Application of the three-component model to China: Issues and perspectives

Commentary

Application of the three-component modelto China: Issues and perspectives

Christian Vandenberghe

Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Received 11 December 2002

1. Introduction

The studies conducted by Chen and Francesco and by Cheng and Stockdale pub-

lished in this issue of the Journal of Vocational Behavior provide some interesting in-sights into the usefulness and validity of the three-component model for depicting

organizational commitment in China. Although their findings are limited to a single

culture, they nonetheless offer pathways which can be used by future researchers in-

terested in investigating the properties of the model outside North-America. In par-

ticular, these studies provide a basis for reflecting on how culture affects the structure

of Meyer and Allen�s (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991) three-component

model, on how it affects means on commitment scales, and, what is more compli-

cated, on how it influences the moderating effect that a given component may exerton relationships between the other components and specific outcomes. In the follow-

ing sections, I will comment on these issues which I consider to be critical for advanc-

ing future cross-cultural research on the three-component model.

2. Factor structure of the model

In both the Chen and Francesco, and Cheng and Stockdale papers, fit indices forthe three-component model display values falling below accepted standards for good

fit (cf. Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994). In Chen and Francesco, the baseline

AC-CC-NC oblique model shows moderate .85, .87, and .83 values for TLI, CFI,

Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 516–523

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

E-mail address: [email protected].

0001-8791/03/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00066-0

and GFI indices, respectively. In Cheng and Stockdale, fit indices for the same model

exhibit values of .85, .87, and .85 for NNFI, CFI, and TLI indices, respectively. Both

studies relied on the revised commitment scales developed by Meyer, Allen, and

Smith (1993). As these findings were obtained from two contrasted samples of Chi-

nese workers, employees of a pharmaceutical company (Chen & Francesco, 2003)and employees of joint ventures and foreign owned subsidiaries in different industries

in China (Cheng & Stockdale, 2003), we must conclude that the basic three-factor ob-

lique structure of the model did not receive complete support. Note that less-than-op-

timal fit values for the three-component model, using Meyer et al.�s (1993) revisedcommitment scales, were also reported by two other studies conducted in Asia, spe-

cifically South Korea (Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997; Lee, Allen, Meyer, & Rhee, 2001).

One potential reason for this relativelyweak support of themodel in the above-men-

tioned studies is related to translation issues. Even if a standard translation and back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980) is used, it is often difficult to express the true

meaning of items in a different language than that in which the instrument was built.

Translation difficulties may also bemore problematic for some languages than for oth-

ers. I can imagine that translating commitment items fromEnglish into Chinese gener-

ates more problems than if one were to translate the items in French. Vandenberghe,

Stinglhamber, Bentein, and Delhaise (2001) for example, provided strong evidence

for the equivalence of English andFrench versions of the three-componentmodelmea-

sures in Europe. However, the reason for this might be that French and English lan-guages share commonalities which English and Chinese do not.

To overcome the limitations of the translation-back-translation procedure, at

least two options are possible. One may decide for example to develop commitment

scales which include both �emic� and �etic� items (Allen & Meyer, 2000; Lee et al.,

2001). That is, a combination of �universal� and �culture-specific� items are used formeasuring commitment. To develop such a scale, one would need experts who are

knowledgeable both about the constructs and about the culture in which the scales

are purported to be used (Allen & Meyer, 2000). Depending on the culture, onewould use some specific combination of �emic� and �etic� items. This procedure wouldensure that the whole content of the commitment construct is captured. The down-

side of this procedure is that a systematic comparison of item scores across cultures

would only be possible for those �etic� or universal items included in the scales. How-ever, this limitation would be largely compensated by the fact that the three-compo-

nent model would be assessed more �fairly� than it could be done by just translatingand back-translating the North-American scales. That is the approach followed by

Lee et al. (2001).A second approach would be to revise Meyer et al.�s (1993) commitment scales by

developing items which would be more �culture-free,� roughly from the beginning.

This is what Meyer, Barak, and Vandenberghe (1996) did in proposing a new version

of the three-component measures which presumably did not include expressions

which were too specific to the culture represented by the authors (Canada, Isra€eel,and Belgium in this case). In a recent study, these renewed scales showed strong in-

variance across twelve countries represented by respondents from the European

Commission headquarters in Brussels (Vandenberghe et al., 2001).

