Literature review of Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in organisations
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment are two of the most prominent work attitudes examined in the work and organizational literature. These constructs also receive much attention within the more specific work-family literature. Researchers have often included both constructs in their examination of the relationships between work-family issues and work outcomes.
Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction is defined as “the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs” (Spector, 1997, p. 2).
Organizational Commitment: Meyer and Allen (1994) state that organizational commitment is “a psychological state that a) characterizes the employee’s relationships with the organization, and b) has implications for the decision to continue membership in the organization” (p. 67).
And also communication is very important in people’s relations.
Effective communication is based on information:
-the volume that is available;
-its quality;
-the means and media by which it is transmitted and received;
-the use to which it is put;
-its integrity;
-the level of integrity of the wider situation.
Communication and information feed the quality of all human relations in organizations. Good communications underline good relations and enhance the general quality of working life, motivation and morale. Bad and inadequate communications lead to frustration and they enhance feelings of alienation, lack of identity and unity.
The Term Paper on The Relationship Of Engagement And Job Satisfaction In Working Samples
... and Schneider (2008) discuss work engagement as having conceptual overlap with job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment, and empowerment. They describe work engagement as an amalgamation of ... community variable is distinct because it also subsumes aspects of communication, alienation, and cooperation. Research has consistently demonstrated that a lively, ...
It is therefore necessary to consider each aspect of the communication process in turn. This is followed by a discussion of the elements that contribute to their quality and effective usage. (Pettinger 150)
Beyond this general sense, Organizational scientists have developed many nuanced definitions of organizational commitment, and numerous scales to measure them. Exemplary of this work is Meyer & Allen’s model of commitment, which was developed to integrate numerous definitions of commitment that had proliferated in the literature. According to Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of commitment, prior research indicated that there are three “mind sets” which can characterize an employee’s commitment to the organization:
Affective Commitment: AC is defined as the employee’s positive emotional attachment to the organization. An employee who is affectively committed strongly identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the organization. This employee commits to the organization because he/she “wants to”. In developing this concept, Meyer and Allen drew largely on Mowday, Porter, and Steers’s (1982) concept of commitment, which in turn drew on earlier work by Kanter (1968).
Continuance Commitment: The individual commits to the organization because he/she perceives high costs of losing organizational membership (cf. Becker’s 1960 “side bet theory”), including economic costs (such as pension accruals) and social costs (friendship ties with co-workers) that would be incurred. The employee remains a member of the organization because he/she “has to”.
Normative Commitment: The individual commits to and remains with an organization because of feelings of obligation. These feelings may derive from many sources. For example, the organization may have invested resources in training an employee who then feels a ‘moral’ obligation to put forth effort on the job and stay with the organization to ‘repay the debt.’ It may also reflect an internalized norm, developed before the person joins the organization through family or other socialization processes, that one should be loyal to one’s organization. The employee stays with the organization because he/she “ought to”.
The Research paper on Impact of Employee Commitment On Employee performance
Employee commitment permanently shows a vigorous part to expand the employees’ performance. Committed employees provide an immense input to organizations in standings of their performance. The study explored the effect of the employee’s commitment on employee’s performance. Data was collected through 200 questionnaires from the employees of banking, telecommunication and education sector from ...
“Psychological contract” is a famous American psychologist mercy Management (E. H. Schein) in the 20th century’s a term of 60 years, the mercy seems, is the psychological contract “each member of the organization and different managers and among others, at any time, there is an absence of express provision in the expectations. “It consists of two parts, one individual employee goals with organizational goals and commitments fit relationship; the second is put through a series of staff, the return cycle after its experience in the organization constitute, and where companies fit the formation of emotional relationship, reflected in the staff of the organization’s sense of dependence and loyalty. In short, the business expectations clearly to staff development, and provide the conditions to meet this expectation as far as possible; and every employee that businesses can achieve their expectations, and full dedication to the development of enterprises. Thus, the existence of the psychological contract between employees and enterprises in the implicit contract, the core is employee satisfaction.
