Chen and Francesco

The relationship between the three componentsof commitment and employee performance

in Chinaq

Zhen Xiong Chen* and Anne Marie Francesco1

School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

Received 30 May 2001

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between the three components of organizational com-

mitment and performance, defined as in-role performance and organizational citizenship be-

havior (OCB), using a sample of 253 supervisor–subordinate dyads from the People�sRepublic of China. Results showed that affective commitment (AC) related positively to in-

role performance and OCB, while continuance commitment (CC) was not associated with

in-role performance but negatively correlated with OCB. In addition, normative commitment

(NC) moderated the relationship between AC and in-role performance as well as OCB. The

linear relationship between AC and in-role performance/OCB was stronger for those with low-

er NC. Limitations of the study, directions for future research, and implications of the findings

are discussed.

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

Keywords: Organizational commitment; In-role performance; Organizational citizenship behavior;

People�s Republic of China

Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490–510

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

qThis research was supported by grants from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region, China (Project HKBU 2025/98H), the Research Committee, Hong Kong Baptist

University (Project FRG/97-98/II-22), and a Direct Allocation Grant from the Hong Kong University of

Science and Technology during the time that the second author was a visiting scholar there. The authors

would like to thank Samuel Aryee and Donald Campbell for their comments on an earlier draft of this

paper.* Corresponding author. Fax: +852-3411-5209.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z.X. Chen), [email protected] (A.M. Francesco).1 Fax: +852-3411-5583.

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

doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00064-7

mail to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Organizational commitment has attracted considerable attention in the organiza-

tional behavior literature over the past few decades (cf., Benkhoff, 1997; Mathieu &

Zajac, 1990) as it has been demonstrated to predict various important work and non-work behaviors (e.g., Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly,

Goffin, & Jackson, 1989; Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990). Although some

have questioned its relevance in an era of downsizing (Baruch, 1998), others (Mow-

day, 1998; Rousseau, 1998) believe that OC is still a meaningful concept to study.

Over the years, the definition of the organizational commitment construct has

been further refined and developed. Drawing on early work on organizational com-

mitment (e.g., Becker, 1960; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Wiener &

Vardi, 1980), Meyer and Allen (1984) proposed a three component conceptualizationof organizational commitment. The three components are affective commitment

(AC), continuance commitment (CC), and normative commitment (NC). The first

component, AC, refers to the employee�s emotional attachment to, identification

with, and involvement in the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). According to

Meyer and Allen (1984), organizational commitment as measured by the Organiza-

tional Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) proposed by Mowday and associates

(Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) can be regarded

as AC. This perspective of commitment emphasizes employees� attitudinal or emo-tional attachment, and has been the most commonly studied component in organi-

zational commitment studies (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). The second component, CC,

refers to commitment based on the costs that an employee associates with leaving the

organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). This perspective of commitment originated

from Becker�s (1960) ‘‘side-bets’’ theory. Becker regarded commitment as ‘‘consistent

lines of activity’’. When people can not continue their activities, they will have a

sense of loss. Due to the exchange nature of CC, this component of commitment

has been called exchange oriented commitment (Stevens, Beyer, & Trice, 1978) orcalculative commitment (Kidron, 1978). The third component, NC, refers to the em-

ployee�s feelings of obligation to remain with the organization. These feelings are

thought to result primarily from early socialization processes that could be family

or culturally based, but they may also be influenced by the organization (Allen &

Meyer, 1996). For example, societal norms towards the meaning of work as an ob-

ligation or entitlement (England, 1986) could be an influence on NC.

Common to the three components of commitment is the view that commitment is

a psychological state that (a) characterizes the employee�s relationship with the orga-nization and (b) has implications for the decision to continue or discontinue mem-

bership in the organization. However, the nature of the psychological state for

each component of commitment is quite different. Employees with a strong AC re-

main with the organization because they want to, those with a strong CC remain be-

cause they need to, and those with a strong NC remain because they feel they ought

to do so (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Based on the results of previous studies (e.g.,

Allen & Meyer, 1990; Hackett et al., 1994; McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer, Allen, &

Gellatly, 1990; Shore & Tetrick, 1991), Meyer et al. (1993) concluded that ‘‘factor

Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490–510 491

analytic studies of the Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment scales

have shown that they measure relatively distinct constructs’’ (p.539). In other words,

the three components of commitment can be regarded as three different constructs.

In spite of the multidimensionality of organizational commitment, only a few re-

searchers have investigated all three components of commitment in the same study(cf., Hackett et al., 1994; Meyer et al., 1993; Randall et al., 1990), and much of

the research has examined only the main effects of AC and CC (cf., Angle & Lawson,

1993; Meyer, Bobocel, & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 1989; Shore & Wayne, 1993).

In addition to the main effects of the three components of commitment, Meyer

and Allen (1991) also emphasized the importance of studying their moderating or in-

teractive effects. They noted that ‘‘the relationship between any component of com-

mitment and behavior will be complicated by the fact that all three components can

exert independent (and possibly interactive) effects on a particular behavior’’ (p. 74).Somers (1995) suggested that the moderating/interactive effects of the three compo-

nents of commitment are useful in understanding the nature of commitment and

should be a direction for future studies. However, so far, only a few studies have in-

vestigated the moderating effects of the components of commitment (cf., Randall,

1990; Somers, 1995). In particular, the moderating effect of NC on AC and employee

performance has not been examined in the literature. Since the nature of NC is some-

what different than the other components, studying its role as a moderator may pro-

vide some interesting insight.In recent years, in order to investigate the cross-cultural applicability of Meyer

and Allen (1984)�s three components of commitment model, more and more re-

searchers have considered the model�s dynamics in other cultures, including Austra-

lia (Iverson & Buttigieg, 1999; Noordin, Zimmer, & Williams, 1999), Belgium

(Vanderberghe, 1996), Hong Kong (Chiu & Ng, 1999), Korea (Chang, 1999; Ko,

Price, & Muller, 1997), Malaysia (Noordin et al., 1999), and the United Arab Emir-

ates (Yousef, 2000). The current study was designed to contribute to the organiza-

tional commitment literature by (1) demonstrating the generalizability of the threecomponent model of commitment in China; (2) investigating the main effects of

AC and CC on in-role/extra-role performance; and (3) examining the moderating ef-

fects of NC on the relationship between AC and in-role/extra-role performance.

