As the implementer of innovation and technical change, you are concerned with securing commitment to these changes. There are several issues with which you must be familiar.
[See related information on the Persuasion, Decision, Commitment stage.]
Traditional
organisational commitment
In this section, we will first consider traditional views of organisational commitment. We
will then look at recent evidence on how organisational commitment is linked to leadership
behaviour.
In the classic book by Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982) on employee-organisation linkages, they discuss several typologies of organisational commitment. Early work in the area considered that organisational commitment or involvement could take one of three forms:
Others have proposed more recently that commitment to an organisation may be viewed in terms of some combination of three ideal forms: continuance commitment, cohesion commitment and control commitment. In this view, people may make personal sacrifices and investments that lead to their being committed to the survival of the organisation (i.e., continuance commitment). They may be attached to their social relationships within the organisation (i.e., cohesion commitment). Additionally, people may internalise the norms and values of the organisation, and this will provide some form of normative control and behavioural guidelines (i.e., control commitment).
Another distinction discussed by Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982) is between the social psychological and organisational behavioural approaches to commitment. The organisational behaviour approach describes the process by which employees come to identify with the goals and values of the organisation and want to maintain membership in it. This is also known as attitudinal commitment. The social psychological approach considers behavioural, as opposed to attitudinal, commitment as central. This perspective is concerned with the process by which individuals past behaviour (e.g., sunk costs) tends to bind them to the organisation. Both distinctions are actually useful and are included in their final conceptualisation.
Based upon all this work, and more, Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982) proposed commitment be considered as the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organisation based on at least three factors:
Almost fifteen years later, organisational commitment is still considered in terms of three components very much related to those proposed by Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982):
This traditional view of organisational commitment has been quite useful to people concerned with employee absenteeism and turnover. This conceptualisation of organisational commitment has been shown to be a strong predictor of such desirous organisational outcomes as intentions to stay in the firm, employee attendance, employee retention and job effort. Although it is difficult to calculate precisely the costs or the benefits of reducing levels of absenteeism and employee turnover, they are substantial. Organisational commitment and job performance, however, seem to be largely unrelated. Research results (Becker & Eveleth, 1995) suggest that although overall organisational commitment is not related to job performance, commitment to the supervisor, especially based on internalising the supervisor's values, may be a more valid predictor of performance.
A great deal of recent research involving the traditional conceptualisation of organisational commitment has been looking at the impact of leadership on commitment. For example, work in Australia suggests that aspects of management styles (e.g., degree of management emphasis on flexibility and adaptation perceived by employees) have a significant bearing on various characteristics of employee commitment (Zeffane, 1994). These results are consistent with the findings mentioned above by Becker and Eveleth (1995) regarding the employee-supervisor relationship and commitment. Zeffane's study of over 400 public sector and over 900 private sector employees shows that employees who perceive that their manager's style emphasises flexibility and adaptation, as opposed to more bureaucratic styles emphasising rules, regulations or hierarchy, report higher levels of organisational commitment. In the case of public sector employees, flexible and adaptive management style are the most prevalent antecedents of commitment. Zeffane argues that his data indicate that public sector employees tend to hold strong presumptions, and hence perceptions, of predominant bureaucratic cultures in their organisations. Consequently, the level of loyalty and attachment associated with the more flexible management styles is even higher among employees in that sector than in the private sector.
Similarly, data from over 300 respondents in a Western Australian state headquarters of a federal statutory body, suggest that the employees in this sample preferred a democratic, as opposed to a consultative or autocratic, decision-making leadership style, and that this was associated with greater organisational commitment (Savery, 1994). Those subjects reporting that their managers used a democratic style of leadership indicated a greater feeling of achieving something when they finished work, and indicated higher levels of organisational commitment in terms of a greater willingness to work for the organisation, greater loyalty to the organisation and a greater willingness to do any job or assignment in order to stay with the organisation.
Personal
commitment
Personal commitment is the situation in which I am committed to a course of action, or to
a decision, because I have given my word. In this case, the motivating factors are our
personal and social considerations tied to our self-image as reliable individuals who can
be counted on to meet our obligations. This is distinct from the previously discussed
traditional view of organisational commitment conceived in terms of attachment and
involvement. This perspective is actually a variation of the social psychological approach
to the topic of commitment mentioned earlier.
An individual is committed when they are bound by their words and/or acts. In this way, attitudes and behaviours form a self-reinforcing pattern. I said I would do X, I did X, and this further reinforces my self-image as a reliable individual and affects my attitude toward X as well. Research evidence suggests that an individual's commitment to an idea or behaviour can actually be increased if they have to argue publicly in favour of the idea or behaviour. For example, taking on a spokesperson role and speaking for the company interest, is a particularly effective mechanism for instilling commitment to certain ideological principles among those who perform the role (Kunda, 1992). On the other hand, if I say something and then do not act in accordance with what I have said, I feel discomfort or dissonance. I will act to reduce this dissonance by changing my attitude and/or my behaviour to reduce the discrepancy. In other words, behaviours lead to congruent attitudes, which lead to further congruent behaviour, and so forth.