Good organizational commitment to improve employee satisfaction, promoting and maintaining employee and the psychological contract between enterprises. (http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/18808756.html?si=4)
Effectiveness of Relations-Oriented and Task-Oriented Leadership Behaviors
Regardless of the terminology, researchers have continuously focused on the
Effectiveness of relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. Like the differing terms, research findings regarding the effectiveness of these leadership behaviors have been varied. Specifically, studies have supported the effectiveness of leadership behaviors that are relations-oriented, task-oriented, and a combination of both (Bass, 1990a).
The Term Paper on Leadership Behavior Followers Leaders Organization
The paradoxical issue of leadership has been such long subject of speculation and much has been focused on the determinants s of leadership effectiveness. Much of the leadership has been centered on the different concept of leadership, different ways of evaluating its effectiveness, and different approaches for studying leadership and how it forges and affects the effectiveness and the efficiency ...
Examples of studies supporting the effectiveness of relations-oriented leadership behaviors come from Fleishman & Harris (1962) who discovered that consideration leadership behaviors resulted in lower employee turnover. Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass (1993) found that charisma, individualized stimulation, and intellectual stimulation were positive predictors of job performance. Butler, Cantrell, & Flick (1999) reported that the leadership behaviors of individualized support and intellectual stimulation resulted in higher levels of job satisfaction.
Examples of findings supporting the effectiveness of task-oriented leadership behaviors come from Patchen (1962) who reported that obtaining rewards for followers had a positive effect on job performance. Larson, Hunt, & Osborn (1974) found correlations between initiating structure and performance. Brown & Dodd (1999) discovered that contingent reward leadership behaviors resulted in greater satisfaction with supervisors and higher levels of productivity.
Examples of research supporting the effectiveness of a combined display of both relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors come from Klimoski & Hayes (1980) who found that the combination of task-centered and supportive leadership behaviors correlated positively with job performance and job satisfaction. Thite (1999) discovered that managers who exhibited charisma, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration as well as contingent reward and active management-by-exception leadership behaviors had more successful projects.
These various research findings demonstrate the broad impact of relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. One overall measure of effectiveness that captures many of these individual findings is organizational commitment.
Organizational Commitment as a Measure of Relations-Oriented and Task-Oriented Leadership Behaviors
Many factors influence employee commitment. These include commitment to the manager, occupation, profession, or career (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
The Term Paper on The effect of transformational leadership on organizational commitment: mediating role of empowerment
... effect of transformational leadership to the organizational commitment mediates by empowerment. This research will be useful to increase employee commitment in the organization. 1.5 Outline of ... which is non-transactional (laissez-faire). Nontransactional Leadership considered as the worst leadership behavior. The nontransactional leadership is characterized by a complete abdication or ...
Organizational commitment focuses on employees’ commitment to the organization. In explaining the significance of organizational commitment, Meyer & Allen (1997) refer to Morrow & McElroy’s (1993) statement that organizational commitment is the most maturely developed of all the work
Commitment constructs. As part of their research, Meyer & Allen (1991) developed a framework that was designed to measure three different types of organizational commitment: (a) Affective commitment refers to employees’ emotional attachment, identification with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment stay with the organization because they want to. (b) Continuance commitment refers to employees’ assessment of whether the costs of leaving the organization are greater than the costs of staying. Employees who perceive that the costs of leaving the organization are greater than the costs of staying remain because they need to. (c) Normative commitment refers to employees’ feelings of obligation to the organization. Employees with high levels of normative commitment stay with the organization because they feel they ought to.
In arguing for their framework, Meyer & Allen (1991) contended that affective,
Continuance, and normative commitment were components rather than types because employees could have varying degrees of all three. “For example, one employee might feel both a strong attachment to an organization and a sense of obligation to remain. A second employee might enjoy working for the organization but also recognize that leaving would be very difficult from an economic standpoint. Finally, a third employee might experience a considerable degree of desire, need, and obligation to remain with the current employer” (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 13).
