Organizational Commitment, Public Service

Organizational Commitment, Public Service Motivation, and Performance within the Public Sector Author(s): Emanuel Camilleri and Beatrice I. J. M. Van Der Heijden Source: Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Dec., 2007), pp. 241-274 Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447673 . Accessed: 20/01/2014 04:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Performance &Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.194.92.202 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 04:57:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR EMANUEL CAMILLERI Ministry of Finance,Malta BEATRICE I.J.M.VAN DER HEIJDEN Maastricht School ofManagement, theNetherlands Open Universityof theNetherlands Universityof Twente, theNetherlands ABSTRACT: This studydevelops a performancemanagementmodel by examiningrelationsbetweenvarious attributesthatare assumed to enhance organizational commitment (OC) and public servicemotivation (PSM) and investigatesthe impactof theseand otherfactorson employeeperformance. Structuralequationmodelingoutcomesindicatethatemployee perceptionofhow well theorganizationismanaged is likelyto resultinhigherOC, leading toa higher level of PSM and performance. The findings also show thatjob characteristics have a direct impact on both OC and PSM but a rather low, indirect

onperformance. effect Employeesseem toneed toprioritizetasksand be clearly which have been found to informed of goals to avoid ambiguityand conflict, Moreover; theempiricaloutcomesof have a negative impacton performance. our study indicate that informal performance measures

assessmentpurposes ina public sectorenvironment.

may be suitable for

KEYWORDS: organizational commitment,performancemanagement, prioritization of tasks, public servicemotivation

Performance

is a complex

issue due to themany components

thatmake up its

composition.Its complexitystemsfromthefactthatthereis no homogeneous measure forit.Viewed froman organizationalperspective, havinga model that reasonablydepictsemployeeperformancein simpleand generaltermsis highly desirable.This studydevelopsa performance model by examining management the relations between various attributes that are presumed

to enhance organiza

Public Performance& Management Review,Vol. 31,No. 2, December 2007, pp. 241-274. C 2007 M.E. Sharpe, Inc.All fightsreserved. 1530-9576/2007 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/PMR1530-9576310205


241

242

PPMR

2007

/December

(OC) and public servicemotivation(PSM) of public service tionalcommitment employeesand examines the impactof theseand otherfactorson employees' model notonlyhelps inappraisingtheperfor Hence, theresultant performance. betweenthecompo mance processbutmay also aid inshowingtheconnectivity nentmeasures inamore holisticmanner. OC and PSM have important implicationsforbothemployeesas individuals and theorganizationsthatemploy them.First,priorresearchstudieshave indi whose aremore likelytoemployindividuals catedthatpublicserviceorganizations organization mission with the public service desires are compatible ideals and (Crewson,1997; Perry,1996, 1997; Perry& Wise, 1990).Hence, PSM isviewed Second, researchbyMeyer as a possible important componentof performance. andAllen (1997) and others(e.g.,Eby,Freeman,Rush,& Lance, 1999; Fukami & Larson, 1984;Naff& Crum, 1999; Porter,Steers,Mowday,& Boulian, 1974; valueOC because ithas a posi Schappe, 1996) has suggestedthatorganizations motivation and decreasesabsenteeism and work tiveimpacton job performance and turnover. Thus, OC appears to have potentiallyseriousconsequences for Moreover,committed employ individualandoverallorganizational performance. or behaviors,suchas creativeness eesmay bemore likelytoengage inextra-role thatare vital formaintainingan organization'sproactiveattitude innovativeness (Katz& Kahn, 1978). Therefore,thereis some agreementthatthevalues emanatingfromOC and Hence, have considerablevalue forpublic serviceperformance. PSM potentially this paper examines dominant antecedents

the research question: What that are presumed

are the relations between

to enhance OC

and PSM

the

of public ser

vice employeesand theirimpacton theemployees'performance? Our studyhas a numberof limitations. First,thestudyutilizedonly self-report measures forthepredictorvariables.Although individualsstrivetoachievecon responsepattern,thevariablespertainingto the sistencyin theirself-reported predictorscould be clustered(Kasl, 1978). Second, thevariablesexaminedare not exhaustive;othervariablesthatpossiblyhave an explicitdirectand indirect could have been includedin thestudy. effecton performance Theoretical Framework UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT OC

is considered

to be the basis for the introduction of human resource (HR)

managementpolicieswithinorganizationsbecauseHR policies have themajor aim of increasing the levels of commitment so thatpositive outcomes

can ensue

(Adler& Corson, 2003; Kuvaas, 2003). Although thereappears tobe littlecon sensus as to the precise meaning

of OC,

the various definitions and measures


of

Camilleri

OC

and van der Heijden

share one common proposition: OC

/ORGANIZATIONAL

is considered

COMMITMENT

243

to be a bond of the indi

differin termsof ideasper The definitions vidual to theworkingorganization. tainingto thequestionof how thisbond has been developed. Meyer andAllen (1997) positedthatthevariousdefinitionsthathavebeenput and theyhave developedan instrument forwardreflectthreebroadpropositions, compo based on thesepropositions. First,OC is viewed as havingan affective with, to theemployee'semotionalattachmentto, identification nent,referring in the thus to behav involvement specific job-related and organization, leading ior.For instance,committedemployeesare less likelytobe absentand are un membership(Meyer& Herscovitch, likelytoseverwillinglytheirorganizational therecognition of costs associ 2001). Second,OC may be viewed as reflecting toas continuanceor calculativeOC referred atedwith leavingtheorganization, becomebound &Alutto, 1972).Throughcontinuance OC, individuals (Hrebiniak to an organization

because

they have invested in it (e.g., a pension plan) and

OC reflectsthe cannotaffordto separatethemselvesfromit.Third,normative Normative employee'sfeelingof obligationto remainwithin theorganization. OC describesa processwherebyorganizationalactions (e.g., selection,social ization,and procedures)as well as individualpredispositions(e.g., loyaltyatti ofOC (Commerias & Fournier, 2002;Dodd-McCue tudes)lead tothedevelopment & Wright,1996;Wiener, 1982). ofOC have revealed multidimensional operationalization Empiricaltestsof the betweentheaffective OC scales, andnormative stronger thanexpectedcorrelations and sense of obligation to an suggestingthatfeelingsof affectiveattachment arenotfullyindependent ofone another(Hackett, Bycio,& Hausdorf, organization 1994;Meyer & Allen, 1997).AlthoughOC is thoughttobe a multidimensional concept,the threedimensionsare not fullyexclusiveand representcorrelated aspects of OC, which

is the reason the factor structure is oblique

instead of or

However,despite thisconcern,theconstruct developedbyMeyer and thogonal. Allen is consideredtobe robustand usefulforfurther OC empiricalstudies. OC has developed

into an important concept and is viewed as a psychological

contract(Castaing,2005;Rousseau, 1989).Rousseau (1989, 1995) vieweda psy toan individual'sbeliefsregardingthetermsand chologicalcontractas referring conditions of a reciprocal exchange

agreement between

that focal person and

another party. Thus, the key issue emanating from this concept is the belief that a

offeredin exchangeforit,binding promisehas beenmade and a consideration thepartiesto some setof reciprocalobligations(Rousseau, 1989). Berman and and author West (2003) suggestedthat workload,work schedules,responsibility with immediatesupervisors,interper ity,qualityofwork,workingrelationship sonal relations,specificbehavior of employees andmanagers, individually rewards, promotion,careerdevelopment, workingstyles,job security, preferred and loyaltycould be partof a psychologicalcontractinvolvingemployeesand