We find at least three characteristics bind an individual in this sense: visibility, irrevocability, and volitionality of behaviour. If our words and deeds are public and observable, we will more likely be bound by them as we know that others have been witness to them. If our words and deeds are not easily reversed or somehow discounted, we will more likely be bound by them as we can not reason away the acts to reduce our cognitive dissonance. Finally, if we have entered into those behaviours or verbally committed ourselves of our own free will (i.e., we were not coerced), we will more likely be bound by them as they are identified with us via our choice.
It is important to remember that there are large individual, situational and cultural differences in terms of peoples' dedication to their commitments. This attachment is also situationally dependent and life-cycle dependent. For example, early on in a career, commitment may be less than in later years. Commitment to be on-time to a meeting may not have the strength of conviction as commitments of a more public and substantive nature. In various situations and cultures, statements such as "I'll see you later" and "Let's get together for lunch" have more of a symbolic than a literal meaning.
Strategic
commitment
So far in this unit we have discussed commitment in terms of
attachment to the firm and in terms of attachment to one's words and actions. There is a
distinctly different way of conceptualising commitment in an organisational context. We
can think of commitment in terms of attachment to an organisational course of action or an
organisational strategy. Ghemawat (1991) suggests that we consider commitment as the cause
of strategic persistence. This can have both positive and negative effects in an
organisational context.
Commitment could be thought of as a cumulative, dynamic constraint on strategy (Ghemawat, 1991). Once you have committed, there is a cost associated with change. Initial choice constrains subsequent behaviour. In this way, commitment may be defined as the degree of difficulty of changing organisational strategy.
There are several potentially negative consequences and predictable outcomes we can see when we consider commitment in this way. As a consequence of commitment, we become locked-in to certain courses of action as we feel we must persist and must resist changing our minds. A related consequence of commitment is that it locks-out other options as we have committed ourselves down a path that may preclude certain choices. As a result of this, we may experience lags in organisational responses and we may encounter resistance that delays us in responding to alternatives and necessary change. Commitment effects are sometimes powerful, as we frequently invest heavily in a course of strategic action. This may lead to our not taking strategic alternatives that are seemingly available to those not bound by the commitment. The irreversibility of commitment makes it necessary, therefore, that we take a serious look into the future, and into our values and beliefs, before we make significant strategic commitments at an organisational level.
Barriers
to commitment
Unfortunately, although many of the consequences of organisational
commitment are positive, there are a number of factors that inhibit the formation of such
attachments. Some of these barriers to commitment formation are micro-, individual-level,
psychological factors. Others are more macro-level issues related to our society and
culture.
In terms of individual-level, psychological barriers to commitment, one of the important factors is the frequent gap between what we expect to happen at work, and what actually does happen. This expectation-reality gap causes several problems. Examples of organisational expectation-reality gaps are:
Brewer (1993) suggests that when an employee's experience of work is comprised of a balance among identification, trust, investment, participation and equity, there is a greater likelihood of employee commitment. If this balance does not exist, one of three alternative non-commitment responses are more likely. "Compliance, voice and resistance represent responses by employees who find that the costs of commitment to their jobs and/or organisations outweigh the benefits" (p. 39-40).
In the case of compliance, employees behave correctly by obeying managerial directives and conforming to rules, procedures and objectives. They do not, however, become committed to the job or organisation. In fact, she suggests, they distance themselves from the organisation and may reduce their levels of effort and involvement. "Compliant employees often seek and identify faults within the organisation but do not take the responsibility for correcting the problem" (p. 41).
The response she refers to as voice is a more positive non-commitment response compared to compliance. Although these employees are discontent, they are not willing to merely conform. They exercise their voice by informing managers about their grievances and desires, and are willing to make suggestions regarding change. The least desirable non-commitment alternative is resistance. In this case, employees exit the firm either overtly (i.e., absenteeism or leaving) or covertly (e.g., sabotage, work stoppage or slow-down).
Barriers to commitment also exist outside of our organisations within our larger socio-cultural systems. Divorce rates, dual-career families, educational patterns, mobility, part-time and casual work, and increased specialisation and professionalisation all could impact the likelihood of our attaching ourselves to one firm. For example, in previous generations many people practiced the same trade for the same company virtually all of their working lives. In present day Western countries, it is not uncommon to be part of six different organisations in a respectable career.
Methods
for achieving commitment
In this section, we will consider various methods for strengthening levels of commitment.
Given that it seems increasingly difficult to achieve meaningful and rewarding
employee-organisational relationships, our discussion of methods for achieving commitment
is central to this unit on securing commitment. In order for employees to commit to an
organisation, there must be certain basic elements in place. Strategic elements such as a
mission and various business, financial, technology and marketing plans must be developed
and communicated. Various cultural elements such as vision and/or values and a corporate
identity must be clarified. Numerous human resource elements such as policies and
procedures regarding recruitment, selection and placement, rewards, training and
development, feedback and appraisal, career and succession planning all must be aligned
and integrated.
In order to provide structure for our coverage of these topics, I have expanded the work of Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982) who identify seven strategies to improve employee-organisation linkages.