Researchers have generally concluded that there is a positive relationship between

AC and in-role performance (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). AC has

also been regarded as an important factor in predicting extra-role behaviors (Scholl,

1981; Wiener, 1982) such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). OCB refers

to discretionary behaviors that are neither explicitly enforced nor required by theformal job contract or a traditional job description (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ,

1990). Empirically, several studies conducted in Western settings have supported the

AC-OCB relationship (cf., Becker, 1992; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; O�Re-

illy & Chatman, 1986; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Therefore it can be anticipated that an

employee�s liking for and attachment to the organization as manifest by AC will lead

to both improved in-role and extra-role performance. We expected that similar re-

sults would be found in the Chinese setting, i.e., AC would associate positively with

in-role and extra-role performance. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

492 Z.X. Chen, A.M. Francesco / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 490–510

H1: Affective commitment is associated positively with in-role performance and

organizational citizenship behavior in the Chinese setting.

Although a positive relationship between AC and performance has been demon-

strated in the majority of studies, in certain cases this relationship was quite strong

(cf., Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), while in some cases this relationship was veryweak or even not significant (cf., Keller, 1997). This indicates that the link between

affective commitment and performance might be moderated by other factors (Math-

ieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997). ‘‘For both scientific and practical purposes,

we must learn much more about the conditions under which strong AC will be most

likely to influence behavior at work and, conversely, those under which the impact of

commitment will be reduced’’ (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 39). In other words, it should

be meaningful to examine the moderating effect of certain variables on the AC-per-

formance relationship.Following Meyer and Allen�s suggestion, in the current study, we investigated the

moderating role of NC in the AC-performance relationship. To date, the main effect

of NC on performance has been examined by many researchers. Unfortunately, the

results have been unclear: NC has been shown to be related positively and negatively

or unrelated to performance in different studies (cf., Allen & Meyer, 1996). We are

unaware of any research examining the moderating effect of NC on the AC-perfor-

mance relationship.

Although NC is correlated with both AC and CC (Meyer & Allen, 1991), it hasbeen suggested that NC differs qualitatively from the other two components of com-

mitment, both in concept and measurement (Angle & Lawson, 1993). NC may de-

velop based on socialization experiences provided by the family, culture, and

employing organization. A young person will learn about the general appropriate-

ness of organizational loyalty from his or her family and the surrounding cultural

environment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Wiener, 1982). Later, when joining an organiza-

tion, the employee will be subject to a socialization process that indicates the ex-

pected level of loyalty to that particular organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).NC may also be rooted in feelings of indebtedness arising from an organization�s

providing certain benefits, for example, tuition reimbursement or in-house training.

The feelings of obligation may continue until the employee feels that he or she has

‘‘paid back’’ the debt (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Scholl, 1981).

In contrast with NC, AC seems to develop more specifically in relation to work

experiences within a particular organization. People who feel that they are treated

well by an organization, for example in terms of such things as fair treatment (Allen

& Meyer, 1990) or participation in decision making (Rhodes & Steers, 1981), aremore likely to develop AC. Thus, if we consider NC may have been more deeply

rooted in the individual by family, culture and later the organization, it is likely that

it will have a greater impact on behavior than more recently developed feelings of

AC.

Employees with strong NC may feel a more deep seated obligation ‘‘to act in a

way which meets organizational goals and interests’’ (Wiener, 1982, p. 421). Thus,

NC may moderate the relationship between AC and performance. Employees with

strong NC may be more willing to do a good job or to be a good ‘‘organizational


citizen’’ and this feeling may be unaffected by their (more recently developed) emo-

tional attachment to the organization (AC). In other words, we are suggesting that

high levels of NC will ‘‘temper’’ the relationship between AC and performance. In

contrast, employees with low levels of NC may not feel any obligation to support

the organization unless they are specifically motivated. Thus, AC may serve as a mo-tivator of performance when NC is low and there is no felt obligation to the orga-

nization.

The moderating effect of NC on the relationship between AC and performance

may be more obvious in a Chinese setting. Since NC implies a sense of obligation

to contribute to the organization and NC is influenced by early socialization experi-

ences, cultural norms regarding obligation will be relevant. Within traditional Chi-

nese society, obligation has been heavily emphasized and along with other social

norms has acted as a social mechanism to govern order within the social system(Yang, 1993).

We anticipate that for employees with low levels of NC, AC will have a stronger

effect on in-role and extra-role performance, whereas, for employees with high NC,

AC will have a weaker influence on their performance. Specifically, we hypothesized

that:

H2: Normative commitment moderates the relationship between affective com-

mitment and performance, defined in terms of in-role performance and organiza-

tional citizenship behavior. The relationship between affective commitment andperformance is stronger for employees whose normative commitment is weaker than

for those whose normative commitment is stronger.

It has been suggested that CC may be negatively linked to certain work behaviors

(cf., Meyer & Allen, 1997). One of the explanations is that employees with strong CC

believe they are ‘‘trapped’’ in a ‘‘no choice’’ situation (i.e., they have to stay with the

organization even though they do not want to); as such they react with anger to the

situation and, accordingly, behave negatively (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Another expla-

nation is that strong CC may promote a sense of learned helplessness (Seligman,1975); thus employees with strong CC may perform their jobs in a passive way

(Meyer & Allen, 1997).

