| Literature DB >> 25875086 |
Florence Stinglhamber1, Géraldine Marique1, Gaëtane Caesens1, Donatienne Desmette1, Isabelle Hansez2, Dorothée Hanin1, Françoise Bertrand3.
Abstract
Although several studies have empirically supported the distinction between organizational identification (OI) and affective commitment (AC), there is still disagreement regarding how they are related. Precisely, little attention has been given to the direction of causality between these two constructs and as to why they have common antecedents and outcomes. This research was designed to fill these gaps. Using a cross-lagged panel design with two measurement times, Study 1 examined the directionality of the relationship between OI and AC, and showed that OI is positively related to temporal change in AC, confirming the antecedence of OI on AC. Using a cross-sectional design, Study 2 investigated the mediating role of OI in the relationship between three work experiences (i.e., perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and job autonomy) and AC, and found that OI partially mediates the influence of work experiences on AC. Finally, Study 3 examined longitudinally how OI and AC combine in the prediction of actual turnover, and showed that AC totally mediates the relationship between OI and turnover. Overall, these findings suggest that favorable work experiences operate via OI to increase employees' AC that, in turn, decreases employee turnover.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25875086 PMCID: PMC4395289 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123955
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Study 1: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables.
| Variable |
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Organizational tenure | 22.32 | 11.22 | — |
| ||||
| 2. Level of function | — | — | -.02 | — | ||||
| 3. Time 1 OI | 3.02 | .74 | .10 | .11 | (.84) | |||
| 4. Time 1 AC | 3.02 | .77 | .12 | .11 | .60 | (.81) | ||
| 5. Time 2 OI | 2.99 | .76 | .10 | .15 | .74 | .53 | (.87) | |
| 6. Time 2 AC | 3.05 | .74 | .10 | .08 | .56 | .74 | .61 | (.79) |
Note. N = 695. α coefficients are reported on the diagonal. OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment. Level of function was coded 1 for level D, 2 for level C, 3 for level B, 4 for level A1, 5 for level A2, 6 for level A3, and 7 for levels A4 and A5.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Fig 1Study 1: Structural Equation Model of the Relationships Between Organizational Identification (OI) and Affective Organizational Commitment (AC) Over Time.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Study 2: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables.
| Variable |
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Organizational tenure | 21.79 | 11.53 | — | |||||||
| 2. Level of education | — | — | -.43 | — | ||||||
| 3. Level of function | — | — | -.03 | .62 | — | |||||
| 4. POS | 2.31 | 0.64 | -.01 | -.07 | -.02 | (.85) | ||||
| 5. LMX | 3.08 | 0.85 | .07 | -.09 | -.08 | .30 | (.92) | |||
| 6. JA | 3.66 | 0.93 | .04 | -.02 | .07 | .26 | .35 | (.94) | ||
| 7. OI | 3.07 | 0.75 | .10 | -.08 | .04 | .31 | .19 | .17 | (.84) | |
| 8. AC | 3.04 | 0.75 | .06 | -.07 | .06 | .46 | .34 | .29 | .57 | (.81) |
Note. N = 1723. POS = Perceived organizational support; LMX = Leader-member exchange; JA = Job autonomy; OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment. α coefficients are reported on the diagonal. Level of education was coded 1 for primary education, 2 for lower secondary education, 3 for upper secondary education, 4 for bachelor, 5 for master, and 6 for Ph.D. Level of function was coded 1 for level D, 2 for level C, 3 for level B, 4 for level A1, 5 for level A2, 6 for level A3, and 7 for levels A4 and A5.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Study 2: Fit Indices for Structural Models.
| Model | χ2 |
| NNFI | CFI | RMSEA | Δχ2 (Δ | Model comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesized | 2597.83 | 443 | .96 | .97 | .05 | 200.71(1) | Hypothesized vs. Alternative 1 |
| Alternative 1 (path added between POS and AC) | 2397.12 | 442 | .97 | .97 | .05 | 73.61(1) | Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2 |
| Alternative 2 (Alternative 1 + path added between LMX and AC) | 2323.51 | 441 | .97 | .97 | .05 | 6.51(1) | Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 3 |
| Alternative 3 (Alternative 2 + path added between JA and AC) | 2317.00 | 440 | .97 | .97 | .05 | — | — |
| Alternative 4 (Alternative 3 except that path between POS and OI = path between LMX and OI) | 2336.51 | 441 | .97 | .97 | .05 | 19.51(1) | Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 4 |
| Alternative 5 (Alternative 3 except that path between POS and OI = path between JA and OI) | 2343.10 | 441 | .97 | .97 | .05 | 26.10(1) | Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 5 |
| Alternative 6 (Alternative 3 except that path between LMX and OI = path between JA and OI) | 2317.08 | 441 | .97 | .97 | .05 | 0.08(1) | Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 6 |
Note. N = 1723. POS = perceived organizational support; LMX = leader-member exchange; JA = job autonomy; OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Fig 2Study 2: Completely Standardized Path Coefficients for the Alternative Model 3.
POS = perceived organizational support; LMX = leader-member exchange; JA = job autonomy; OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment. For the sake of clarity, only structural relationships are shown. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Study 3: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables.
| Variable |
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Language | — | — | — | |||||
| 2. Gender | — | — | -.02 | — | ||||
| 3. Level of function | — | — | .06 | .16 | — | |||
| 4. Time 1 OI | 3.38 | 0.62 | .15 | -.05 | .02 | (.75) | ||
| 5. Time 2 AC | 3.61 | 0.60 | .15 | .01 | -.06 | .41 | (.77) | |
| 6. Turnover | 0.20 | 0.40 | -.14 | -.06 | -.19 | -.03 | -.11 | — |
Note. N = 1012. OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment. α coefficients are reported on the diagonal. Language was coded 1 for Dutch and 2 for French. Gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for female. Level of function was coded 1 for soldiers, 2 for noncommissioned officers, and 3 for officers. Turnover was coded 0 for stayers and 1 for leavers.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Study 3: Logistic Regression Analysis.
| Dependent variables | Time 2 AC | Time 3 Turnover | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Constant | 2.14 | .13 | 2.50 | .72 |
| Language | .12 | .04 | -.70 | .18 |
| Gender | .08 | .06 | -.43 | .34 |
| Level of function | -.06 | .02 | -.73 | .13 |
| Time 1 OI | .39 | .03 | .19 | .15 |
| Time 2 AC | -.56 | .16 | ||
Note. N = 1012. Nagelkerke R² = .11. OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment. Language was coded 1 for Dutch and 2 for French. Gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for female. Level of function was coded 1 for soldiers, 2 for noncommissioned officers, and 3 for officers. Turnover was coded 0 for stayers and 1 for leavers.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.