organizational behavior

http://wox.sagepub.com

Work and Occupations

DOI: 10.1177/0730888402029001005 2002; 29; 97 Work and Occupations

JEONGKOO YOON and SHANE R. THYE A Dual Process Model of Organizational Commitment: Job Satisfaction and Organizational Support

http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/1/97 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Work and Occupations Additional services and information for

http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://wox.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/1/97SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 54 articles hosted on the Citations

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 http://wox.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://wox.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/1/97


WORK AND OCCUPATIONSYoon, Thye / ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENTThe authors propose and test a new dual-process model of organizational commitment that con-nects organizational practices and specific job characteristics to the emotions and cognitions ofemployees. In turn, emotional reactions and cognitive processes are theorized to be the proxi-mate cause of organizational commitment. Specifically, the model stipulates that overall job sat-isfaction and perceptions of organizational support are key emotional and cognitive processesthat mobilize commitment in the workplace. The theoretical model was estimated with a sampleof employees drawn from two large Korean organizations (N = 2,443). Overall, the results pro-vide strong support for the model. The main findings are that feelings of job satisfaction and per-ceptions of organizational support operate through independent channels to mediate the impactof work experiences on organizational commitment. The authors discuss the implications ofthese findings in light of current theory and research on commitment.

A Dual Process Model ofOrganizational CommitmentJob Satisfaction and Organizational Support

JEONGKOO YOONAjou University

SHANE R. THYEUniversity of South Carolina

Commitment is a broad-ranging concept that cuts across many organiza-tional and sociological domains. It is generally recognized that commit-

ment is a good predictor of many behaviors, including absenteeism (Brooke& Price, 1989; Gellatly, 1995; Sagie, 1998), turnover (Jaros, 1997; Martin,1979; Micheals & Spector, 1982; Mueller & Price, 1990; Price & Mueller,1986), and organizational citizenship behavior (Mathiew & Zajac, 1990;

97

Authors’ Note: We are grateful to Edward J. Lawler and three anonymous reviewersfor many valuable suggestions on this article. This study was supported in part by theBrain Korea 21 Grant to the Supply Chain Management Team in School of BusinessAdministration at Ajou University. Direct correspondence to Jeongkoo Yoon atSchool of Business Administration, Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea(jkyoon@madang. ajou.ac.kr) or Shane R. Thye, Department of Sociology, Universityof South Carolina, Columbia, SC ([email protected]).

WORK AND OCCUPATIONS, Vol. 29 No. 1, February 2002 97-124© 2002 Sage Publications



Schappe, 1998; Williams & Anderson, 1991).1 In recent years, theories of com-mitment have also been advanced by researchers interested in social movements(Kanter, 1968), social exchange relations (Kollock, 1994; Lawler & Yoon1996), and more generally, social order and solidarity (Hechter, 1987).

In this article, we are concerned with organizational commitment, broadlydefined as a strong identification with a particular company or organization(Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Drawing on previous research, we offer anew theoretical model of organizational commitment. This model integratestwo interrelated approaches that have been sharply demarcated in traditionalstudies of organizational commitment: (a) an emotional/affective approachthat centers on global job satisfaction and (b) a cognitive/evaluative approachthat focuses on perceptions of organizational support. In this study, overalljob satisfaction and perceived organizational support are simultaneouslyincorporated into a single model as dual pathways to commitment. This newmodel is then tested with a large sample of employees drawn from twoKorean organizations. To our knowledge, no research to date has developedand tested a single theoretical model of organizational commitment thatincludes both pathways.

Past efforts to understand organizational commitment have taken twoindependent directions. The first emphasizes the importance of job satisfac-tion, typically defined as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resultingfrom the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300).Psychological and organizational researchers agree that overall job satisfac-tion is an important mediating construct in the development of employeecommitment (Iverson & Roy, 1994; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990; Mowday etal., 1982; Mueller & Price, 1990; Price & Mueller, 1986).2 Much of thisresearch has focused on the causal agents that precipitate job satisfaction. Forexample, psychologists tend to focus on personality traits (Brief, Butcher &Roberson, 1995; Watson, Pennebaker, & Folger, 1986), whereas researchersin sociology and organizational behavior typically emphasize organizationalfeatures and job rewards (Mottaz, 1985; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Despitethese differences, it is now generally understood that global job satisfaction isone of the best predictors of organizational commitment (Lincoln &Kalleberg, 1990; Mueller & Price, 1990; Price & Mueller, 1986; Staw,Sutton, & Pelled, 1994).