244

PPMR

/December

employers. Hence,

2007

a psychological

contract is a subjective perception of an em

and is concernedwithbeliefsaboutmutualobligationsof ploymentrelationship Moreover,Robinson(1996) andLester, employerandemployeetotherelationship. Tumley,Bloodgood, andBolino (2002) foundthattheviolationof a psychologi cal contract was related to negative work attitudes, such as higher employee

turn

to theorganization. and reducedcommitment over,decreasedjob performance, OC Several

is also viewed as being essential for the development

of human capital.

between certain human resource poli

studies have shown associations

cies and greater loyalty to employers (Edgar & Geare, 2005; Gould-Williams

&

Davies, 2005). According toHoque andKirkpatrick(2005) and otherliterature view of thefirm, employersfindthatsometimesit relatedto theresource-based might be more effective to "make" rather than to "buy" human capital. Here

the

to increase efficiency and on the im

focus is both on the demands of managers

Matusik andHill (1998) posited thatfirms portanceof knowledge.For example, should avoid using contingent workers

in core value creation areas where

the

risksof disseminating knowledgeare higherthanthepotentialgains associated with bringing in new staff.Under

these conditions, OC

through the retention of

gold collar workers and the generation of loyalty to the firm becomes

crucial.

extendedthese ideas, focusingon twodimen Lepak and Snell (1999) further thevalue anduniqueness sionsofwhat theycalled humanresourcearchitecture: of human capital. When advised

human capital

is both valuable

and unique,

firms are

to focus on developing human resources and fostering high OC.

The literature also suggests that a lack of OC

can have serious negative impli

cations. First, OC may result in high or unwanted turnover, adding to the cost of

The instability caused by high turnover may selection,and training. recruitment, create problems with regard to quality of services. Allen

showed how a

(2000)

lack of employment continuity restricted the ability of temporary nurses to be come fully equated with the condition, progress, and needs of patients and treat ment-plan preferences of doctors. Second,

a lack of OC

leads to the possibility

activities (Grimshaw, thatemployeeswill withdraw fromextra-contractual & Hebson, 2003).Hence, giventheseconcerns,somescholars(Beynon, Earnshaw, Grimshaw,Rubery,& Ward, 2002; Heery& Salmon, 2000; Rubery,2004) have argued that a heavy reliance on temporary workers can seriously undermine ser vice delivery in the longer term. The study of OC

in this context is important for several reasons. First, because

even though organizations

are becoming

leaner, theymust maintain

committed individuals who are the source of organizational main represent the heart, brain, and muscle

a core of

life. Those who

of the organization

re

(Meyer & Allen,

1997). Therefore, it is important to know the attributes that should be possessed by those employees who are retained. Second, workers who become

less com

mitted to an organization will route their commitment in other directions (Meyer


Camilleri

& Allen,

1997). These

and van der Heijden

employees may

COMMITMENT

/ORGANIZATIONAL

start to evaluate

245

their skills and experi

ence in terms of theirmarketability outside the organization, rather than by their

or future implications fortheircurrent Thus, itis impor jobs in theorganization. tant to know how to develop

the right type and level of OC

to ensure that the

better employees are retained. Third, employees who develop a high level of OC tend to be highly satisfied and are fulfilled by their jobs. Thus, understanding the dynamics of OC

is essential in the development of proactive and innovative pub

lic serviceorganizations. Finally,in thecurrent global economicscenario,orga nizationalchange is a continuousprocess thatrequiressupportof all employees in thehierarchicalstructure. Having employeeswith theappropriatelevelsofOC facilitatesthechangemanagementprocessand ensuresitssuccessfulimplemen tation. Human resourcesstrategies relatedtoemployeerecruitment, retention, reward, and incentive policies need to be defined in a holistic manner, having the primary

objectiveof encouragingemployeestopossess theappropriatetypeand levelof OC. Hence, management

needs to understand the dynamics of the relations be

tweenvariousantecedents, OC, PSM, andperformance. UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION Employee motivation plays a central role inmanagement, theoretically, and must be interpreted as a heterogeneous dimensions of motivation and theirmeasurements and concept that is utilized. However, PSM

both practically and

topic. Furthermore, the

differ depending on the theory

focuses on motives

linked to public

and organizations.In fact,Perry(1996) specifically made reference institutions tomotives when defining PSM, where

refer to a sense of psycho

these motives

logical needs. He argued that the level and type of an individual's PSM motivational

and the

composition of a public service organization's workforce affect in

and organizationaleffectiveness. dividualjob choice,job performance, Perry (1996) posited that public service is a special calling. However, Perry's PSM model

is specifically oriented toward theUnited States. In theirexamination

of the literature, Vandenabeele, Hondeghem, Maesschalck, that the PSM

and Depre

(2004) showed

concept is related to different aspects of government HR manage

forwage systems, ment,which includespreferences recruitment, performance, and whistle blowing. Furthermore, they found evidence to suggest thatPSM

is a con

cept that is found in Europe under different names and appearances. For instance, in theUnited Kingdom,

it is described as public service ethos, and inFrance, public

administrators speak of l'ethique du bien commun(Chanlat,2003). Hence, Vandenabeele PSM-like

et al. suggested that the widespread

and extensive emergence of

constructs in various countries indicates the presence of a robust phe

nomenon that is entrenched inWestern culture. Perry's conceptualization

of PSM

is based on a multifaceted dimensional construct that includes the following:


246

PPMR

/December

2007

A. Attraction to policymaking: The employee's strong desire to participate in the formulation of public policy, thus reinforcing one's image of self-importance. B. Commitment to public interest:The employee's strong need to serve in the public interest, involving a unique sense of civic duty. C. Compassion: The employee's strong desire for patriotism and benevolence. D. Self-sacrifice: An employee's strong desire to act for causes that protect, advocate, and work for the good of the public regardless of personal

consequences.

Perry(2000) explainedPSM theoretically by expandingon Shamir's (1991) work regarding different typesof socialization.He definedfourpremises that formthebasis of thealternativetheoryofmotivation:rational,normative,and affective processesmotivatehumans;people aremotivatedby theirself-concepts; ofmotivation;and preferences are learned values are endogenoustoany theory in social processes.Perrypresenteda process theoryof PSM by applyingthe definedbyBandura (1986) amongthree conceptof reciprocalcausal relationships factors,namely,environmental influences, cognitiveand otherpersonalfactors, and behavior.The literature providesevidence thatPerry'sPSM scale is valid and reliable (Perry& Coursey,2005;Wright& Pandey,2005); however,this evidence ismostlybased on subsetsof theoverall scale. UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF PERFORMANCE indicatesthat work performance and itscomponentsappear tobe The literature is dependenton theorganizationalcomposition,thatis,whetherthestructuring individual, group,ororganizational oriented.For instance,in individual-oriented shouldreflectnotonlyproductionoutput settings, employeework performance of appropriate butalsomitigatingcomponentsas suchas theavailability resources (Starcher, 1996).Group-oriented systemsarecharacterized by theempowerment work latitude(Lawler,1992) of employeestomake decisions,givingthemlarger participa by havinglowercontrolrulesaccompaniedby an innovator mentality, tionindecisionmaking,loyalty, andaltruism,leadingtohigherproductivity (Kim, under an system, loy 1998; Long, 2001). Furthermore, organizational-oriented with theentityexpectingtheindividual altyisvalued as immediate performance, todefend theorganization. Hence, theprimarycomponentsof employeework fororganizationally orientedsystemsconsistsoforganizationalciti performance com loyalty, zenshipbehavior,emphasizingemployee-company identification, mitment,unity,and having individualrewardsthatare linkedtoorganizational & Tesluk,2001; Staw,1996).However,a com performance (Kaufman,Stamper, mon issue that must be addressedirrespective of theorganizational workperfor mance structuring is theperformance measurement method. measure Berman,West, andWang (1999) examinedtheuse of performance ment in HR management surement is widely

inU.S.