C. Vandenberghe / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 516–523 517

Whatever the strategy chosen by researchers, this only provides some minimal ba-

sis for achieving reasonable fit for the three-component measures outside of North-

America. Another issue relates to the strength of relationships among the components

across cultures. From the meta-analytic review conducted by Meyer, Stanley, Hers-

covitch, and Topolnytsky (2002), we already know that AC and NC tend to be morerelated to each other outside of North-America (q ¼ :69 outside of North-Americavs. q ¼ :59 within North-America). In the Chinese samples, the zero-order correlationbetween AC and NC was .64 in both Cheng and Stockdale�s and Chen and France-sco�s studies. Thus, the same pattern of results occurs as in North-American studies,AC and NC are strongly related to each other. The other correlations among compo-

nents differed more markedly in both Chinese samples. That is, AC and CC, and NC

and CC correlated moderately with one another (i.e., in the .30s and .40s). Thus, it

seems that people in China differentiate less strongly among the components thanNorth-Americans do. It might be that emotional attachment, loyalty and sacrifices

associated with leaving partly reflect cultural habits which are unchallenged and in-

trinsically intertwined (Cheng & Stockdale, 2003). In any case, this divergent pattern

of correlations among components between the Chinese and the traditional North-

American studies (cf. Cheng & Stockdale, 2003, for details) may have an effect on

the results of tests of moderating effects reported by the two Chinese studies.

3. Comparing means on commitment across cultures

The issue of comparing means on commitment measures across cultures is a mat-

ter of controversy in the literature. From a purely methodological point of view, it

would be at least recommended to show that a construct�s measure is structurally in-variant (configurational invariance) and that the loadings of items on the latent con-

structs are also equivalent before engaging into the comparison of means across

samples from different cultures (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Only Cheng and Stock-dale made cross-cultural comparisons and no evidence was shown that the two pre-

vious requirements were met. Thus, one should be cautious, as the authors

themselves recognize, in interpreting the data. Moreover, the sample characteristics

are of importance as well. Cheng and Stockdale�s Chinese sample displayed higherscores on AC and NC and lower scores on CC, as compared with Meyer et al.�s(1993) Canadian sample, and this may be related to some cultural variable. However,

I see two restrictions to this interpretation. First, the Canadian sample was com-

posed of nurses, who traditionally are expected to show lower levels of AC and/orNC than other populations of workers, in particular when compared to employees

from private companies. Second, there is probably a large dispersion of scores on

commitment components within China. As Cheng and Stockdale stressed, the com-

panies they investigated were probably more typical of the Western-minded corpo-

rate culture than of the traditional Chinese one. An indication of this is that the

average levels on AC, CC, and NC were considerably higher in Chen and France-

sco�s sample of employees from a private company. Thus, there are probably large

differences in commitment levels within China.

518 C. Vandenberghe / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 516–523

If differences occur on commitment levels within a given national culture, then the

question becomes: What are the relevant sources of variance that one must account

for in making comparisons? There are at least three important sources of variance

which should be considered. First, the organization itself plays a central role in ex-

plaining commitment levels. Although not much work has been done in this area, astudy by Ostroff (1992) reveals that commitment can be aggregated at the organiza-

tional level. She examined the commitment levels of teachers among a sample of 298

schools. There was consensus regarding commitment within each school, and com-

mitment levels varied widely across schools. Another argument in favor of organiza-

tion-level variations of commitment levels stems from the purported linkages between

HRM practices and commitment (Ogilvie, 1986). Control-oriented HRM strategies

would be less likely to foster commitment because of their emphasis on cost reduc-

tion. On the other hand, commitment-oriented HRM strategies are characterizedby their emphasis on building strong links between organizational and individual

goals (Arthur, 1994). Similarly, the organization�s culture may exert a strong influenceon employee commitment, and especially on AC and NC, both of which have been

conceptualized as emanating from work experiences and/or socialization practices

(Meyer & Allen, 1991) and tracked to organizational value systems (e.g., Harris &