The second approach places greater emphasis on the principle of reciproc-ity. An important concept in this tradition is perceived organizational sup-port, which refers to the employee’s “global beliefs concerning the extent towhich the organization values their contributions and cares about theirwell-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501).The concept of perceived organizational support (i.e., the organization’s

98 WORK AND OCCUPATIONS



attachment to the employee) can be viewed as a reciprocal yet closely relatedcounterpart to organizational commitment (i.e., the employee’s attachmentto the organization). The basic theoretical premise is that employees who per-ceive they are supported by the organization are likely to reciprocate in termsof commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Settoon,Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Shore & Tetrick, 1991). As such, perceived organi-zational support is also widely known to be a good predictor of organizationalcommitment (Eisenberger et al., 1986, 1990).

Despite substantial progress in each domain, the central ideas of these twoareas have not been integrated in theories of commitment. That is to say, the-ory development and empirical studies on job satisfaction tend not to incor-porate the key ideas found in the organizational support literature and viceversa. In this article, we aim to develop a single model that bridges these twoimportant research programs and thereby provide a more general view ofcommitment. Toward this end, we propose and test a theoretical model thatincorporates both overall job satisfaction and perceived organizational sup-port as mediators of organizational commitment. We offer the two as theoret-ically distinct paths to commitment; job satisfaction represents an emotional/affective process, whereas perceived organizational support represents a par-allel cognitive/evaluative process.

A secondary goal of this article is to identify more clearly the specific jobcharacteristics and organizational factors that result in perceived organiza-tional support. Compared to job satisfaction, whose etiology is well under-stood, studies have not systematically investigated the causes of perceivedorganizational support (see Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997, for an exception).Many researchers simply treat perceived organizational support as exoge-nous. Yet if both job satisfaction and perceived organizational support medi-ate employee commitment as independent pathways, then we would expectto see certain job characteristics differentially related to each. As such, wecompare and contrast the organizational factors that lead to job satisfaction tothose associated with perceptions of organizational support.

In what follows, we explicate a new model of organizational commitment.We then test the model with survey data collected in two large Korean workorganizations. Given the nature of the data, we control for cultural factors andexplore how Korean cultural norms affect the processes under consideration.

THE MODEL

As shown in Figure 1, we propose that dual processes lead to organiza-tional commitment: One pathway runs through overall job satisfaction and

Yoon, Thye / ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 99



the other through perceived organizational support. Based on prior theoryand research, our model of commitment includes four job-related variables(i.e., job autonomy, job variety, workload, and pay) and three variablesrelated to organizational practice (i.e., procedural justice, distributive justice,and communication). Together, these seven are theorized to be important pre-dictors of job satisfaction and organizational support. To partition off addi-tional variance, we also include a number of control variables that measurecharacteristics of the employee and organization.

The model presumes that employees develop emotions and beliefs fromtheir work experiences. In turn, these are the proximal cause of organiza-tional commitment. Most research to date has focused either on the directeffects of work experiences on organizational commitment or on their indi-rect effects mediated by job satisfaction. In contrast, we claim that employeework experiences are mediated both by global positive emotions (i.e., overalljob satisfaction) and cognitions regarding the organization’s treatment ofemployees (i.e., perceived organizational support). If correct, this viewimplies that most direct relations between work experiences and commit-ment will be spurious when mediating factors are taken into account (also seeSmith, 1992; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1985). We also investigate whetherperceived organizational support is equivalent to job satisfaction as a mediat-ing factor when the two are simultaneously considered in the same model.

In the abstract, our model suggests that multiple layers of exchange tran-spire between the employee and organization. Specifically, the exogenousand endogenous variables of our model can be construed as the objects offirst- and second-order exchange, respectively. First-order exchange refers to


Job CharacteristicsAutonomy (+)Variety (+)Workload (-)Pay (+) Job

SatisfactionOrganization-Related Variables

Communication (+)Distributive Justice (+)Procedural Justice (+) Organizational

Commitment

Controls & CovariatesTenure OrganizationalOccupation SupportOrganization AAgeMaleEducation

Figure 1: A Dual Process Model of Organizational Commitment



the direct exchange between any two parties of material goods or tangibleresources. This occurs when the employee is given tangible benefits (e.g.,salary, promotions, job autonomy, clear communication, fair treatment) inexchange for labor. In contrast, second-order exchange involves theexchange of nonmaterial goods, such as beliefs, perceptions, emotions, andcognitions. The endogenous path through perceived organizational supportsuggests that organizations exchange a satisfying and supportive environ-ment for the loyalty and commitment of their employees. This has beenshown to occur through an attribution process (Lawler, 1992). Whether it isthrough global job satisfaction or perceived organizational support, in eithercase the organization is attributed as the source of benefit. In this manner, themodel suggests that first- and second-order exchanges are important in thecommitment process.