counties. They found that performance mea

used but many measures

reflect traditional concerns with


Camilleri

and van der Heijden

/ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

247

froma public sectorperspective,thisstudyalso findsthat compliance.Important mission orientation andbroad supportaffecttheuse of performance measures in HR management,as well as technicalabilitytogathersuchdata.Furthermore, Lynn(1998) raisedsome important considerations forthepublicsectoratamacro levelinrelationtoHR managementandperformance, suchas theconceptualization of organizational(i.e., government) performancein termsof themany typesof outputsand outcomes,resultsand processes,addingvalue to democraticcon and theevaluationof thecontribution of actualandproposedadmin stituencies, istrativereforms.However, Lynnmaintained that the interveningprocess HR managementsystemsand organizationalperformanceremains connecting unexplored. Vigoda (2001)made a distinction betweenformal(in-role)and informal(ex measuresof individualperformance. He viewed formalperformance tra-role) as a setof requiredbehaviorsone is expectedtodisplay inone's job and forwhich one isdirectlyrewarded. He suggestedthatan alternative patternofperformance evaluationtakes intoconsiderationother,more informal duties thatare not an integral partof one's work, reflecting theprosocialactivitiesand altruismin the workplace,

such as doing a better job and making

an effort above and beyond

formalrequirements. The literature indicatesthat most public serviceorganizationsappear touse formal measures.The systemforsenior performance managers isnormallybased on a pay-for-performance (PFP) scheme,wherebyperformanceis ratedby a se riesof scales,witheach scaleprovidingthebasis fora performance bonus.How ever,PFP systems may notbe compatiblewith theoperatingenvironment of the PFP systemsstressdecentralization ofdecisionmak public service.For instance, ingand individual whereaspublicserviceoperating discretion, environments have of employees,centralization, and standardiza typicallystressedequal treatment tion(Eisenberg& Ingraham,1993). Formiddlemanagement,public serviceentitiesuse theperformance manage mentprogramtoprovideregularfeedbacktoemployeesabouttheir performance, allowing thesupervisorand employee todevelop a training plan jointlyto re solve identified weaknesses

and linking the reward to the provision of a perma

nentpay increment based on merit.Employees assessed undera performance a lowerratingcomparedwith theirexpec managementprogramsystemreported tationsand expressedtheirconcernwith inequityin ratingsand pay out (Taylor & Pierce,1999).Lower public servicegradesareusuallyassessed annually, with theirappraisalbeingbased on performance of duties,personalityand character, and discipline.Nevertheless,empiricalevidencesuggeststhatthesesystemsare measures thatare stronglyinfluenced with su affect subjective by interpersonal pervisors who develop a positive or negative affect toward employees based on

theperformancetheyobserveovera periodof time(Bain,2001;Varma,Denisi,


248

PPMR

/December

2007

measures ignoredimensionsof & Peters,1996).However, formalperformance that lie beyond the scope of the specific job itself, thus creating

work behavior

difficultiesfororganizationsthatintendto rewardorganizationalcitizenship & Erez, 1998). (Welbourne,Johnson, An informal performance measure takesintoaccount theprosocial activities and altruismin theworkplace (Vigoda,2001).Welbourne et al. (1998) proposed an informal performance measure known as role-based performance that is based on role theory, in which

employee performance

is a function of both the indi

vidual and theorganization,thuscombiningthepsychologicaland sociological havedissimilarexpectations However,because different organizations viewpoint. of theiremployees,rolesaliencyis likelytovaryacrossorganizations;therefore, measure is difficult. Employee loyalty creatinga generalizedperformance to remain with the organization

defined as a willingness

(Solomon,

1992), going

beyond the call of duty (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982), and behaving altruis tically (Laabs, However,

1996)-may

also be utilized as an informal performance measure.

a lack of a universal definition of loyalty is leading to confusion about

the concept, as the itemized themes tend to be associated with the dimensions of

OC and organizationalcitizenshipbehavior(Eskildsen& Nussler 2000; Powers, 2000). An important measure of performanceis theperceptionof fairness informal who and justiceassessedby theperceptionof organizational politics.Individuals politics have cheated them out of a deserved oppor to exhibit unconstructive reactions, such as apathy, dissatisfac tunity are likely

perceive

that organizational

tion, and anxiety, which negatively affect their performance (Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson, & Anthony, 1999; Vigoda,

2000). Organizations

that create a culture

and ambiance of equity and fair distribution of social and political resources may to engage in formal performance and their willingness increase employees'

organizationalcitizenshipbehavior (Vigoda, 2000). Moreover, rewarddistri bution in political work environments is at odds with equity theory, as the receipt of organizational

rewards due to political maneuvering

as unfair and, accordingly, demotivates

employees

is likely to be perceived

to perform well

et

(Kacmar

al., 1999). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OC, MOTIVATION, PERFORMANCE, AND THE ANTECEDENTS Research

findings suggest that PSM

is positively

spective of theway performance ismeasured

related to performance

the literature indicates thatmost studies show a positive relation between OC motivation. However,

the empirical evidence

irre

(Naff & Crum, 1999). Furthermore, suggests thatmotivation

and

is posi

tively related to affective OC, but there does not appear to be any evidence of a relation between motivation and continuance or normative OC

(Eby et al., 1999).


Camilleri

and van der Heijden

/ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

249

Moreover, iftheequityandproceduraljusticemotivationtheoriesare takeninto relationamong equitypercep consideration,theresultsindicatea significant tions,affective OC, andperformance. Furthermore, employeesreporthigherOC if the are to be only procedures perceived fair;otherwiselowerOC is reported (Schappe, 1996). These findingssupporttheargumentthatperceptionsof fair treatment swayan employee'sgeneralaffective responsetotheorganization. Their emotionalattachment would becomemanifestwhen employeesacceptorganiza tional values, when

they are motivated

to exert effort, and when

they have a

membersof theorganization. strongdesire to remain In thisstudy,fivecategoriesof antecedentsareconsidered:personalattributes, role states,employeeperceptionof theorganization, employee-leaderrelations, and job characteristics. Generally,theliterature findingssuggestthat OC isposi related to and and tively age, organizationaltenure, salary, negativelyrelatedto educationalleveland job level;women andmarriedemployeesreport higherOC scores (Bateman& Strasser,1984; Lee & Maurer, 1999;Michaels & Spector, 1982;Naff& Crum, 1999).Moreover,PSM appears tobe positivelyrelatedto education,age, job level,andorganizationaltenure, withwomen havingslightly higherPSM (Naff& Crum, 1999).The literature showsthatperformance isposi tivelyrelatedwith job tenureand job level,with inconsistent resultsreportedfor salary,age, educationlevel,and organizationtenure(Bateman& Strasser,1984; vanDyne,Graham,& Dienesch, 1994). Furthermore, theliterature suggeststhat the role states of conflict and ambiguity have a negative relation with OC, moti