We believe the above proposition might only be true in predicting extra-role per-

formance but not in-role performance. For employees with strong CC, continued

employment in an organization is a necessity; thus the nature of the link between

commitment and behavior is likely to be dependent on the implications of that be-

havior for employment (Meyer et al., 1991). Since in-role performance required by

an organization is not a discretionary behavior, employees have to meet the basic re-quirements of the job, even if they (with strong CC) are unwilling to put in extra ef-

fort to do a better job for the organization. Failure to do so may result in loss of their

employment. Therefore, CC will not necessarily be associated negatively with in-role

performance. In fact, several researchers have reported that CC had no statistically

significant relationship to employees� in-role performance (cf., Hackett et al., 1994;

Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Moorman et al., 1993; Somers & Birnbaum, 1998).

Thus, based on the findings in the extant literature, we did not expect CC to relate

to in-role performance in the Chinese setting.


However, we did expect that CC would have a negative relationship with extra-

role performance, a discretionary behavior. Since extra-role performance is not

required by the job description, failure to perform OCB should not jeopardize con-

tinued employment. Thus employees with strong CC may not care to engage in

OCB. As Meyer et al. have suggested, ‘‘under normal circumstances, employeeswhose tenure in the organization is based primarily on need may see little reason

to do more than is required to maintain their membership in the organization’’

(1989, p. 74). Therefore, employees with stronger CC may be more reluctant to

perform OCB. Empirically, Shore and Wayne (1993) reported CC to be associated

negatively with OCB using a US sample. In their opinion, ‘‘Employees who are

bound by economic exchanges (i.e., side bet theory) are least likely to be good citi-

zens’’ (Shore & Wayne, 1993, p. 779).

We believe this may also be true in the Chinese setting. If the nature of organiza-tional commitment is solely a matter of necessity, i.e., if employees are committed to

the organization for ‘‘side bet’’ reasons (e.g., pension or seniority) rather than atti-

tudinal reasons, then the Chinese employees may only maintain the minimum perfor-

mance needed to survive in the organization. Thus, we expected that those with

stronger CC would be more reluctant to make extra contributions to the organiza-

tion and would therefore be less likely to engage in OCB. It was therefore hypothe-

sized that:

H3: Continuance commitment is correlated negatively with organizational citizen-ship behavior in the Chinese setting.

2. Method

2.1. Sample and procedures

Participants in this study were employees of a large pharmaceutical manufacturerin South China with about 800 employees. Separate questionnaires were developed

for supervisors and subordinates. The supervisor questionnaires were distributed to

130 supervisors, and the subordinate questionnaires were distributed to 390 immedi-

ate subordinates of these supervisors. In other words, three immediate subordinates

of each supervisor received the subordinate questionnaires. Those who completed

the supervisory questionnaire were asked not to fill in the subordinate questionnaire.

The number of questionnaires returned was 106 supervisory questionnaires and 288

subordinate questionnaires, representing response rates of 79.7 and 73.8%, respec-tively. After deleting records with unmatched supervisor–subordinate pairs, a total

of 253 supervisor–subordinate dyads (253 subordinates and 102 supervisors) re-

mained and constituted the sample for this study.

2.2. Measures

The two questionnaires contained the measures used in the present study. First, the

supervisory questionnaire contained the performance measures, in which supervisors


were asked to evaluate the in-role performance and OCB of their immediate subor-

dinates. Second, the subordinate questionnaire contained measures of the three com-

ponents of commitment, i.e., AC, CC, and NC, and demographic variables. All items

used in the present study were in Chinese. To assure equivalence of the measures

in the Chinese and the English versions, a standard translation and back-translationprocedure was performed (Brislin, 1980). All items were measured on a 7-point

Likert-scale (1 ¼ ‘‘Strongly Disagree;’’ 7 ¼ ‘‘Strongly Agree’’).

AC, CC, and NC. Three components of commitment were measured by the scales

developed by Meyer et al. (1993) with six items for each component. The Cronbach

alphas for these scales were .91, .86, and .78, respectively. The items are shown in

Table 2.

In-role performance. In-role performance was measured by a four item scale taken

from Farh and Cheng (1999). The items included ‘‘This subordinate makes an im-portant contribution to the overall performance of our working unit;’’ ‘‘This subor-

dinate can always fulfill the jobs assigned by the supervisor in time;’’ ‘‘This

subordinate is one of the excellent employees in our work unit;’’ and ‘‘The perfor-

mance of this subordinate can always meet the requirements of the supervisor.’’

The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .76.

Organizational citizenship behavior. We assessed OCB with a scale originally de-

veloped by Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997). The original scale with five dimensions of

OCB was developed in a Chinese context (Taiwan) and was later modified by Hui,Law, and Chen (1999) for a sample of PRC production employees. In the current

study, we only focused on two primary dimensions of OCB, i.e., altruism and con-

scientiousness, which have been used broadly in other research (cf., Chen, Tsui, &

Farh, 2002; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Each of these dimensional scales in-

cluded three items. A sample item for altruism was: ‘‘Willing to assist new col-

leagues to adjust to the work environment;’’ and for conscientiousness:

‘‘Complies with company rules and procedures even when nobody watches and

no evidence can be traced.’’ The alpha reliability for altruism was .87 and for con-scientiousness .78.

Subordinate demographics. Five demographic attributes were measured and used

as control variables in the regression analysis. Age, education, and tenure were mea-

sured by number of years. Gender was coded with 1 designating men and 0 designat-

ing women. Position was coded with 1 for non-supervisor, 2 for first-line supervisor,

3 for middle manager, and 4 for top manager. These variables were included because

demographics may influence the in-role and extra-role performance of employees.

For example, Organ and Ryan (1995) have suggested that demographics may some-how affect the likelihood of particular individuals rendering OCB.

Since the study of the relationship between the three components of commitment

and employee performance in Mainland China is rare, how individual demographics

relate to the various components of commitment and performance is unknown.