EXOGENOUS FACTORS

Four exogenous job-related variables are predicted to directly affect jobsatisfaction. Variety and autonomy may be construed as rewards intrinsic tothe job itself (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Variety is the degree to which a joballows choice or freedom over work methods, quality criteria, and workschedule (Price & Mueller, 1986). The lack of variety makes a job easily pro-grammable and can thereby alienate the employee from the work process(Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Perrow, 1986; Price & Mueller, 1986). As such,variety should enhance job satisfaction. Autonomy is the degree to which theemployee is directly involved with job-related decisions (Breaugh, 1985;Price & Mueller, 1986; Spector, 1986). Research has shown that high levelsof autonomy increase job satisfaction because it enhances the psychologicalownership of work (Cummings, Molloy, & Glen, 1977; Hackman, 1986). Incontrast, work overload may be viewed as an inherent cost. Work overload isdefined as the degree to which job demands are too high for an employee tofinish the job on time (Price & Mueller, 1986). Empirical studies find thatwork overload reduces job satisfaction because it is stressful and physicallytaxing (Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997). Of the four exogenous variables, pay isperhaps the best-known predictor of job satisfaction (Iverson & Roy, 1994;Mottaz, 1987).

We also explore whether the four job factors affect perceptions of organi-zational support. On one hand, there is little prior research directed at theantecedents of organizational support, so there is no a priori reason to suspectthese four variables are necessarily good predictors. On the other hand, pay,autonomy, variety, and workload can be construed as everyday rewards thatindirectly communicate if the organization values or cares about the




employee. In this sense, the four exogenous factors may be related to percep-tions of organizational support. Given the less direct nature of the connection,however, we suspect the four job factors will have a weaker effect on per-ceived organizational support than on everyday job satisfaction.

The model also hypothesizes that three organizational factors affect bothperceived organizational support and overall job satisfaction. The organiza-tional factors we investigate here are communication, distributive justice, andprocedural justice. Each variable reflects a wide range of organizational prac-tices that affect everyday job experiences, information flows, and employeebenefits. Given the breadth of these factors, we predict the three organiza-tional variables will directly affect both job satisfaction and perceived organi-zational support.

Communication refers to the degree to which an organization providesproper information in a clear and timely manner (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1976;Weick, 1987). Communication plays an instrumental role in everyday workroutines by providing the information necessary for employees to performtheir jobs efficiently (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1976; Weick, 1987; Yates &Orlikowski, 1992). With this in mind, we predict that high levels of commu-nication will enhance job satisfaction. Communication is also predicted toaffect perceived organizational support (Dollar & Zimmers, 1998; Suzuki,1998). To the extent the employee can reliably provide and receive informa-tion from superiors, this should foster perceptions of choice and controlknown to strengthen cognitive attachments to the larger organization(Lawler, 1992). When communication is indirect and limited, the employeemay feel isolated and perceive less organizational support.

Perceptions of justice play a similar role. There are two fundamental typesof justice (Hegtvedt & Markovsky, 1995). Distributive justice is “the per-ceived fairness of the amounts of compensations employees receive com-pared to their contributions,” whereas procedural justice is “the perceivedfairness of the means used to determine those amounts” (Folger & Konovsky,1989, p. 115). Many researchers are interested in how perceptions of justiceaffect organizational behavior and in which kind of justice is more important(Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992; Tyler, 1990, 1994; Yoon,1996). Overall, prior research suggests that procedural justice affects percep-tions of the organization (e.g., trust, legitimacy of authority, and commit-ment), whereas distributive justice has a greater effect on job satisfaction andturnover (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Yoon,1996). Based on these findings, we predict that although both kinds of justiceare important, distributive justice will have a greater impact on job satisfac-tion, whereas procedural justice will have a greater impact on perceived orga-nizational support.




In addition, we include a number of control variables, that is, tenure, occu-pation, and organization. Previous studies of Korean hospital employees findthat nonmanual workers and those with longer tenure perceive greater orga-nizational support (Yoon, Han, & Seo, 1996). Other research indicates thesefactors are also related to job satisfaction (Yoon, 1996). Furthermore, weinclude a dummy variable to capture unmeasured differences between thetwo organizations. This will absorb variation on the dependent variable dueto different organizational cultures or specific company policies (Harris &Mossholder, 1996; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989).