vation,andperformance (Babakus,Cravens,Johnston, & Moncrief,1996;Singh, 1998). shows thatall thedimensionsof theemployeeper Moreover, theliterature ceptionof theorganizationantecedentsarepositivelyrelatedtoOC, motivation, and performance(Finegan,2000; vanDyne et al., 1994; Zeffane,1994). Simi larly,thedimensionsof theemployee-leaderrelationsantecedents were all found a tohave positiveimpactonOC, motivation,andperformance (Benkhoff, 1997; Nyhan,2000; VanYperen, van denBerg,& Willering, 1999). Likewise, thelit eraturereviewsuggeststhatthereis generalagreementthatthejob characteris tics are positively related toOC, motivation, and performance (Renn & & Fried, 1992). Vandenberg,1995; Singh, 1998; Tiegs,Tetrick, TOWARD A PERFORMANCE MODEL: ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF PSM AND OC Based

on the literature review, a theoretical model

empirical

study is shown in Figure

1. The

that lies at the basis of our

research question

is:What

are the

relationsbetween thedominantantecedentsthatare presumedto enhanceOC and PSM of public service employees and what is their impact on the employees'

performance? Hence, theprimaryhypothesesare (a) dominantantecedentsare


250

PPMR

/December

2007

X commitmentJ

( ntecedents

)

erformance

Public service

Model Including Figure 1.Performance Antecedentsand Consequencesof OrganizationalCommitmentand Public ServiceMotivation good predictors of OC and PSM, mance

is a consequence

(b) PSM

of both OC

is an antecedent of OC, and (c) perfor

and PSM.

Research Methodology SAMPLE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY The

theoretical model

questionnaire.

The

depicted

in Figure

research population

1 is tested by the administration of a consists of over 3,400 Maltese

public

officers occupying administrative grades that cover the full spectrum of adminis trative jobs in all the government ministries. The research survey (see Appendix

2) administration is based on a population

census during paid working hours. Furthermore, the survey administration is incor porated as part of a series of change management

information seminars on public

service financial management, consisting of 46 seminar meetings of no more than 100 participants per session and spread over a period of threemonths. At the begin ning of each seminar, thepurpose of the study is explained, and voluntary participa

tionisrequested. isguaranteed, andconference roomfacilitators Anonymity encourage all participants to complete the questionnaire fully and accurately. This procedure achieved an overall response rate of 71.5 percent (2,431 respondents) of which 49

weremen.However,1,217respondents percent completedthequestionnaire fully. MEASURES This section provides an overview of all measures All

items of the different scales are measured

that are included in our study.

by using a Likert rating scale from

1 (definitely agree) to5 (definitely disagree).


Camilleri

and van der Heijden

/ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

251

measures: organiza Personal attributesincludethefollowinglistof one-item educationlevel,familylife-cycle tiontenure,age, gender,job grade,job tenure, status(i.e.,marital status,numberof children,age of youngestand oldestchild, and numberof childrenlivingat home). Role statesaremeasuredby theRizzo, House, andLirtzman(1970) scale and consistof roleconflict(8 items)and ambiguity(6 items)in theworkplace. aremeasuredby 33 items:30 itemsare fromtheJobCharacter Jobattributes isticsInventory (Sims,Szilagyi,& Keller, 1979) and 3 items(tasksignificance) are fromtheJobDiagnostic Survey (Hackman& Oldham, 1974). The dimen sionsmeasured includeskillvariety(5 items),taskautonomy(6 items),task identity(4 items),taskfeedback(5 items),friendship opportunities(7 items), task with others and (3 dealing items), significance(3 items). Employee-leader relationsismeasured bymeans of 25 itemsutilizingthe dimensionsof House andDessler (1974) scale. This scalemeasures different structure(7 items),leadershipconsideration(9 leadershipbehavior: initiating items),participation(5 items),and leadershipcommunication(4 items; Wood, Chonko,& Hunt, 1986). measures thefollowingfivedimen Employeeperceptionof theorganization sions:biased foraction (1 item),customerfocused(2 items),autonomyand en (3 items),productivitythroughpeople (2 items),and having trepreneurship of Sharma,Netemeyer loose-tightproperties(1 item).The originalinstrument tomanagementexcel attributes andMahajan (1990) measures eighkt referring lence and is based on the work of Peters and Waterman

(1982). Three of the

PetersandWatermandimensions(i.e., hands-onvalue driven,simpleformand lean staff, and stickingto theknitting) arenotused because theyarenotassumed tobe relatedtoa public serviceenvironment. OC

ismeasured

by means of an 18-item version ofMeyer

and Allen's

(1997)

scale.The OC scale consistsof threedimensions(i.e.,affective, and continuance, normative OC) of six itemseach. which consistsof 24 items: PSM ismeasuredusingPerry's(1996) instrument, attraction forpublicpolicymaking (3 items),public interest(5 items),compas sion (8 items),and self-sacrifice (8 items). Informal performanceismeasured by PerceptionofOrganizationalPolitics Scale

(Kacmar et al., 1999). Political behavior ismeasured

by 2 items; go along

get-ahead, by 5 items; and pay and promotion, by 5 items.

Formalperformanceismeasured by two items:supervisorratingand self rating.Supervisorratingis based on therespondentsrecallingtheratingtheir supervisorawarded themin themost recentannualperformanceappraisal re view.Self-rating performanceis based on therespondents' gradingthemselves on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest).

General variables such as role states,job attributes, PSM, employee-leader,


252

PPMR

/December

2007

are employeeperceptionof theorganization,and organizationalcommitment determined by summating all the particular items for each scale and dividing by the respective number of items in the specific scale to obtain a single variable researchers have noted that summating items to obtain a single

Some

measure.

as a concern, particularly when the construct, such as PSM,

measure

is presumed

tobe reflective. DATAANALYSIS method applied in Structuralequationmodeling (SEM) is themajor statistical allows separate relations for each of a set of dependent variables

this study. SEM and provides

the suitable and most efficient estimation technique for a series of

Hence, unlike separatemultipleregressionequationsestimatedsimultaneously. multivariate analysis of variance and canonical correlation that allow only a single

variables,SEM allowsmultiplere relationbetweendependentand independent variables.Therefore,themodel lationsbetween thedependentand independent shown in Figure

1 is tested in a holistic manner.