However, it has been suggested that age, gender, education, and position may corre-

late with employees� efforts (Tang & Feng, 1996). In turn, effort may correlate with

in-role and extra-role performance. A recent study in Mainland China found a sig-

nificant positive relationship between position and AC but no relationship between


tenure and AC (Chen & Francesco, 2000). Thus, the five demographic variables

above were chosen as control variables in the current study.

2.3. Data analysis

To examine the structure of the three components of commitment measures

(Meyer et al., 1993) in a Chinese setting, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) using LISREL 8 (J€ooreskog & S€oorbom, 1993). Some researchers have sug-

gested that CC may consist of two dimensions, i.e., Low Perceived Alternatives

and High Personal Sacrifice, reflecting the specific source of the cost associated with

leaving the organization (cf., McGee & Ford, 1987). Thus it is necessary to examine

the dimensionality of the CC measure.

Following Meyer et al.�s (1990) approach, before testing the three components ofcommitment measures, we first assessed the factor structure of the CC scale. We

compared the single-factor structure proposed by Allen and Meyer (1990) with the

two-factor structure suggested by McGee and Ford (1987). In the model correspond-

ing most closely to the structure obtained by McGee and Ford, a two-factor orthog-

onal solution was specified. We also tested an oblique two-factor model. In sum, four

models were compared.

Following Allen and Meyer�s suggestion (1996) to examine the AC, CC, and NC

models, we compared a one-factor general model (all commitment items were loadedon one factor), a two-factor model (AC and NC items on one factor and CC items

on the other; Meyer et al., 1993), a three-factor model (AC, NC, and CC), and a

four-factor model (AC with three positively keyed items, AC with three negatively

keyed items, NC, and CC) with a null model. For the two to four-factor models,

we also compared orthogonal with oblique models. Thus in total, eight models were

compared. We compared the two-factor model with the three-factor model because

some researchers (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1996) have been concerned about the lack of

discriminant validity between AC and NC. We compared the three-factor modelwith the four-factor model because Magazine, Williams, and Williams (1996) found

strong evidence of a reverse-coding factor in the AC component.

We also conducted CFAs to examine the distinctiveness of the three performance

measures, i.e., in-role performance, altruism (OCB), and conscientiousness (OCB).

We compared the hypothesized three-factor oblique model, a two-factor oblique

model (all items of the two OCB dimensions, i.e., altruism and conscientiousness,

on one factor), and a one-factor model with a null model.

For each CFA, we analyzed the covariance matrix using maximum likelihood es-timation. To assess if the observed covariance matrix fit our hypothesized model, we

used the overall model chi-square measure (v2), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI, Tuck-

er & Lewis, 1973), goodness-of-fit index (GFI, J€ooreskog & S€oorbom, 1993), and the

comparative fit index (CFI, Bentler, 1990).

To test the hypotheses proposed in this study, hierarchical moderated regression

procedures were used (cf., Aiken & West, 1991; Dooley & Fryxell, 1999). For the de-

pendent variables, since we requested one supervisor to provide performance ratings

for up to three subordinates, there may have been unique variance shared among


subordinates with the same supervisor that needed to be factored out. Therefore, we

created N � 1 dummy codes representing supervisor, where (N¼ 92) is the number of

supervisors, in order to partial out all between supervisor variance in the perfor-

mance ratings.

For each dependent variable (in-role performance and OCB), we ran initial re-gressions with the control variables including supervisor and individual demograph-

ics. This procedure was followed by regression with only main effects entered (AC,

NC, and CC). Then, in the next step the regression included the two control mod-

erating effects (NC� CC and AC� CC). Finally, the hypothesized interaction

(NC�AC) was added. To eliminate potential problems of multicollinearity result-

ing from the interaction terms, we followed the advice of Aiken and West (1991) by

centering the independent predictor variables (AC, NC, and CC) prior to comput-

ing the interaction terms. Furthermore, we also examined the first-order effects ofthe independent variables of AC on the dependent variables (in-role performance

and OCB) over the range of the moderator variable (NC) (cf., Aiken & West,

1991).

3. Results

3.1. Confirmatory factor analyses

For the two CC sub-scales, four models were compared: a null model, a one-fac-

tor general model, a two-factor orthogonal model, and a two-factor oblique model.

Our results show that the two-factor oblique model (v2 ¼ 79:59, df ¼ 8, p < :01)provided the best fit. The two-factor orthogonal model (v2 ¼ 190:70, df ¼ 9,

p < :01) provided a poorer fit than the one-factor model (v2 ¼ 165:43, df ¼ 9,

p < :01). Furthermore, the fit indexes showed a better fit for the two-factor oblique

model (TLI ¼ .82, CFI ¼ .91, GFI ¼ .91) than the one-factor model (TLI ¼ .66,CFI ¼ .79, GFI ¼ .81) or the two-factor orthogonal model (TLI ¼ .60, CFI ¼.76, GFI ¼ .84). This indicates that the two proposed CC dimensions are not inde-

pendent. In other words, our results do not support the two-factor structure of CC

suggested by McGee and Ford (1987). Furthermore, the two sub-dimensions of CC

are highly correlated (r¼ .81) in the current study. This is another indication that the

two sub-dimensions of CC are not independent. Thus, like Ko et al. (1997), we trea-

ted CC as a unidimensional measure in the current study.