THE ENDOGENOUS PROCESSES

Shore and Tetrick (1991) proposed a conceptual distinction between over-all job satisfaction and perceived organizational support, indicating the for-mer represents an affective-laden attitude, whereas the latter is a descriptivebelief about the organization. They argued that overall job satisfaction ismore sensitive to fluctuations in the immediate job, whereas perceived orga-nizational support is more responsive to accumulated job experience.Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997) agreed that job satisfac-tion and organizational support are distinct. To illustrate, consider anemployee who temporarily endures poor working conditions and long hoursfor a business in financial trouble. The employee may recognize the financialproblems, be dissatisfied with the current job, but attribute the problemsexternally (i.e., market conditions or a competing firm) and still view theorganization as supportive. The contrary can also occur: Conditions overwhich the organization has little control may result in high job satisfactionwithout an increase in perceived organizational support. In effect, perceivedorganizational support varies with the degree of organizational discretion,whereas job satisfaction does not (Eisenberger et al., 1997).

As noted above, much research connects job satisfaction to organizationalcommitment (Iverson & Roy, 1994; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990; Mowday etal., 1982; Mueller & Price, 1990; Price & Mueller, 1986). Overall, this litera-ture indicates that satisfied employees are more likely to develop cognitivebonds with the organization (i.e., commitment) and are less prone to turnover.Turning to perceived organizational support, research indicates that employ-ees who perceive organizational support are likely to express gratitude in theform of commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Cook & Wall, 1980; Eisenberger, etal., 1986, 1990; Steers, 1977). Moreover, perceived organizational supportcan work through the employee’s reward expectations to induce commit-ment. In a supportive organization, employees should come to anticipatetheir efforts will be rewarded. As a consequence, they should be more likely




to identify with the larger institution and incorporate organizational member-ship into their identity (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501).

THE KOREAN CONTEXT

We examine the theoretical model with data from two Korean organiza-tions. This provides an opportunity to consider how cultural and normativeprocesses unique to Korea might affect commitment and determine if theo-retical explanations primarily developed in the West generalize to Easternsettings. We also consider how Korean cultural norms interface with our the-oretical model and discuss the broader applicability of our findings (Corn-field, 1997).

A growing literature documents that values, attitudes, and behaviorsknown to affect work outcomes differ between Western and Asian societies(see Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). For example, researchindicates that collective and relational orientations are dominant amongKorean workers, whereas individual and utilitarian orientations are mostprevalent among workers in Western societies (Cha, 1994; Kim, 1994). Otherstudies indicate that work relations in the East are often treated as family rela-tions (Bae & Chung, 1997; Hong, 1997). That is, based on Confucian philos-ophy that emphasizes the family as the prototypical model around which toorganize groups and collectivities, many Korean employees might expect thecompany to treat them as family members. This relationship entails high lev-els of mutual obligation, employer protection of employee rights, and theexpress devotion of the employee to the company as if it were a family busi-ness (Yammarino & Jung, 1998). The implication is that relational and proce-dural features of the organization may have greater predictive power in ourKorean sample.

In terms of our model, these norms suggest that communication and pro-cedural justice will have strong effects on organizational support and job sat-isfaction. The reason is that these measures capture relational and proceduralaspects of the organization. Similarly, we suspect that perceived organiza-tional support (i.e., a relational construct) will be a better predictor of com-mitment than job satisfaction (i.e., an individual emotion).

We also include measures of age, education, gender, and occupation tocapture the effect of culturally based status characteristics (Berger, Fisek,Norman, & Zelditch, 1977). Historically, Korea is a deeply stratified societyin which observable status characteristics confer a broad range of socialadvantages. Although industrialization since the 1960s has relaxed the tradi-tional status order, many Koreans are still intensely concerned with occupa-tional and educational prestige. High status is also accorded to males and the




elderly. It follows that educated, white-collar, male, and older employeesshould perceive greater organizational support and job satisfaction.

METHOD

The data were collected from two large organizations in Korea betweenthe winter of 1996 and the spring of 1997. One company is the largest elec-tronics company in Korea, which manufactures home appliances, multime-dia products, telecommunication equipment, and semiconductors. The com-pany’s net sales volume in the fiscal year 1996 was $18,800 million, and itsnet profit was $194 million. There were approximately 57,000 employees asof December 1996. The second company is one of the largest electric compa-nies that generates, transmits, and distributes power. In 1996, the company’ssales were $13,700 million, yielding a net profit of $1,300 million. The sec-ond company was smaller than the first, with around 38,000 employees as ofDecember 1996.

We first clustered the branches of these two companies by regions andbusiness domains and then sampled employees randomly from each cluster.The sample includes all employees representing all occupational categories.Among the 3,500 questionnaires distributed, a total of 2,589 responses werereturned by the close-out date. The response rate was 74% (2,589/3,500 =.74). Listwise deletion of missing values subjected the final analyses to 2,443respondents.