SEM usingconfirmatory factoranalysis isutilized todetermine Furthermore, the validity of the constructs. For a construct to be valid, itmust be shown that

both convergent and discriminant validityare achieved.Anderson andGerbing method forevaluatingconvergent validity (1988) suggestedthatan appropriate is to examine

in SEM

the construct

loadings

and determine whether

each

indicator's estimated coefficient is significant (i.e., whether the estimated coeffi cients are greater than twice their standard error). Each according

toAnderson

and Gerbing's

construct is examined

(1988) criterion, and all the estimated co

efficients are found to be greater than twice their standard error.Therefore, conver gent validity is achieved. Furthermore, Bagozzi that discriminant validity in SEM

and Phillips (1982, p. 476) suggested

is achieved if the unconstrained models

have a

significantly lower chi-square than constrained models. For all constructs, the un constrained models

appear to have a significantly lower chi-square compared with

the constrained models. Hence, discriminant validity is achieved as well. We

adopt composite

reliability (i.e., measuring

internal consistency)

analysis, in line with Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black

for path

(1998). A high-compos

value indicateshigh reliability. itereliability Normally,theacceptable threshold for composite composite

(Hair et al., 1998, p. 612). All

scales show a

reliability of > 0.50. The predictive validity of themeasures

by evaluating use EQS

reliability is > 0.50

is tested

the correlation between dependent and independent variables. We

6.0 (Multivariate Software, Encino, CA)

to test the hypothesized

ages between themodel variables simultaneously. EQS

provides weights

link

indicat

and directionof theassociationsof hypothesizedvariables.The ing strength methodology

adopted in this study adheres to the seven-stage approach suggested


Camilleri

and van der Heijden

/ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

253

theparameterestimatesare testedforfeasibility and byHair et al. Furthermore, acceptability(Bentler,1995).We findno negativeerrorvariances,and all stan dardizedcoefficients are less than1.0 (see alsoHair et al., 1998,p. 610). Results DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS Appendix 1providesthemeans, standarddeviations, Cronbach's alpha reliabil itycoefficients, and bivariatecorrelationsforallmodel variables.The bivariate and normative correlationsillustratethataffective OC generallyhave a signifi cant positive relationwith thedimensionsof the informal measure of perfor mance (equity).As expected,continuance OC appearstoonlyhave a significant positiveassociationwith thepay and promotiondimension. Moreover, all di mensions of PSM have a significantly positiverelationwith all dimensionsof of thisrelationappears tobe strongerforaffective OC. However, thestrength and normative OC. Surprisingly,thebivariatecorrelationsbetweenPSM and theinformal measure show thatonly attractiontopolicy-making performance relatedtoall thedimensionsof theinformal appears tobe significantly perfor mancemeasure. Examinationof theantecedentsprovides some interesting outcomes.Role has a relation with all ambiguity dimensionsofOC, PSM, significantly negative and informal performance. However, roleconflictonlyhas a significantly nega tiverelation with thedimensionsof informal whereas therelation performance, withOC and PSM measures rangesfrominsignificant to significantly (albeit low) positive relation. The results related to role conflict are inconclusive.

Employeeperceptionof theorganizationis significantly positivelyrelatedto all dimensionsofOC, informal andPSM, with an exceptionforthe performance, PSM compassiondimension.Furthermore, bothemployee-leaderrelationsand are significantly job attributes positivelyrelatedtoall dimensionsofOC, infor mal performance, and PSM. The only exceptions are the relation between deal

ingwithothersand tasksignificance on theone hand,andpolitical (job attributes), behaviordimension(informal performance measure) on theotherhand.The cor relation matrixgenerallyappears tosuggestthata positiveemployeeperception of theorganization,together with fruitful employee-leaderrelationsand con structive job traits, contributes

to an increase

in the level of OC,

PSM,

and

performance. The most interesting observation,however,is thatall theseantecedentsare more stronglyrelatedto theaffectiveand normative OC dimensionsthanthe continuance OC

dimension. This result suggests that they are important in the

of affective andnormative lightof thedevelopment OC.


254 PPMR /December2007

Table 1.ReliabilityofScales: CompositeReliabilityofExogenousConstructs Exogenousconstructs

Compositereliability

Organizational commitment Affective commitment Continuance commitment Normative commitment Role states Role conflict Role ambiguity Informalperformance (perception of organizational politics) Political behavior Go along-get ahead Pay and promotion Job characteristics Skill variety Task autonomy Task identity Task feedback Friendship opportunities Dealing with others Task significance Employee perception of theorganization Biased foraction Customer focused

Single item .82 .69 .82 Single item .73 .73 Single item .67 .66 .66 Single item .78 .72 .82 .89 .86 .56 .83 Single item Single item .71

Productivity throughpeople Loose-tight properties Employee-leader relations Initiatingstructure Leadership consideration Participative leadership Leadership communication Public servicemotivation Attraction topolicy-making Public interest Compassion Self-sacrifice

.83 Single item Single item .88 .91 .93 .92 Single item .59 .70 .72 .83

Autonomy/entrepreneurship

.82

MODEL TESTING Various

SEM

revisions are tested in the light of the cross-validation

process.

Afterremovinglinkagesthatwere notwithin theacceptable significancelevel, therevised model (seeFigure2),which showsthestandardized pro coefficients, vides acceptable fitindices for each data set.A confirmatory factor analysis through

withcompositereliabilities SEM isconductedforeachmultidimensional construct, calculated based on the following formulae (Hair et al., 1998, p. 624):


Camilleri

and van der Heijden

Table 2. Performance Model

/ORGANIZATIONAL

Fit Indices: Antecedents

COMMITMENT

and Consequences

255

of

Public ServiceMotivationandOrganizationalCommitment n

Model

Full sample 80% sample 20% sample

Chi-sq.

df

1,217 157.79 958 142.32 51.05 259

30 30 30

Sig.

.00 .00 .01

GFI

AGFI

.98 .97 .97

RMSEA

.95 .94 .93

.059 .063 .052

NFI

CFI

.94 .93 .91

.95 .94 .96

Notes: GFI = goodness-of-fit index.AGFI = adjustedgoodness-of-fit index.RMSEA = rootmean square error of approximation.

Composite reliability

NFI

= normed

fit index. CFI

= comparative

fit index.

(Sum of standardized loadings)2 (Sum of standardized loadings)2 + Sum of the indicatormeasure error

where theindicator measurement errorequals 1- (sumof standardized loadings)2. inSEM areexogenous,onlythe Because all theconstructs measurement model and theassociatedcorrelation matrices forexogenousconstructsand indicators need tobe considered. Table 1 showsthatthecompositereliabilities forthescales used in themodel arehighlyreliablebecause theyexceed therecommended.50 acceptable threshold. We use themaximum likelihood method to investigate thecovariancematrix of themodel using absoluteand of the itemsand evaluate thegoodness-of-fit relativeindices.The absolutegoodness-of-fit indicesthatare calculatedinclude thegoodness-of-fit index,adjustedgoodness-of-fit index,comparativefitindex, thegoodness-of and therootmean squareerrorof approximation. Furthermore, and comparativefitindexvalues thatare largeror fit,adjustedgoodness-of-fit, equal to .90 and rootmean

square error of approximation values smaller than or

equal to .08 are indicative of an acceptable

fit (Cudeck & Browne,

1993).

The chi-squaregoodness-of-fit index indicatesthatthehypothesizedSEM model is rejected. However,a critiqueregardingthevalidityof usingchi-square to evaluate themodel Du & Tanaka,

fit is that it is particularly dependent on the sample size (La

1989). As

the sample size increases, the chances of rejecting the

model (whethertrueor false)escalatebecause theincreasedsamplesizemakes it more likelytodetectdiscrepanciesbetweentheimpliedandobservedcovariance matrices (Bagozzi& Yi, 1988;Byrne,2001). Hoyle (1995) suggesteda normed fit index value of .90 or higher as an alternate fit index to the chi-square value.