Even though the authors present this argument, they do not imply that there is a rationale for summing all the scales to obtain an overall score for organizational commitment. Consequently, for this research, the different scales will be referred to as types rather than components.
The Term Paper on Organization Behavior 3
Attribution theory: an important tool for understanding and managing goal oriented organization behaviors. Attribution theory is known as the effective way which helps us to assume that people’s behaviour is caused by internal or external situational factors. This essay is going to discuss about the key elements of attribution theory and the relationship between them. In addition, the way of ...
Studies have linked organizational commitment to measures of effectiveness that are similar to those found when investigating the outcomes of relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. Loui (1995), for instance, found that commitment was significantly related to trust, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Angle & Perry (1981) uncovered a relationship between commitment and turnover. Wiener & Vardi (1980) reported positive correlations between commitment and job performance.
Research has also linked organizational commitment to leadership behaviors that are relations-oriented and task-oriented. Jermier & Berkes (1979) discovered that employees who were allowed to participate in decision-making had higher levels of commitment to the organization. DeCotiis & Summers (1987) found that when employees were treated with consideration, they displayed greater levels of commitment. Bycio, Hackett, & Allen (1995) reported positive correlations between the leadership behaviors of charisma, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent reward and affective, continuance, and normative commitment.
Organizational commitment provides a broad measure of the effectiveness of leadership behaviors. This relationship offers a way to further explore the subject of leadership.
Reference
Angle, H. & Perry, J. (1981).
An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Bass, B. (1990a).
Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership (3rd ed.).
New York: The Free Press.
Brown, F. & Dodd, N. (1999).
Rally the troops of make the trains run on time: The relative importance and interaction of contingent reward and transformational leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development, 20(6), 291-299.
Butler, J., Jr., Cantrell, S., & Flick, R. (1999).
Transformation leadership behaviors, upward trust, and satisfaction in self-managed work teams. Organization Development, 17(1), 13-25.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R., & Allen, J. (1995).
Further assessment’s of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
DeCotiis, T. & Summers, T. (1987).
The Term Paper on Organizational Behavior Organization Forces Mission
Organizational Behavior, by definition, is the study of human behavior, attitudes, individual differences, and performance in organizational settings. Understanding the internal and external forces within an organization is important to the success of any business. The internal and external forces that are to be understood are restructuring, economy, competition, fiscal policies, organizational ...
A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40, 445-470.
Fleishman, E., & Harris, E. (1962).
Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.
Jermier, J. & Berkes, L. (1979).
Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: A closer look at the quasi-military model. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 1-23.
Klimoski, R. & Hayes, N. (1980).
Leader behavior and subordinate motivation. Personnel Psychology, 33, 541-555.
Larson, L., Hunt, J., & Osborn, R. (1974).
Correlates of leadership and demographic variables in three organizational settings. Journal of Business Research, 2, 335-347.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991).
A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997).
Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982).
Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover.
Kanter, R. M. (1968).
Commitment and social organization: A study oF commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499–517.
Patchen, M. (1962).
Supervisory methods and group performance norms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 275-294.
Spector, P. E. (1997).
Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thite, M. (1999).
Identifying key characteristics of technical project leadership. Leadership & Organization Development, 20(5), 253-261.
Morrow, P. & McElroy, J. (1993).
Introduction: Understanding and managing loyalty in a multi-commitment world. Journal of Business Research, 26, 1-2.
Loui, K. (1995).
Understanding employee commitment in the public organization: A study of the juvenile detention center. International Journal of Public Administration. 18(8), 1269-1295.
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.
Yammarino, F., Spangler, W., & Bass, B. (1993).
Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81-102.
[Online] Available from : http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/18808756.html?si=4
[Date accessed 26/02/2011].