For the AC, CC, and NC scales, the overall fit indexes for the models tested arereported in Table 1. In total eight models were compared: a null model, a one-factor

general model, a two-factor orthogonal model, a two-factor oblique model, a three-

factor orthogonal model, a three-factor oblique model, a four-factor orthogonal

model, and a four-factor oblique model. The three-factor oblique model

(v2 ¼ 431:80, df ¼ 132, p < :01) fit the data better than the one-factor model

(v2 ¼ 947:98, df ¼ 135, p < :01), two-factor orthogonal model (v2 ¼ 575:04,df ¼ 135, p < :01), two-factor oblique model (v2 ¼ 541:46, df ¼ 134, p < :01), thethree-factor orthogonal model (v2 ¼ 475:04, df ¼ 134, p < :01), the four-factor


orthogonal model (v2 ¼ 431:25, df ¼ 131, p < :01), or the four-factor oblique model(v2 ¼ 426:12, df ¼ 129, p < :01).

v2 difference tests indicated that the three-factor oblique model resulted in a sta-

tistically significant decrement over the one- and two-factor models, the three-factor

orthogonal model, as well as the four-factor models at the .01 level. In addition, all

fit indices of the three-factor oblique model were higher than the one- and two-factor

models and the three-factor orthogonal model. Although all fit indices of the three-

factor oblique model are the same as the four-factor models, the changes in v2 be-

tween the three-factor model and the four-factor orthogonal model (Dv2 ¼ :55,Ddf ¼ 1) and the four-factor oblique model (Dv2 ¼ 5:68, Ddf ¼ 3) are not significant

(cf., Kelloway, 1998). Thus, we conclude that the three-factor oblique model was the

best model. Factor loadings for the three-factor oblique solution appear in Table 2.

For the in-role performance, altruism, and conscientiousness scales, the results of

the CFA confirmed the three-factor structure. The v2 for the three-factor model

(v2 ¼ 148:77, df ¼ 32, p < :01) was significantly lower than those for the null model

(v2 ¼ 1369:03, df ¼ 45, p < :01), the one-factor model (v2 ¼ 330:72, df ¼ 35,

p < :01), or the two-factor model (v2 ¼ 299:65, df ¼ 34, p < :01). Further, the fit in-dexes showed a better fit for the hypothesized three-factor model (TLI¼ .88,

CFI¼ .91, GFI¼ .90) than the one-factor model (TLI¼ .71, CFI¼ .78, GFI¼ .78)

or the two-factor model (TLI¼ .73, CFI¼ .80, GFI¼ .78).

Table 1

Overall fit indexes for the three commitment scales (N ¼ 253)

Model v2 df Dv2 Ddf TLI CFI GFI

Null 2481.13 153 — — — — —

One factor 947.98 135 516.18 3 .58 .63 .64

Two-factor

orthogonal

575.04 135 143.24 3 .79 .81 .78

Two-factor

oblique

541.46 134 109.66 2 .80 .82 .78

Three-factor

orthogonal

475.04 134 43.24 2 .83 .85 .82

Three-factor

oblique

(baseline

model)

431.80 132 2049.33 21 .85 .87 .83

Four-factor

orthogonal

431.25 131 .55 1 .85 .87 .83

Four-factor

oblique

426.12 129 5.68 3 .85 .87 .83

Notes.

(1) One-factor model: All items of three components of commitment were loaded on one factor;

Two-factor model: AC and NC items were loaded on one factor and CC items on the other;

Three-factor model: AC, NC, and CC were treated as three factors;

Four-factor model: AC with three positively keyed items, AC with three negatively keyed items, NC, and

CC were treated as four factors.

(2) Three-factor oblique model was regarded as a baseline model for model comparisons.

(3) TLI ¼ Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI ¼ Comparative Fit Index; GFI ¼ Goodness of Fit Index.


3.2. Hypothesis testing

The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations appear in Table 3.

The internal consistency reliabilities for all of the multi-item scales were reasonable

with no reliability coefficient lower than .76.

Regarding multicollinearity of the data, there is no definitive criterion for the level

of correlation that constitutes a serious problem. The general rule of thumb is that it

should not exceed .75 (Tsui, Ashford, StClair, & Xin, 1995). In our sample, the high-est correlation was between in-role performance and conscientiousness at r ¼ :68,suggesting that multicollinearity is not a problem.

In addition, we performed a regression diagnostic test to further examine multi-

collinearity. The results revealed that variance inflation factor (VIF) values ranged

from 1.04 to 2.42. Our VIF values were much lower than the recommended cut-

off threshold of 10 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992), also suggesting the ab-

sence of multicollinearity in the data. Because the independent variables (AC, NC,

Table 2

Factor loadings of the commitment items for the three-factor oblique model

Item AC CC NC

AC1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this

organization

.80

AC2. I really feel as if this organization�s problems are my own .63

AC3. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization .89

AC4. I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization .83

AC5. I do not feel like part of the family at my organization .79

AC6. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me .77

CC1. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity

as much as desire

.66

CC2. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now,

even if I wanted to

.46

CC3. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to

leave my organization now

.70

CC4. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this

organization

.84

CC5. If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization,

I might consider working elsewhere

.69

CC6. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization

would be the scarcity of available alternatives

.84

NC1. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer .67

NC2. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to

leave my organization now

.66

NC3. I would feel guilty if I left this organization now .59

NC4. This organization deserves my loyalty .65

NC5. I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense

of obligation to the people in it

.42

NC6. I owe a great deal to my organization .69

Note.

(1) Factor loadings are based on completely standardized solution results;

(2) AC ¼ affective commitment; CC ¼ continuance commitment; NC ¼ normative commitment.


Table 3

Means, standard deviations, reliability, and intercorrelations among study variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Affective commitment 5.50 1.09 (.91)

2. Continuance commitment 4.50 1.31 0.32 (.86)

3. Normative commitment 5.00 1.02 0.64 0.37 (.78)

4. Altruism 5.57 1.17 0.13 )0.17 )0.02 (.87)

5. Conscientiousness 5.52 1.00 0.19 )0.12 0.09 0.51 (.78)

6. In-role performance 5.19 .91 0.18 )0.01 0.08 0.57 0.68 (.76)

7. Age 38.06 8.87 0.28 0.37 0.30 0.07 0.14 0.14 —

8. Gender .39 .50 )0.04 0.05 0.03 )0.10 )0.06 )0.09 0.07 —

9. Education 12.00 2.71 )0.18 )0.28 )0.25 )0.04 )0.10 )0.07 )0.40 0.03 —

10. Position 1.19 .53 0.14 )0.09 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.19 —

11. Tenure 13.76 9.40 0.19 0.36 0.15 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.71 )0.02 )0.28 0.09 —

Note.