Mossholder, 1996; Kalliath, Bluedorn, & Strube, 1999). In keeping with this, it might

be worthwhile to examine the extent to which commitment levels vary across the com-

panies represented in Chen and Francesco�s and Cheng and Stockdale�s studies.Another source of variation among commitment levels is the industry to which

organizations belong. There are broad industry cultures which create the boundaries

within which organizations are constrained to develop their culture, hence this may

influence employee commitment. Research (e.g., Chatman & Jehn, 1994) has shown

that culture dimensions vary more across industries than across organizations. As

commitment is presumably linked to culture, it is plausible that its level also varies

systematically across industries. Indirect evidence of this possibility has been re-

ported by studies demonstrating that organizational commitment tends to be lowerin the public than in the private sector (Goulet & Frank, 2002; Zeffane, 1994). Fi-

nally, the third source of variance to be considered is the occupation. In his IBM

cross-cultural study, Hofstede (1991) reported the occupation as being a substantive

source of variation for two out of the four culture dimensions identified, namely

power distance, and masculinity–femininity. Thus, in order to assess accurately what

is due to country in the cross-cultural variation of commitment levels of employees,

it would be wise to hold industry, organization, and occupation constant and then to

collect data among a set of countries which vary meaningfully on Hofstede�s culturaldimensions (see Palich, Hom, & Griffeth, 1995, and Vandenberghe et al., 2001, for

examples).

4. Moderating effects

In both Cheng and Stockdale�s and Chen and Francesco�s studies, NC played a

significant role in the prediction of behavioral intentions, attitudes, and perfor-


mance. Of more specific interest, NC moderated the relationships between CC and

job satisfaction, and between CC and turnover intentions (Cheng & Stockdale,

2003). In a related vein, NC was a moderator of the relationship between AC and

in-role performance, altruism, and conscientiousness (Chen & Francesco, 2003).

High levels of NC diminished the positive relationship between CC and job satisfac-tion, the negative relationship between CC and turnover intentions, and the positive

relationships between AC and performance outcomes.

Very few studies using the three-component model have investigated moderating

effects on relationships between commitment components and work outcomes (for

exceptions, see Jaros, 1997; Somers, 1995). It is remarkable that one component,

NC, was associated with such effects in both the Cheng and Stockdale, and the

Chen and Francesco studies. Even more interesting is that NC was involved in

moderating effects between either AC or CC and what Meyer and Herscovitch(2001) called focal behavior and discretionary behavior. Focal behavior refers ‘‘to

the behavior to which an individual is bound by his or her commitment’’ (Meyer

& Herscovitch, 2001, p. 311) whereas discretionary behavior refers ‘‘to any behav-

ior that is not clearly specified within the terms of the commitment (as might be

agreed upon by neutral observers), but can be included within these terms at the

discretion of the committed individual.’’ (p. 312). In the Cheng and Stockdale

study, high levels of NC were associated with a reduced effect of CC on turnover

intentions, hence NC was central in the prediction of CC�s focal behavior, stayingwith the organization. In the Chen and Francesco study, high levels of NC con-

strained the relationship between AC and in-role performance (focal behavior),

and between AC and altruism and conscientiousness (discretionary behaviors).

Overall, this suggests that NC might be critical for determining the strength of re-

lationships between CC and AC and their focal and discretionary behaviors. Com-

mitment researchers should take this evidence into account and invest more effort

in exploring similar interactions in other contexts.

The findings reported above lend some credit to the idea that NC is a key com-mitment component for explaining employee attitudes and behavior in a collectivist

culture such as China. As speculated by Chen and Francesco, it might be that among

Chinese subjects, an implicit norm influences the performance, and more generally

the attitudes, of those who have high scores on NC. However, in my opinion, even

if the origin of this norm is to be found in the collectivist culture of China, it hardly

explains why NC moderates the relationships between other commitment compo-

nents and attitudes, intentions, and behavior. One can understand that cultural

norms and values may influence levels on NC, that is its salience, but it cannot helpexplain why it is also a significant moderator of the relationship between AC/CC and

work outcomes.

