An examination of human resource management practices' influence on organizational commitment and entrenchment.
| Autor | Scheible, Alba Couto Falcao |
| Cargo | Report |
Introduction
Globalization and the pressure for innovation as means of survival have changed the psychological contract between organizations and their employees. Guarantee of employment can no longer be used to generate commitment (Meyer, Allen, & Topolnytsky, 1998). As a result, workers today do not expect to develop their careers in only one organization (Nussbaum, 1991 as cited in Carson & Bedeian, 1994). Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) estimate an average of five changes of organization throughout a career. Since it is no longer possible to secure jobs, companies attempt to ensure employability and, to that end, invest in developing their people to enhance their potential mobility. This ultimately generates a paradox because companies must also retain the talents they need. Thus, there is now a demand for managerial strategies appropriate for this scenario in order to retain good employees through practices such as awards, promotions, compensation, and training (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999 as cited in Barros, 2007).
It is important for organizations to foster linkages for people to remain, but it is also important to assess the nature of these bonds. Affective bonds are those that engender stronger ties since they are associated with an organization's goals and values. On the other hand, bonds based on instrumental exchanges might make it less attractive for people to leave the organization since they would be losing investments and gains already obtained (McElroy, 2001a; Morrow, 2011; Sethi & King, 2008; Steel & Lounsbury, 2009).
Although several studies point out the importance of commitment to organizational outcomes (Pfeffer, 1998; Riketta, 2002; Steel & Lounsbury, 2009), many issues still pose challenges for managers. A possible answer to these issues could be planned management of commitments. Kiesler (1971) explains that commitment has motivational factors, and even though it might not be a sufficient enough factor to compel action, it ultimately influences the way individuals react to situations, due to its binding properties. So, it can end up driving behaviors. However, can commitments be deliberately and purposefully managed? According to Meyer and Allen (1997, p. 69), this is possible because commitment "is actually related to employees' perception regarding Human Resource Management (HRM) practices". Morrow (2011) adds that the answer to this question lies in identifying factors that affect commitments. Among them, which practices are appropriate for generating commitment and its presumed impact on other linkages?
Sethi and King (1998) studied organizational commitment in Information Technology (IT) professionals and suggest that organizations should carefully examine their policies related to enhancing commitment. These authors warn that practices such as stock distribution, rapid promotion, pension plans, among others, may be working against organizations by merely building instrumental bonds. As such, although these practices might encourage employees to continue in an organization, they do not necessarily motivate people to contribute or exercise extra effort on its behalf. In addition, individuals may wish to leave an organization but don't because of potential financial or social status loss. Affective commitment, despite being more difficult to promote, fosters strong bonds between people and organizational values, making them eager to contribute to organizational success.
Thus, in order to properly manage commitments, it becomes important to pay attention to the nature of the bond being strengthened. Companies can adopt practices aimed at achieving higher commitment levels, but the results obtained may produce unwanted effects (McElroy, 2001a) such as strengthening a continuance bond rather than an affective one. Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, and Jackson (1989) produced empirical evidence that organizational affective commitment positively enhances performance, while continuance commitment has a negative influence on it. Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) also demonstrated consistent evidence of such influence in their meta-analysis.
In that regard, Bastos, Medeiros et al. (2008) proposed that it would be more appropriate to treat this instrumental relationship--continuance commitment - as a separate and different construct, which they called organizational entrenchment. It represents an extension of the construct proposed by Carson, Carson and Bedeian (1995) dealing with career commitment. This proposition is associated with a new research agenda in the area that calls for a deeper knowledge about the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment and entrenchment.
Following a cognitive behavioral approach, this study works with the assumption that HRM practices produce results derived from perceptions and meanings people assign to them. Under this assumption, it focuses on analyzing the possible influences employees' perceptions have about the organization they work for on the linkages they develop with them. In doing so, it addresses the challenge posed by Medeiros, Galvao, Siqueira, and Marques (2002, p. 12) that "an evaluation of human resource systems, formed by a broad set of policies and practices of companies that produce commitment must also be made by the research of this field". According to Whitener (2001), a well-established stream of research rooted in social exchange theory has already shown that employees' commitment to an organization derives from their perceptions of the employers' commitment to, and support of, them. This in turn comes from their perceptions of organizational actions, such as HRM practices. Therefore this paper aims to identify HRM practices influences on organizational commitment and entrenchment by analyzing how they are perceived and what they signify to workers, contributing to better delimit these two constructs.
Organizational Commitment and Entrenchment
Commitment is a linkage that individuals may develop towards multiple aspects of their work environment. It can be enacted either as an attitude, behaviors (or behavioral intentions), or as a binding force. Commitment can be analyzed in relation to a wide range of foci - the organization, group or team work, work itself, career, and unions, among others. Therefore it can be thought of as a set of commitments where each one has some dimensions as well as antecedents, correlates, and consequents which can be unique or shared between these commitments (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Thus, factors that affect one dimension of commitment may impact other dimensions (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Morrow, 1993).
The organizational commitment concept derives from studies that explored the linkages that emerge between employees and organizations. The reason for these studies was the belief that committed employees have greater potential for improved performance, reduced absenteeism and turnover (Mowday, 1998). Organizational commitment was characterized in Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) by three factors: a strong belief and acceptance of organizational goals and values; the wiliness to exert effort on behalf of it; and a strong desire to retain organizational membership. According to these authors, this goes beyond the passive concept of loyalty resulting in an active relationship aimed at the welfare of the organization.
For Meyer and others (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 1993; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), commitment is a psychological connection that comes from three different bases: affective, normative and continuance. This concept is respectively based on the work of Mowday et al. (1982), Wiener (1982) and Becker (1960). It received empirical support from several other researchers (Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Hackett, Lapierre, & Hausdorf, 2001). Affective commitment refers to the identification and involvement between the individual and a focus. Normative commitment reflects a feeling of moral obligation in relation to the focus. Continuance commitment (or instrumental) refers to an assessment of the implications (or price to pay) if the relationship with the focus is broken.
Due to its complexity, the work commitment construct has struggled with conceptual redundancy (Morrow, 1993). This occurs when concepts are not precisely defined to be mutually exclusive or when the link between a conceptual definition and measurement instrument (construct validity) is not perfect. Mowday (1998) states that there is an overlap between different models proposed for conceptualizing commitment. He points out that affective and continuance commitment, respectively, as proposed by Meyer and Allen (1991), overlap with internalization and compliance as proposed by O'Reilly and Chatman (1986). Morrow (1993) and Dunham, Grube, and Castaneda (1994), stated that the commitment defined by Mowday et al. (1982), is basically defined the same as affective commitment by Meyer and Allen (1991).
In sight of this diversity of interpretations and models, which results in lack of an agreed definition and consequent fragmentation of the construct, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed a model that represented an attempt to integrate them, generalizing the original work by Meyer and Allen (1991). This model attests to the existence of a core essence of the construct defined by linkages between the three categories affective, normative and continuance, and has been representing the mainstream of the commitment research since then.
However, despite representing a breakthrough, this model is not accepted by consensus in the field, mainly because of the overlap between the affective and normative commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991, p. 79) state that "the feelings of wanting to do and feel compelled to do may not be fully independent". According to Solinger, Ollfen, and Roe (2008), the three-dimensional model of commitment proposed by...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