Moreover,Bentler (1990, 1992) andHu andBentler (1999) suggestedthecom of .95beingconsidered parativefitindextocaterforsamplesizewith a threshold a well-fitting model. Table 2 shows that themodel

fit is good for all three data

sets,which impliesthatwe have sufficient supportforacceptingthehypoth esized research model. We

achieve model validity through cross-model validation, which


is attained

256

PPMR

/December

2007

Age -0.28

-0.19

Education

0.24

Puc Scommitment C

Self-?r\.1

-0.22

ob atRiblesaes

per e Iformal ~

index= 0.95. p = 0.00. Root mean squareerrorof approximation = 0.06.

phase,we divide thecollecteddata intotwoindepen in threephases. In thefirst dentdata sets: a data setconsistingof 20 percentof thedata collectedfromre spondentsand theseconddata setconsistingof theremaining 80 percentof the path analysisby data collected.In thesecondphase,we conductSEM through calculatingthestructural fitindex(measuredbyR2) forbothdata sets.Finally,in thethird phasewe examine thedifferences of thecalculatedstructural fitindices obtainedforeachdata set(see alsoBluedomn, 1982).We determine theextentof the model validityby thesimilarityin thevarianceaccountedforby each data set. Table 3 shows thatthecross-validation produces satisfactory resultsforall


Camilleri

Table 3. Results ofModel

Predicted variable

and van der Heijden

Cross-Validation Full sample

/ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

257

Showing R2 for the Three Samples 80% sample

20% sample

Difft inR2for 20% and 80% samples

Organizational commitment

.336

.339

.221

.270

.348

.009

Formal performance Supervisor rating

.023

.023

.022

.001

.166

.175

.246

.071

Publicservice motiviation Self-rating

Informalperformance

Payandpromotion

.227 .111

.113

.102

.049 .011

variables.Results forOC, PSM, and theformalperformance measures of self ratingand supervisor-rating performanceare particularlystrongas thediffer ences in accounted-for variancesare very small.However,R2s for theformal measures are somewhatlow,particularly forsupervisorrating. The performance model

at Figure 2 and Table 4 showing the direct, indirect, and total affect of the

antecedentvariableson OC, PSM, and theperformance measures answer the researchquestion:What are therelationsbetweendominantantecedentsthatare presumedtoenhanceOC andPSM ofpublic serviceemployees, andwhat is their impacton theemployees'performance? The findingsshow thatalthoughtheformal measures of individualperfor mance regardingself-and supervisorratingenteredthemodel, themagnitudeof therelation withOC and PSM is low,particularlyforself-rating performance. are eachmeasuredby a single item,re Supervisorand self-rating performance spectively:"Whatperformance ratingdid yoursupervisorgive you in themost recentperformance appraisalreport?"and "Ifyouwere torateyourperformance out of 10, what ratingwould you give yourself?" These questions are perhaps not

themost optimalmeasuresof performance, and a suitableorganizational perfor mancemeasuremay have beenmore appropriate. A possible explanationforthislowmagnitudein therelations may be attrib uted to the event that in an administrative environment and in the absence of

measures thatassess individualperformance are performance standards,formal toharmonizeacross job levelsand functions, difficult and,hence, theresponses may not reflect a truthful state. A

further explanation

is that less than half the

respondents providedan answerfortheself-and supervisorratingsquestions. were notcomfortable This low responseratemay suggestthatrespondents with whichmay be attributed to the thesespecificquestions,particularly self-rating, nationalculture,where aMediterraneanmindsetnormallyviews performance function. is a ratingas a supervisory Therefore,thehypothesisthatperformance consequenceof bothOC andPSM is acceptedwith caution.


258

PPMR

/December

2007

Table 4. Direct, Indirect, and Total Affect ofAntecedents Commitment, Public Service Motivation,

on Organizational

and Performance Formal Performance

OC

Relation Age

Direct

-.19

Indirect

Total

-.06

-.19

Direct Indirect Total

Job characteristics


Employee-leader relations


Employee perception of org.

Direct

-.30

-.01

.00 -.02

-.02

.00 .01 .01

.00 .02 .02

.18 .00 .18

.13 .05 .18

.00 .01 .01

.00 .01 .01

.00 .02 .02

.11 .00 .11

.00 .03 .03

.00 .004 .004

.00 .003 .003

.00 .01 .01

.32

.00

commitment.

PSM

.00

.00

.01 .01

.33

.10 .10

.01 .01

.00

.06

-.12

-.08

.00

.06

-.12

-.08

.00

.00

= organizational

-.01

.00 -.01

.00 .01 .01

.00

Total

.00 -.01

Pay&Pro

.00 .05 .05

.00

Indirect

Self Supervisor

.17 .00 .17

.00 .32

Indirect Total Role states Direct

OC

-.24

.00

Education

Note:

PSM

Informal Performance

= public

.00

.00

service motivation.

Pay&Pro

.03 .36

.00

= pay and

promotion. All ps ~~~~~~~~

* * * * * C\l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~~~~~~*

m

(N

* * * * C)* t- CD * * * V o _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t X > N 't

Q ._

* * ~~~~~~* * * *

;

s

*

Cl)

*

d ;

~

~

~

~

~

*

*

c 1 * * * * * *

~ ~~~~~** ~~~~**

t

^X

*

*

*

* *

0

* *

0 * *

* * * * ~~~~* ~~~* * t *00 * -*

* *

** N* *

11) ~ ~

~

-

*

* * * * 0, 00on Ft

Cq "tO * *

* * * * * W) 0 C) Nomt

** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * m~~~~~~~~~0 C O n m m It It N m m N cn m N N rn - n N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* iw * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0 ' V 9' t N0m m C 00 r O CO~N04 ' 0 O 00N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - 0

oeO0 oc o

N M

t e ^tt

O.

C4 M

n (- CINt

00 C 'I cn t ol nO) N F CS NOO?>~~~~~~~~~r o C 0o0CS O O 00 r0 0 0

X~~~~~~~~~t tn c

o ci c) c N t 0 r- N ooo NVI "t

" o

\c c

\,. ,:t \c t? o ) W) W) N m o

t

CA m m C1 Cl n CA cn c

00 \CO 00 - C (1 cn, tr0 00t0000 t\, 0 ) cn m - r-

o s

00

t r- m w o ? m C,4 't N

N N

0EC

CNNnnsmNN .4

E

0e 0

n

.u

C

0

- 0

0

c0000. Cl

i

s i

00

o C 0

C C0

0~

g ;

4.

