to which the supervisor is perceived as representing the organization (cf. Eisen-

berger et al., 2002) may moderate the relationship between commitment to the

supervisor and intended or actual turnover. Also, the relationship between work

group commitment and job performance could be stronger when team performance

is rewarded by the organization (Bishop & Scott, 2000). Finally, other forms of com-

mitment might be worth investigating across foci. Incorporating both foci and forms

of commitment within a single model would enrich our understanding of how inter-

dependencies develop across them and affect behavior.

Acknowledgments

We thank John P. Meyer, Thomas E. Becker, and Vicente Gonzales-Roma for

their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Angle, H. L., & Lawson, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment and employees� performance ratings:

Both type of commitment and type of performance count. Psychological Reports, 75, 1539–1551.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between

organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 23, 267–285.

Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of

Management Journal, 35, 232–244.

Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 14, 177–190.

Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee

commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464–482.

Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. C. (2001, April). Affective and continuance commitment and performance: A

closer look. Paper presented at the 16th annual conference of the society for industrial and

organizational psychology, San Diego, CA.


Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance

structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-

directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 439–450.

Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in

a team environment. Journal of Management, 26, 1113–1132.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis, & J.

W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 398–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases

and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5–30.

Cohen, A. (1991). Career stage as a moderator of the relationships between organizational commitment

and its outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 253–268.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of

perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,

discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee

diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived

supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented

commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 717–730.

Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates

and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,

25, 161–178.

Gregersen, H. B. (1993). Multiple commitments at work and extrarole behavior during three stages of

organizational tenure. Journal of Business Research, 26, 31–47.

Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M.

Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 3 (2nd ed., pp. 199–267).

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Heffner, T. S., & Rentsch, J. R. (2001). Organizational commitment and social interaction: A multiple

constituencies approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 471–490.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-

component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of

Management, 21, 967–988.

Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical structural

equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 890–909.

Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-

sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 350–366.

Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1994). Organizational commitment: One of many commitments or key

mediating construct? Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1568–1587.

Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen�s (1991) three-component model of organizational

commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319–337.

Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and

moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models.

Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951–995.


J€ooreskog, K. G., & S€oorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User�s reference guide. Chicago: SPSS.

Keller, R. T. (1997). Job involvement and organizational commitment as longitudinal predictors of job

performance: A study of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 539–545.

Kerr, S., Von Glinow, M. A., & Schriesheim, J. (1977). Issues in the study of ‘‘professionals’’ in

organizations: The case of scientists and engineers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

18, 329–345.

Kramer, M. (1981). Philosophical foundations of baccalaureate nursing education. Nursing Outlook, 4,

224–228.

Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachments to nested groups: A choice-process theory. American

Sociological Review, 57, 327–339.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the �field at a given time�. Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical

assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.

Malatesta, R. M. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment using a

social exchange framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

Markel, K. S., & Frone, M. R. (1998). Job characteristics, work–school conflict, and school outcomes

among adolescents: Testing a structural model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 277–287.

Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of organizational commitment

and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 607–618.

Mathieu, J. E., & Hamel, K. (1989). A causal model of the antecedents of organizational commitment

among professionals and nonprofessionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 299–317.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and

consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes through a

two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35,

671–684.

McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Mullen, E. J. (1996). Intraorganizational mobility and work related

attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 363–374.

McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in

prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836–844.

Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating

causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of

Management, 20, 439–464.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.

Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:

Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,

538–551.

Meyer, J. P., Barak, I., & Vandenberghe, C. (1996). Revised measures of affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to organizations. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology,

University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human

Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.

Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational

commitment and job performance: It�s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74, 152–156.

Mueller, C. W., & Lawler, E. J. (1999). Commitment to nested organizational units: Some basic principles

and preliminary findings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 325–346.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover among hospital employees. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.


Randall, D. M. (1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological investigation.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361–378.

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257–266.

Sager, J. K., Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (1998). A comparison of structural models representing

turnover cognitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 254–273.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived

organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied


Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The relationship of internal and external

commitment foci to objective job performance measures. Academy of Management Journal, 44,

580–590.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In

S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure

models. In N. B. Turma (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1986 (pp. 159–186). Washington, DC:

American Sociological Association.

Sobel, M. E. (1987). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. Sociological Methods

and Research, 16, 155–176.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and

turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.

Todor, W. D., & Dalton, D. R. (1986). Workers stay longer when they have a chance to transfer. Sociology

and Social Research, 70, 276.

Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Delhaise, T. (2001). An examination of the cross-

cultural validity of a multidimensional model of commitment in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural


Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member

exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.

Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W., Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group cohesiveness affect

individuals� performance and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination. Small Group

Research, 29, 472–494.

Yoon, J., Baker, M. R., & Ko, J. W. (1994). Interpersonal attachment and organizational commitment:

Subgroup hypothesis revisited. Human Relations, 47, 329–351.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Contrasting group and organizational commitment: Evidence for

differences among multilevel attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 267–273.

Documents

Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes