An employee’s commitment to an establishment and the will to continue to be a part of it is referred to as Organizational commitment. Organizational devotion is often portrayed as having both an emotional or moral component and a more prudential component i.e. involving or showing care and forethought (M.S. Pams & Nugnet, 2013).
Be loyal to the company, and the company will be loyal to you, is an old saying. Most employers expect some degree of organizational commitment from their employees (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Organizational Commitment is a core predictor of employee’s attitude to the organization and is a strong indicator of turnover behaviour, withdrawal tendency and organizational citizenship behaviour (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; …show more content…
Continuance dimension- The second dimension of the tri-dimensional model of organisational commitment is continuance commitment. Meyer and Allen (1997, p 11) define continuance commitment as “awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organisation”. It is calculative in nature because of the individual’s perception or weighing of costs and risks associated with leaving the current organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Meyer and Allen (1991, p 67) further state that “employees whose primary link to the organisation is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so”. Continuance commitment can be regarded as an instrumental attachment to the organisation, where the individual's association with the organisation is based on an assessment of economic benefits gained (Beck & Wilson, 2000). The strength of continuance commitment, which implies the need to stay, is determined by the perceived costs of leaving the organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1984). This argument supports the view that when given better alternatives, employees may leave the organisation. This component states that individuals stay in the organization because they are lured by other accumulated investments which they could lose, such as pension plans, seniority or organisation specific skills. The need to stay is “profit” associated with continued participation and termination of service is a “cost” associated with …show more content…
Normative dimension- Meyer and Allen (1997, p 11) define normative commitment as “a feeling of obligation to continue employment”. Internalised normative beliefs of duty and obligation make individuals obliged to sustain membership in the organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). In terms of the normative dimension, the employees stay because they should do so or it is the proper thing to do. Wiener and Vardi (1980, p 86) describe normative commitment as “the work behaviour of individuals, guided by a sense of duty, obligation and loyalty towards the organisation”. Organisational members are committed to an organisation based on moral reasons (Iverson & Buttigieg, 1999). The strength of normative organisational commitment is influenced by accepted rules about reciprocal obligation between the organisation and its members (Suliman & Iles, 2000). The reciprocal obligation is based on the social exchange theory, which suggests that a person receiving a benefit is under a strong normative obligation or rule to repay the benefit in some way (McDonald & Makin,
Be loyal to the company, and the company will be loyal to you, is an old saying. Most employers expect some degree of organizational commitment from their employees (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Organizational Commitment is a core predictor of employee’s attitude to the organization and is a strong indicator of turnover behaviour, withdrawal tendency and organizational citizenship behaviour (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; …show more content…
Continuance dimension- The second dimension of the tri-dimensional model of organisational commitment is continuance commitment. Meyer and Allen (1997, p 11) define continuance commitment as “awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organisation”. It is calculative in nature because of the individual’s perception or weighing of costs and risks associated with leaving the current organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Meyer and Allen (1991, p 67) further state that “employees whose primary link to the organisation is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so”. Continuance commitment can be regarded as an instrumental attachment to the organisation, where the individual's association with the organisation is based on an assessment of economic benefits gained (Beck & Wilson, 2000). The strength of continuance commitment, which implies the need to stay, is determined by the perceived costs of leaving the organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1984). This argument supports the view that when given better alternatives, employees may leave the organisation. This component states that individuals stay in the organization because they are lured by other accumulated investments which they could lose, such as pension plans, seniority or organisation specific skills. The need to stay is “profit” associated with continued participation and termination of service is a “cost” associated with …show more content…
Normative dimension- Meyer and Allen (1997, p 11) define normative commitment as “a feeling of obligation to continue employment”. Internalised normative beliefs of duty and obligation make individuals obliged to sustain membership in the organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). In terms of the normative dimension, the employees stay because they should do so or it is the proper thing to do. Wiener and Vardi (1980, p 86) describe normative commitment as “the work behaviour of individuals, guided by a sense of duty, obligation and loyalty towards the organisation”. Organisational members are committed to an organisation based on moral reasons (Iverson & Buttigieg, 1999). The strength of normative organisational commitment is influenced by accepted rules about reciprocal obligation between the organisation and its members (Suliman & Iles, 2000). The reciprocal obligation is based on the social exchange theory, which suggests that a person receiving a benefit is under a strong normative obligation or rule to repay the benefit in some way (McDonald & Makin,