(1) Correlation coefficients of 0.18 or greater are significant at p < :01; Correlation coefficients that are greater than .12 and less than .18 are significant at

p < :05;

(2) N ¼ 253.

Z.X

.C

hen

,A

.M.

Fra

ncesco

/Journ

al

of

Voca

tional

Beh

avio

r62

(2003)

490–510

501

and CC) and the dependent variables (in-role performance and OCB) were obtained

from different sources (supervisors and subordinates), there is no common method

variance problem in this study.

Results of the regression appear in Table 4. As predicted (H1), AC related signif-

icantly to in-role performance (b ¼ :21, p < :05), altruism (b ¼ :22, p < :01), andconscientiousness (b ¼ :20, p < :05), after controlling for supervisor, five demo-

graphic variables, NC and CC. Thus, H1 received support.

Hypothesis 2 stated that NC moderates the relationship between AC and employ-

ees� in-role performance and OCB. The results of the regression indicate that, after

controlling for supervisor, five demographic variables, AC, NC, CC, and two inter-

action terms (NC� CC and AC� CC), NC moderated the relationship between AC

Table 4

Results of regression analysis

Variable In-role performance Altruism Conscientiousness

b b b

Step 1 (Supervisor dummy code)

DR2 .31 .17 .27

DF 8.03�� 6.93�� 7.84��

Step 2 (Individual demographics)

Age .06 ).02 ).04Gender ).13 ).10 ).05Education ).02 ).04 ).07Position .08 .12 .09

Tenure .02 .11 .12

DR2 .03 .04 .03

DF 1.50 1.85 1.40

Step 3 (Main effects)

NC ).05 ).03 .01

CC ).08 ).23�� ).15�

AC .21�� .22�� .20�

DR2 .03 .06 .04

DF 2.67� 5.05�� 3.64�

Step 4 (Controlled moderating effects)

NC X CC ).05 ).13 .02

AC X CC .12 .06 .03

DR2 .01 .01 .00

DF 1.07 1.30 .23

Step 5 (Hypothesized moderating effects)

NC X AC ).22� ).16� ).19��

DR2 .03 .02 .02

DF 9.14�� 4.79� 7.00��

Notes.

(1) N ¼ 253;

(2) AC¼Affective commitment; CC¼Continuance commitment; NC¼Normative commitment;

(3) �p < :05; ��p < :01 (two-tailed test).


and in-role performance (b ¼ �:22, p < :05), as well as the relationship between AC

and the two OCB dimensions, altruism (b ¼ �:16, p < :05) and conscientiousness

(b ¼ �:19, p < :01). Thus, H2 received support as well.

To facilitate interpretation of the findings, we divided the sample into high and

low NC groups that were plus and minus one standard deviation from the meanand plotted the relationships of AC and each of the three outcome variables accord-

ingly. Figs. 1–3 present plots of the general patterns of the three significant results of

the moderated effects.

Fig. 1. Affective commitment and in-role performance relationship by normative commitment (NC).

Fig. 2. Affective commitment and altruism by normative commitment (NC).


To gain further insight into these relationships, we also examined the effects of AC

(X1) on the three outcome variables [in-role performance (Y1), altruism (Y2) and con-

scientiousness (Y3)] over the range of values for the moderator [NC (Z)] (cf., Dooley

& Fryxell, 1999). For this analysis, we followed Aiken andWest (1991) and computedthe partial derivative of the in-role performance variable in the regression equation

with respect to AC as oY1=oX1 ¼ :21� :22Z. Across the observed range of the cen-

tered NC values (�2:786 Z6 1:96), oY =oX1 was negative for values of NC greater

than .95 (when oY1=oX1 ¼ 0), and positive for values of NC lower than .95.

For altruism, the partial derivative was computed as oY2=oX1 ¼ :22� :16Z. Forthe centered NC values (�2:786Z6 1:96), oY2=oX1 was negative for values of NC

greater than 1.38 (when oY2=oX1 ¼ 0), and positive for values of NC lower than 1.38.

Finally, the partial derivative for conscientiousness was computed as oY3=oX1 ¼:20� :19Z. Using the same range of centered NC values (�2:786 Z6 1:96),oY3=oX1 was negative for values of NC greater than 1.05 (when oY3=oX1 ¼ 0), and

positive for values of NC lower than 1.05. From these analyses, we concluded that

H2 received support.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that CC correlates negatively with OCB. As can be seen in

Table 4, after controlling for supervisor, five demographic variables, AC, and NC,

CC correlated negatively with the two OCB dimensions: altruism (b ¼ �:23,p < :01) and conscientiousness (b ¼ �:15, p < :05). Therefore, hypothesis H3 wassupported. The results reported in Table 4 also revealed that CC was not associated

with in-role performance. This was consistent with our expectation.

4. Discussion

The current study attempted to fill a void by examining the moderating role of

NC on the AC-performance relationship. The findings indicate that NC, unlike

Fig. 3. Affective commitment and consientiousness altruism relationship by normative commitment (NC).


the other two components of commitment (AC & CC), had no main effect on perfor-

mance. However, NC played a significant role in �tempering� the relationship

between AC and performance. Employees with weaker NC displayed a stronger

AC-performance relationship. Thus, for those employees who were committed to

the organization because they felt an obligation (high NC), emotional attachment(AC) was not related to performance outcomes. When such an obligation was not

felt (low NC), the positive AC-performance relationship was present.