C-c C) N.c

CC0 C 0

c

0

N

u t

O0

u et C: 0 0

Cl 0N0000 -4--4 4 -O --I -- -I -.I -4cl

C.) 0 0

t O

0 C >C

CZ CC )C cis C C 0 Cl l Cl4C Cl4Cl4 Cl4 Cl


00

0

0

c

268 PPMR /December2007

U*N

(N

00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0c

* t~~~~~~~~

tn X 000r * * * (N~~~~~~

* * * ~~~~~*

>

X N N N N en **Cl\* Cl\ l NCl *** cn C 'C 'IC t

en 'C

* *

* *

* *

* * * *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* * * *

* *

~~~* *

* *

* * * * * * * C tn a,\ N

* *

(N (N

(N

~~~~* o

t

^

oo ON

** X* *

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

~~*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

rN _ -

~

* * * N0 *

* ~* ~*

~

00

*

**c **0 *I *~~~~~~~~ *

** *

*

*

*

*

~Cl

* *

* *

* * *0 N *

**

**n *-

* ** *

*

*

t

*

00

> O O

ON

00 n O4 c 00 CX u >- C) C' 1 -

C's

*

**

00

co

1- 1- 1- - - - - O9- - - C''

....

o ~ SOmt =0 lc N C' tr

3

CN F-; = C'sONO

)

0~~~~~~~~

-- O 00 S

O

4 1-4 _--o

-

0

m 0t

N

.-

C) < \~~~~~~~~~0

NClClClClClClClClC

) IC - 00 00000

u

m

? N

0 * oaON^tmc>o *


Camilleri

and van der Heijden

/ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

269

Appendix 2. Full Survey Questions Responses for the items in all theconstructs are rated on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = definitelyagree; 2 = probably agree; 3 = uncertain; 4 = probably disagree; 5 = definitely disagree). Variable: Organizational Commitment Definitions of dependent decision variables: Affective: questions 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 16; Continuance: questions 2, 5, 8, 11-12, 17; Normative: questions 3, 6, 9, 13, 15, 18. 1. Iwould be very happy to spend the restofmy careerwith thisorganization. 2. Itwould be very hard forme to leavemy organization rightnow, even if Iwanted

to.

3. I believe I have an obligation to remainwith my currentemployer. 4. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. 5. Too much ofmy lifewould be disrupted if I decided Iwanted to leavemy organiza tion rightnow. 6. Even if itwere tomy advantage, I do not feel itwould be rightto leavemy organization now. 7. I really feel as if thisorganization's problems aremy own. 8. Right now, stayingwith my organization is amatter of necessity as much as desire. 9. Iwould feel guilty if I leftmy organization now. 10. I feel like "part of the family" atmy organization. 11. I believe thatI have too fewoptions to consider leaving thisorganization. 12. One of themajor reasons I continue towork for thisorganization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice (anotherorganizationmay notmatch theoverall benefits I have here). 13. This organization deserves my loyalty. 14. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning forme. 15. Iwould not leavemy organization rightnow because I have a sense of obligation to thepeople in it. 16. I have a strongsense of belonging tomy organization. 17. If I had not already put somuch ofmyself into thisorganization, Imight consider working elsewhere. 18. I owe a great deal tomy organization. Note: Questions 3, 10, and 16 have been revised tomake thempositive ratherthan negative. Variable: Public Service Motivation Definitions of dependent decision variables: Attraction topolicy-making: questions 10, 19, 21; Public interest:questions 13, 16, 20, 22-23; Compassion: questions 2-4, 7, 9, 12, 17, 24; Self-sacrifice: questions 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 14-15, 18. 1.Making a difference in societymeans more tome thanpersonal achievements. 2. I am oftenmoved by theplight of theunderprivileged. 3. Most social programs are too vital to do without. 4. It is difficultforme to containmy feelingswhen I see people in distress. 5. I believe inputtingdutybefore self. 6. Doing good deeds is definitelymore importanttome thandoing well financially. 7. To me, patriotism includes seeing to thewelfare of others. 8. Much ofwhat I do is fora cause bigger thanmyself. 9. I often thinkabout thewelfare of people I do not know personally. 10. Politics is not a dirtyword.


270

PPMR

/December

2007

Serving other citizenswould give me a good feeling even ifno one paid me for it. I am often remindedby daily events how dependent we are on one another. It is easy forme to get intensely interestedinwhat is going on inmy community. I thinkpeople should give back to societymore than theyget from it. I am one of those rarepeople who would riskpersonal loss to help someone else. I unselfishly contribute tomy community. I have a lotof compassion forpeople inneed who are unwilling to take the firststep tohelp themselves. 18. I am prepared tomake enormous sacrifices for thegood of society. 19. The give and takeof public policy-making appeals tome. 20. Meaningful public service is very importanttome. 21. I care verymuch forpoliticians. 22. Iwould prefer seeing public officials do what is best for thewhole community even if itharmedmy interests. 23. I consider public servicemy civic duty. 24. There aremany public programs thatIwholeheartedly support. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Variable: Personal Attributes Organization tenure:The number of years an employee has been amember of an organization (nearest year). Job level: Current grade (post) being occupied by theemployee in theorganization. : of years an employee has occupied his/hercurrentpost in the Position tenure Number organization. Age: An individual's chronological age (nearest year). Gender: The employee's gender statusofmale or female. Education: The amount of an individual's formal schooling or training(secondary, upper or post-tertiary). secondary, tertiary, Marital status:The marital statusof theemployee (single,married, divorced/separated, orwidower). Number of children:The number of children belonging to theemployees livingor not living inhousehold. Age: Youngest child. Age: Oldest child. Number of children living inhousehold. Family lifecycle status:The family lifecycle statusmay be one of nine states: (a) bachelor stage (unmarried); (b) single parents (with children livingwith them); (c) married couples having no children; (d) married couples with children under 6 years old; (e) married couples with children between 6 and 16 years old; (f)married couples with youngest child >16 years old and living at home; (g) married couples with no children livingwith them; (h) solitary survivor stillworking (widow orwidower) with no children livingwith them;and (i) solitary survivor retired.Note that(i) is not applicable because our interestis in employees. Salary: Money, fringebenefits,and other commodities thathave financial value that organizations give to employees in returnfor theirservices. Performance: Respondent toprovide theperformance ratinggiven by supervisor in last appraisal. Performance: Respondent provides a self-ratingbetween zero and 10. Probability of findingjob: Respondent provides probability thata suitable job may be foundoutside public service (value between zero and 100).


Camilleri

and van der Heijden

/ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

271

Variable: Role States Definitions of dependent decision variables: Conflict: questions 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-14; Ambiguity: questions 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. 1. Inmy job, I have to do things in a way thatshould be done differently. 2. In performingmy job, I feel certain about how much authorityI have. 3. Inmy job, I am given a task toperformwithout thenecessarymanpower to complete it. 4. I have clear, planned goals and objectives formy job. 5. Inmy job, I have to sometimes bend a rule or policy inorder to carryout a task. 6. In performingmy job, I know thatI divide my timeproperly. 7. Inmy job, Iwork with two ormore groups who operate quite differently. 8. Inmy job, I know what my responsibilities are. 9. Inmy job, I receive incompatible requests from two ormore people. 10. Inmy job, I know exactlywhat is expected ofme. 11. Inmy job, I do thingsthatare likely tobe accepted by one person and not accepted by theother. 12. Inmy job, I am provided with a clear explanation ofwhat has tobe done. 13. Inmy job, I am given taskswithout adequate resources andmaterials to execute

them.

14. Inmy job, Iwork on unnecessary things. Note: Questions 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 require reversecoding to reflecthigher levels of role ambiguity. Variable: JobAttributes Definitions of dependent decision variables: Skill variety:questions 1, 7, 12, 17, 22; Task autonomy: questions 2, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28; Task identity:questions 3, 19, 24, 29; Task feedback: questions 4, 9, 14, 20, 25; Friendship opportunities: questions 5, 10, 15 16, 21, 26-27; Dealing with others: questions 6, 11, 30; Task significance: questions 31

33.