Mission,
vision, values and commitment
Why is it so difficult to get commitment and loyalty from employees? What will motive
people and gain their commitment and loyalty? How can we capture peoples' minds,
imagination and spirits - as well as their bodies - forty-odd hours a week? These
types of questions are constantly on the minds of good managers. A first part of the
answer to these questions is that most people are already motivated, committed and loyal.
The main thrust of managers' efforts should be to remove the many organisational barriers
and road-blocks to the full expression of these attributes. A second part of the answer is
'values.'
The problem in many firms is that we have settled on a motivational system wherein we use the lowest common denominator - MONEY. Although money is certainly a prerequisite for getting someone to show up for work, it is not necessarily the reward that will really motivate someone beyond the call of duty. It certainly is not likely to result in fierce loyalty and commitment to the firm. Many people seem to work long and hard for a "cause", for something in which they believe. When employees share common values, when they see the majority of their work-mates and managers living and working by those values, when they find themselves being trained so that they can make those values a reality for themselves and their customers, then we can say that the organisation has a highly motivated, committed and loyal workforce. People will be working for a cause or a purpose, not merely for money. Work based on values has meaning!
What are values? The most common current conceptualisation of values is related to importance and monetary value. This instrumental, economic conceptualisation of values has received a great deal of attention and has provided several important and consistent results. For example, looking at the congruence between individuals values at different levels of the organisational hierarchy, has lead to several consistent research findings. We find that with greater congruence between the values of top management and various organisational units reporting to them, we get higher unit power, more successful unit mergers, higher levels of individual happiness and work satisfaction, greater employee performance and commitment, lower intentions to leave and lower actual staff turnover. Also, greater congruence of values between individuals, such as an individual and the person to whom they directly report, has been shown to be related to higher employee satisfaction, commitment, performance ratings, and to a leader's success and competence.
However, in order to fully activate and motivate people, managers must go beyond simple monetary values. They need to set out a vision or a goal that is worthy of true commitment. Managers have to ask people to go well beyond what the past and present would reasonably suggest is possible or likely. Managers must ask people to take a risk, to throw their 'helmets over the wall,' to make a commitment that is larger than who they are right now so that this commitment calls them to action. Managers must do this for themselves, as well as for their employees. To really motivate some people, we must ask them to go beyond the reasonable, to a place where the current capabilities and resources of the individual and the firm will not be sufficient. This is what makes people able to manoeuvre the small, no-name firms of today to become the next generation of leaders in the 21st. century. You do not achieve this by simply paying people more money. You achieve this by capturing peoples' imagination and by arousing their passion.
One way to do this, is via mission, vision and values-oriented management. A good mission, vision or values statement can act as the most visible part of a passionate call to action. These statements are best if they are crafted with the intention of being helpful to the people who work within the organisation. They should help guide people when making decisions. Should I hire this person or that person? Should I invest in this product or technology or that? An example of a poor mission statement, taken from a 1994 annual report, follows:
'To contribute to the progress of society with superior quality products and excellent service for each of our constituents - consumers, dealers, employees, shareholders and the community.'
A lovely sentiment indeed. But what does it mean? Is this company selling cars or condoms, or is it the new casino? I can not tell from this statement. It does not help employees make day-to-day decisions, nor does it tell anyone on the outside what to expect when they deal with this company. A better example comes from the 1994 annual report of another firm that has chosen to provide a series of philosophical statements that they then turn into grounded actions. For example, they state that they:
(1) guarantee cruelty free - "No animal has suffered in the creation of this quality product"; (2) have a quality commitment - the company ensures "complete labelling of its products"; (3) inform consumers - the company "has an ongoing commitment to provide responsible, authoritative information to enable the general public to make informed decisions about their health".
These types of statements let all "constituents" know what they can expect from the company in a specific, actionable manner. An employee of this firm would likely know how to respond to a customer request for product information. A manager would likely know which types of products in which to invest.
A company mission, vision or values exercise can be a waste of time or a word-fest - let us see how many buzz words such as quality, service, excellence and customers, we can pack into two or three sentences - or it can be part of a coherent, strategic effort to provide people with information that will enable them to act consistently and in line with corporate goals and values.
Many people have suggested that the main determinants of our future as a society and the main determinants of the success of an organisation are its strategy, its technology, or certain economic/financial considerations. However, others of us believe that the main determinants of the future are our values. Our human values and social arrangements will make the difference between success and failure for our firms, our nations and our planet.
References
Becker, T. E. & Eveleth, D. M. (1995). Foci and bases of employee commitment:
Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp
307-311.
Boyd, C. (1992). Individual commitment and organisational change. New York: Quorum.
Brewer, A. M. (1993). Managing for employee commitment. Sydney: Longman.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Ghemawat, P. (1991). Commitment: The dynamic of strategy. Sydney: Maxwell Macmillan.
Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organisation linkages. New York: Academic.
Savery, L. K. (1994). Attitudes to work: Influence of perceived styles of leadership on a group of workers. Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 15, 12-18.
Zeffane, R. (1994). Patterns of organisational commitment and perceived management style: A comparison of public and private sector employees. Human Relations, 47, 977-1010.