If we go back to Wiener�s (1982) and Meyer and Allen�s (1991) conceptualizationof NC, it appears that this form of commitment is rooted in socialization experiences

encountered both before and after organizational entry. It is likely that early influ-

ences in childhood are shaped by the nature of societal values. In the case of China,

andmaybe other Asian countries, the salience of collectivist values may strengthen the

feeling of moral obligation towards any significant other, including an organization.


However, there are other origins of this felt obligation norm. Organizational social-

ization experiences provide another explanation for the development of NC (Meyer &

Allen, 1991). One can think of organizations where socialization toward loyalty and

receipt of benefits is so strong that it increases employees� felt obligation toward theiremployer, resulting in the willingness to repay their perceived debt. In this case, in-role and extra-role performance will be high and turnover intentions will be minimal,

whatever the level on the other commitment components. Another origin of an em-

ployee�s standing on NC relates to individual difference variables. For example, usingindividualized measures of Hofstede�s (1980) culture dimensions, Clugston, Howell,and Dorfman (2000) reported NC to be related to power distance and collectivism,

two well-known dimensions of this framework. In sum, whatever the origins of NC

level among employees, be it socialization experiences encountered before or after or-

ganizational entry, individual differences, or country culture, the latter represents butone source of explanation for this phenomenon.

5. Conclusion and perspectives

Obviously, more research is needed on the application of the three-component

model outside of North-America. Moreover, more effort should be devoted to sys-

tematic comparison of the model properties, and of its antecedents and consequencesacross a variety of cultures that differ substantially on Hofstede�s (1980) cultural di-mensions. Care should be taken in translating the measures rigorously, keeping in

mind the fact that translation into some languages will be more difficult and will re-

quire alternative strategies for item generation (Lee et al., 2001). More work is also

needed in order to isolate the effects of occupation, industries, and organizations on

employee commitment. Finally, a key issue which should be of interest to both com-

mitment and cross-cultural researchers is the examination of interaction effects

among commitment components in the prediction of work outcomes, using a varietyof organizational and cultural contexts. Accumulating evidence in these areas will

greatly contribute to understanding how, in an era of globalization of markets,

the three-component model can be effective for depicting employee commitment

across countries.

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (2000). Construct validation in organizational behavior research: The case of

organizational commitment. In R. D. Goffin, & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human

assessment: Honouring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 285–314). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover.

Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670–687.

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.


Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics

and organizational culture: How different can you be? Academy of Management Journal, 37,

522–553.

Cheng, Y., & Stockdale, M.S. (2003). The validity of the three-component model of organizational

commitment in a Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior 62, 465–489.

Chen, Z.X., & Francesco, A.M. (2003). The relationship between the three components of commitment

and employee performance in China. Journal of Vocational Behavior 62, 490–510.

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.

Goulet, L. R., & Frank, M. L. (2002). Organizational commitment across three sectors: Public, non-profit,

and for-profit. Public Personnel Management, 31, 201–210.

Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture

dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22, 527–547.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture�s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverley Hills,

CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, England: McGraw-Hill.

Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen�s (1991) three-component model of organizationalcommitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319–337.

Kalliath, T. J., Bluedorn, A. C., & Strube, M. J. (1999). A test of value congruence effects. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 20, 1175–1198.

Ko, J.-W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen�s three-component modelof organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961–973.

Lee, K., Allen, N. J., Meyer, J. P., & Rhee, K.-Y. (2001). Cross-cultural generalizability of the three-

component model of organizational commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 50, 596–614.

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., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and

consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Ogilvie, J. R. (1986). The role of human resource management practices in predicting organizational

commitment. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 335–359.

Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational

level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963–974.

Palich, L. E., Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Managing in the international context: Testing

culture generality of sources of commitment to multinational enterprises. Journal of Management,

21, 671–690.

Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover, and absenteeism: An examination of direct

and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49–58.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature:

Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research

Methods, 3, 4–69.


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

Psychology, 32, 322–347.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7,

418–428.

Zeffane, R. (1994). Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management style: A

comparison of public and private sector employees. Human Relations, 47, 977–1010.


Documents

Application of the three-component model to China: Issues and perspectives