Another contribution of the current study was an initial confirmation of the three

component conceptualization of OC in China. The correlational and CFA results

demonstrated that the three components of OC are related yet distinct factors in

our Chinese sample, which was consistent with results found with American samples

(cf., Hackett et al., 1994) and Korean samples (Ko et al., 1997).

With respect to our first hypothesis, consistent with Western findings, results re-vealed that AC related to in-role performance and the two dimensions of OCB (al-

truism and conscientiousness). Although the effects of AC on performance were

significant, the magnitude of the effect was slightly larger for altruism compared

to in-role performance and conscientiousness. This could be due to the Chinese cul-

tural value on ‘‘personalism’’ (cf., Redding, 1990). Traditionally, China has lacked a

well-developed legal system; as such, members of society rely more on their personal

contacts, rather the rule of law (cf., Redding, 1990; Walder, 1991). Thus, affective

organizational commitment may in fact reflect more of an emotional attachmentto the people within the organization rather than to the organization itself and thus

higher levels of AC would associate more with individual or personal forms of OCB

(i.e., altruism).

Our third hypothesis was also confirmed. Both altruism and conscientiousness

were related negatively to CC. Those with higher commitment to the organization

based on the maintenance of ‘‘side bets’’ (Becker, 1960) (CC) were less likely to ex-

hibit either dimension of OCB. Taken together, the results of hypotheses one and

three suggest that Chinese may behave similarly to Westerners with respect to therelationships among AC, CC, and OCB.

From a practical point of view, the moderating influence of the obligation norm

(NC) suggests that employers� efforts to create positive feelings of attachment to-

wards the organization (AC) may have limited impact when NC is high. However,

at least among our Chinese subjects, it appears that there is a norm that may influ-

ence the performance level of high NC individuals. If we could understand the ori-

gins of that performance norm, then perhaps employers would have a means for

influencing it. In addition, when employee NC is low, employers might be able toenhance employee performance outcomes by fostering affective/emotional attach-

ment to the organization (AC). Particularly for Chinese employees, this may lead

them to regard the organization as a family/in-group (Chen & Francesco, 2000)

for which they might be willing to exert effort that will be manifested in improved

in-role performance and OCB outcomes.

Our study also provides some evidence regarding the dimensionality of the three

components of commitment. First of all, different from the finding of McGee and

Ford�s study (1987), our results suggest that the two subdimensions of CC, i.e.,


Low Perceived Alternatives and High Personal Sacrifice, are not distinguishable.

However, our finding is consistent with those in other studies. For example, Ko

et al. (1997) and Meyer et al. (1990) found that these two subdimensions were highly

correlated (i.e., r ¼ :82 in both studies). In addition, Hackett et al. (1994) found that

these two subdimensions generally did not have different relationships with theirdeterminants and consequences. Thus, we suggest that CC should be regarded as

a unidimensional construct.

Second, for responding to some researchers� (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1996) concern

about the lack of discriminant validity between AC and NC, our CFA results dem-

onstrate that AC and NC should be distinguishable. Third, responding to the con-

cern that AC might have two dimensions including a reverse-coding factor

(Magazine et al., 1996), our results did not find a reverse-coding factor. The different

findings we obtained may be due to different scales we used. In the current study, weused the six-item (or shorter) versions of the OC scales (Meyer et al., 1993). In the

shorter measure of CC, there are no reverse-coded items; and in the shorter measure

of AC there are only three (rather than four) reverse-coded items. This may be one of

the reasons why CC did not have two dimensions, and AC had no reverse-coding

factor in our study.

Some limitations need to be noted when interpreting the results of this study.

First, the cross-sectional nature of the data precludes inference of cause-effect rela-

tions among the three components of commitment and performance. Future re-search that uses a longitudinal design will be particularly useful in establishing the

causal order of the relationships reported in this study. Second, because the study

was limited to a single culture, we can only infer cross-cultural differences, but

we can not make direct cross-cultural comparisons. Thus, in the future, it would

be insightful to gather data from more than one culture in order to make direct

comparisons.

In future studies, the antecedents of the three components of commitment, includ-

ing personal and job-related variables, and other work outcomes, such as absentee-ism and turnover, should be further studied. For the OCB outcome, we only

examined two dimensions in the current study. As we know, OCB may have at least

nine dimensions (cf., Farh et al., 2000). Future studies may investigate the effects of

the three components of commitment on more dimensions of OCB.

Future studies could also consider the origins of the three components of commit-

ment. Is there a cultural basis? With respect to NC, to what extent does it reflect a

general societal norm of obligation to work as has been investigated by England and

the Meaning of Work (MOW) International Research Team (England, 1986; MOWInternational Research Team, 1987)? It would be particularly interesting to compare

countries that have higher and lower obligation norms toward working (England,

1986) to see if this has an impact.

In the current study, subjects with higher NC had a more limited range of in-role

performance and altruism across all levels of AC. Thus it seemed that when felt ob-

ligation (NC) was high, the extent to which that obligation should be carried out (as

manifest by in-role performance and altruism) was also defined within a somewhat

narrow range. This may be due to the generally collectivistic nature of Chinese.


When they feel obligated to the organization, how that obligation is expressed may

be determined by relevant group norms. Those whose NC is low do not feel the same

obligation to the organization and their behavior seems to be governed more by their

liking and emotional attachment to the organization (AC).

If this explanation were correct, then we would expect that individualists whowere high on NC would display a wider range of performance outcomes than the col-

lectivists in this study. We would assume that the manifestation of the obligation

norm (in terms of performance) would not be defined by a peer group but rather

by the individual. Although China is categorized at the societal level as collectivistic

(Hofstede, 1992), at the individual level, there is a full distribution of both individ-

ualists and collectivists (Triandis, 1995). Studies done in the US that have measured

individualism and collectivism as a within-culture individual difference variable have

found that more collectivistic subjects were more likely to perform OCB (Moorman& Blakely, 1995), and they had higher levels of normative commitment (Clugston,

Howell, & Dorfman, 2000). A cross-cultural study that included both individualistic

and collectivistic societies and measured individual levels of individualism and collec-

tivism could give us further insight into how individualism and collectivism influ-

enced the relationships between organizational commitment and performance. A

study that directly tested the existence of performance norms and the origins of such

norms would also be useful.