1. How much variety is there inyour job? 2. How much are you lefton your own to do your own work? 3. How often do you see tasks or projects throughto completion? 4. To what extentdo you findout fromyour supervisorhow well you are doing as you areworking? 5. How much opportunity is there tomeet individualswhom you would like to develop friendshipswith? 6. How much of your job depends upon your ability towork with others? 7. How repetitiousare your duties? 8. To what extent are you able to act independentlyof your supervisor inperforming your job functions? 9. To what extentdo you receive informationfromyour supervisor on your job performance? 10. To what extentdo you have theopportunityto talk informallywith other employees while atwork? 11. To what extent is dealing with other people a part of your job? 12. How similar are the tasksyou perform in a typicalwork day? 13. To what extent are you able to do your job independentlyof others? 14. To what extentdo you get feedback fromyour supervisor on how well you are

doing?

15. To what extentdo you get theopportunity to formfriendshipswith your coworkers?


272

PPMR

/December

2007

16. To what extent do you get theopportunity to talk toothers on your job? 17. To what extentdo you get theopportunity todo a number of differentthings inyour

job?

18. To what extentdo you have the freedom todo prettymuch what you want on your

job?

19. To what extent is thework you are involvedwith handled by yourself from beginning to end? 20. To what extentdo you get theopportunity to findout how well you are doing on your job? 21. To what extentdo you get theopportunity toknow other people on your job? 22. To what extent is therevariety in the tasks you performon your job? 23. To what extentdo you have theopportunityfor independent thoughtand action on your job? 24. To what extentdo you have theopportunity to complete thework you start? 25. To what extent do you feel thatyou know whether you are performingyour job well or poorly? 26. To what extentdo you get to develop close friendships inyour job? 27. To what extentdo you get tomeet with others inyourwork? 28. To what extent do you have control over thepace of yourwork? 29. To what extentdo you have theopportunity todo a job from thebeginning to end? 30. To what extentdo you receive feedback about your job from individuals other than your supervisor? 31. How significantor importantis your job, that is, are the resultsof yourwork likely to significantlyaffect the lives orwell-being of otherpeople? 32. To what extent does how well your job gets done affecta lotof otherpeople? 33. To what extent is your job very significantor importantin thebroader scheme of things? Notes: Items 14 to 33 inclusive have been revised tomake themconformwith the format of theother questions. Items 7 and 12 require reverse coding. Variable: Employee Perception of theOrganization Definitions of dependent decision variables: Bias foraction: question 5; Close to customer: questions 3 and 8;Autonomy and entrepreneurship;questions 1, 4, and 7; Productivity throughpeople: questions 2 and 6; Loose-tight properties: question 9. 1. The Department encourages employees todevelop new ideas. 2. The Department's topmanagement believes that itsemployees are of theutmost importance to theDepartment. 3. The Department provides personalized attention to all itscustomers. 4. The Department's topmanagement creates an atmosphere thatencourages innovativeness. 5. The Department is flexible and quick to respond toproblems. 6. The Department trulybelieves in itsemployees. 7. The Department believes in experimentingwith new services and ideas. 8. The Department believes thatlistening towhat customers have to say is a good skill tohave. 9. The Department is flexiblewith employees but administers discipline when necessary. Notes: The attributesof "hands-on value driven," "stick to theknitting,"and "simple formand lean staff" were not utilized since theyare not applicable topublic service structures.


Camilleri

and van der Heijden

/ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

273

Variable: Employee-Leader Relations Definitions of dependent decision variables: Leadership initiatingstructure:questions 1 7; Leadership consideration: questions 8-16; Participative leadership: questions 17-21; Leadership communication: questions 22-25. 1.My supervisor letsgroupmembers know what is expected of them. 2. My supervisor decides what shall be done and how it shall be done. 3. My supervisormakes sure thathis or her part in thegroup is understood. 4. My supervisor schedules thework tobe done. 5. My supervisormaintains definite standardsof performance. 6. My supervisor asks thatthegroupmembers follow standard rules and regulations. 7. My supervisor explains theway any task should be carried out. 8. My supervisor is friendlyand polite. 9. My supervisor does littlethings tomake itpleasant tobe amember of thegroup. 10.My supervisorputs suggestionsmade by thegroup intooperation. 11. My supervisor treatsall groupmembers as his or her equals. 12. My supervisor gives advance notice of changes. 13. My supervisor looks out for thepersonal welfare of groupmembers. 14. My supervisor iswilling tomake changes. 15. My supervisorhelps me overcome problems thatstopme fromcarryingoutmy task. 16. My supervisorhelps me make working on my tasksmore pleasant. 17.When facedwith a problem,my supervisor consultswith his or her subordinates. 18. Before making decisions, my supervisor gives serious consideration towhat subordinates have to say. 19. My supervisor asks subordinates for theirsuggestions conceruing how to carryout tasks. 20. Before takingaction,my supervisor consultswith his or her subordinates. 21. My supervisor asks subordinates for suggestions on what tasks should be carried out. 22. I am satisfiedwith the informationI receive frommy supervisor aboutmy job performance. 23. I receive enough informationfrommy supervisor aboutmy job performance. 24. I receive enough feedback frommy supervisor on how well I am doing. 25. There is enough opportunityinmy job to findout how I am doing. Variable: Informal Performance Assessed by Perception ofOrganizational Politics Definitions of dependent decision variables: General political behavior: questions 3, 11; Go along to get ahead: questions 2, 5, 7-9; Pay and promotion policies: questions 1, 4, 6, 10, 12. 1. Inmy departmentpromotions are highly regardedbecause theway theyare determined is considered fair. 2. Inmy department good ideas are desired even if itmeans disagreeing with superiors. 3. Inmy department therehas always been an influentialgroup thatno one ever crosses. when itcomes to 4. Inmy departmentwrittenpolicies about promotions are irrelevant promotion decisions. 5. Inmy department tellingotherswhat theywant tohear is sometimes better than telling the truth. 6. I cannot recall a case where a person received a promotion thatwas inconsistent with published policies.


274

PPMR

/December

2007

7. Inmy departmentagreeing with thosewho are powerful is thebest alternative. 8. Inmy departmentwe are encouraged to speak out franklyeven when we are critical ofwell-established ideas. 9. Inmy department it is sometimes easier to remain quiet than to fightthe system. 10. Inmy department I have never seen thepromotion policies applied politically. 11. Inmy departmentpeople attempt tobuild themselves up by tearingothers down. 12. Inmy department it is theestablished promotion policies thatdetermine how promotions are awarded. Notes: Questions 3-5, 7, 9, and 11 require reverse coding to reflecthigher levels of perception of organizational politics. Emanuel Camilleri occupies

thepost of director general, Ministry of Finance,

Malta. He

is the lead tutor, Managing Information module, Henley Management College, United Kingdom, for theMBA Malta Cohorts and visiting lecturer at the Institute of Public Administration and Management, University ofMalta. He has

wide experience in informationmanagement applications and holds academic qualifications in informationmanagement, accountancy, engineering, and busi ness management. Beatrice LJ.M. van der Heijden

isdirector of research and doctoral programs and

head of theDepartment Organizational

Behavior/HRM

at theMaastricht

School

theNetherlands. She occupies a Chair in Strategic Human Re source Management at theOpen University of theNetherlands and is also em

ofManagement,

ployed at theDepartment of Human Resource Management

Twente.

of theUniversity of