In conclusion, the current study has attempted to generalize and extend the threecomponents of organizational commitment model in a Chinese setting. Our findings

confirmed the importance of the three components of commitment in predicting in-

role performance and OCB in China. Perhaps, the most interesting finding of the

current study was the demonstrated moderating effect of NC on the relationship be-

tween AC and employee performance. Practically, our results suggest that managers

can enhance employee performance by understanding and managing the nature of

employee commitment to the organization.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

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. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization:

An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276.

Angle, H. L., & Lawson, M. B. (1993). Changes in affective and continuance commitment in times of

relocation. Journal of Business Research, 26, 3–15.

Baruch, Y. (1998). The rise and fall of organizational commitment. Human Systems Management, 17, 135–

143.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between

affect and employee ‘‘citizenship’’. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 587–595.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32–42.

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

Management Journal, 35, 232–244.


Benkhoff, B. (1997). Ignoring commitment is costly: New approaches establish the missing link between

commitment and performance. Human Relations, 50, 701–726.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–

246.

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

W. Berry (Eds.), Methodology: 2. Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology (pp. 349–444). Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Chang, E. (1999). Career commitment as a complex moderator of organizational commitment and

turnover intention. Human Relations, 52, 1257–1278.

Chen, Z. X., & Francesco, A. M. (2000). Employee demography, organizational commitment and

turnover intentions in China: Do cultural differences matter? Human Relations, 53(6), 869–887.

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor versus organizational commitment:

Relationship with the performance of Chinese employees. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 75, 339–356.

Chiu, W. C. K., & Ng, C. W. (1999). Women-friendly HRM and organizational commitment: A study

among women and men of organizations in Hong Kong. Journal of Occupational and Organizational


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

and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26(1), 5–30.

Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. F. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The

moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of

Management Journal, 42(4), 389–402.

England, G. W. (1986). National work meanings and patterns—Constraints on management action.

European Management Journal, 4, 176–184.

Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (1999). An investigation of modesty bias in self-ratings of work performance

among Taiwan workers. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 39, 103–118 (in Chinese).

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for extraordinary action: A cultural analysis of

justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,

421–444.

Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. (1994). Further assessment of Meyer & Allen�s 1991 three-

component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 15–23.

Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis with

readings. New York: MacMillan.

Hofstede, G. H. (1992). Cultural constraints in management theories. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV.

Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity,

leader-member exchange and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese

case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 3–21.

Iverson, R. D., & Buttigieg, D. M. (1999). Affective, normative and continuance commitment: Can the

‘‘right kind’’ of commitment be managed? Journal of Management Studies, 363, 307–334.

J€ooreskog, K. G., & S€oorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS

command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.

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.

Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher�s guide. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

Kidron, A. (1978). Work values and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21,

239–247.

Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Muller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen�s three-component

model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961–

973.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of

employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707.


Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams, M. L. (1996). A confirmatory factor analysis examination of

reverse coding effects in Meyer and Allen�s Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 241–250.

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

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

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

dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671–684.

McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two or more? dimensions of organizational commitment:

Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,

638–641.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ‘‘side-bet theory’’ of organizational commitment: Some

methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378.

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

Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–98.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory research and application.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the

organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 75, 710–720.

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

Extension and test of a three-component conception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.

Meyer, J. P., Bobocel, D. R., & Allen, N. J. (1991). Development of organizational commitment during

the first year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre-and post-entry influences. Journal of

Management, 17, 713–733.

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


Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism–collectivism as an individual difference predictor

of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational

citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural

justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209–225.

MOW International Research Team (1987). The meaning of work: An international perspective. London:

Academic Press.

Mowday, R. T. (1998). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. Human

Resource Management Review, 8(4), 387–401.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of

commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

Noordin, F., Zimmer, C., & Williams, T. (1999). Organizational commitment in Malaysia and Australia.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.

O�Reilly III, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The

effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied


Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L.

L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

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

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

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job

satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.

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

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361–378.


Randall, D. M., Fedor, A. B., & Longenecker, C. O. (1990). The behavioral expression of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210–224.

Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

Rhodes, S. R., & Steers, R. M. (1981). Conventional vs. worker-owned organizations. Human Relations,

12, 1013–1035.

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

19, 217–233.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. New York: Freeman.

Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivation force. Academy of

Management Review, 6, 589–599.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637–643.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective

commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied


Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and

antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.

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

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

Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related commitment and job performance: It�s also the

nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 621–634.

Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1978). Assessing personal, role, and organizational predictors

of managerial commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 380–396.

Tang, W. F., & Feng, T. (1996). Labor relations in Chinese enterprises. Hong Kong Journal of Social

Sciences, 8, 85–103 (in Chinese).

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tsui, A. S., Ashford, S. J., StClair, L., & Xin, K. R. (1995). Dealing with discrepant expectations:

Response strategies and managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1515–1543.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.

Vanderberghe, C. (1996). Assessing organizational commitment in a Belgian context: Evidence on the

three-dimensional model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 371–386.

Walder, A. G. (1991). A reply to Womack. China Quarterly., 126, 333–339.

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

418–428.

Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization and career commitments and

work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 81–96.

Yang, K. S. (1993). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In L. Y. Cheng, F. M. C. Cheung,

& C. N. Chen (Eds.), Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected papers from the first international

conference (pp. 19–56). Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationship between Islamic work

ethic and attitudes toward organizational change. Human Relations, 53(4), 513–537.


Documents

Chen and Francesco