The majority of respondents were male (82%), young (mean age = 32),and had served 8.3 years in the same organization. The average level of edu-cation was more than junior college graduation (mean = 14.4 years), and thepay averaged 1,480,000 won per month (about U.S.$1,850 as of December1996). White-collar workers constituted 31% of the respondents. About halfof the respondents (57%) were employees at the electronics company; theothers (43%) were employees at the electric company. An analysis of theresponses did not reveal any significant sampling biases with respect to occu-pational categories, education, gender, or age.

MEASUREMENT

Most key measures (i.e., organizational commitment, organizational sup-port, job satisfaction, autonomy, variety, workload, communication, distribu-tive justice, and procedural justice) were composed of 5-point Likert-typescales on which respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their




agreement with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). To con-trol for an agreement response bias, a few statements were negatively worded.

The three endogenous variables in our theoretical model were organiza-tional commitment, perceived organizational support, and job satisfaction.Organizational commitment was measured by a four-item index selectedfrom Mowday et al. (1982): (a) “I speak highly of the company to myfriends,” (b) “I don’t care about the fate of the company in which I work”(reverse coded), (c) “I am proud to tell others I am an employee of this com-pany,” and (d) “I feel very little loyalty to this company” (reverse coded). Per-ceived organizational support was measured by four items selected fromEisenberger et al.’s (1986) scale: (a) “Our company really cares about me,”(b) “our company is willing to help me when I need a special favor,” (c) “ourcompany does not care about my opinions” (reverse coded), and (d) “ourcompany feels that anyone could perform my job as well as I do” (reversecoded). Job satisfaction was measured by five items modified from theBrayfield and Rothe (1951) scale: (a) “I am contented with my job itself,” (b)“I like my current job,” (c) “I often think my job is very good,” (d) “I findenjoyment in my job,” and (e) “I am losing interest in my job” (reversecoded). In general, these constructs were found to be reasonably reliable.(Cronbach’s α = .70, .76, and .84, respectively, for the indices).

We measured two exogenous variables related to intrinsic job rewards.Autonomy was measured by six items adapted from Breaugh (1985): (a) “Iam able to modify what I am supposed to accomplish,” (b) “I have controlover the scheduling of my work,” (c) “my job is such that I can decide when todo particular work activities,” (d) “my job allows me to modify the normalway I am evaluated so that I can emphasize some aspects of my job and playdown others,” (e) “I am allowed to decide how to go about getting my jobdone,” and (6) “I am able to choose the way to go about my job.” Variety wasmeasured by a four-item scale selected from Price and Mueller (1986): (a)“My job has variety,” (b) “the duties in my job are repetitious and routine”(reverse coded), (c) “I have the opportunity to do a number of different thingsin my job,” and (d) “many of my tasks are the same from day to day” (reversecoded).

Turning to the job-related variables, workload was measured with a scaleadapted from Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, and Rosenthal (1964): (a) “I do not haveenough time to get everything done on the job,” (b) “I have to work very faston the job,” and (c) “the workload on my job is too heavy.” Pay was measuredas the natural log transformation of respondents’ monthly income beforetaxes and deductions. Communication was measured by a four-item scaleselected from O’Reilly and Roberts (1976): (a) “It is easy to talk openly to allmembers of this work unit”; (b) “the information I receive is often inaccurate




in this work unit”; (reverse coded); (c) “communication in this work unit isvery open, clear, and timely,”; and (d) “I am kept informed of what’s going onin this work unit.” These indices were again reasonably reliable (Cronbach’sα = .82, .72, .75, and .71, respectively).

Distributive justice was measured by a four-item scale modified fromPrice and Mueller (1986): (a) “Compared to other employees, my workreward is proper in view of my training and education”; (b) “compared toother employees, my work reward is proper in view of my effort that I input”;(c) “compared to other employees, my work reward is proper in view of mywork experience,”; and (d) “compared to other employees, my work reward isproper in view of my work responsibilities.” Whereas distributive justice isrelated to organizational rewards, procedural justice is tied to the processesand means through which the outcomes are generated (Alexander &Ruderman, 1987). Procedural justice was measured with a four-item scalemodified from several sources (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Price &Mueller, 1986; Yoon, 1996): (a) “The procedures used to determine my payraise are fair and consistent,” (b) “the procedures used to evaluate my perfor-mance are fair and consistent,” (c) “the procedures used to determine my pro-motion are fair and consistent,” and (d) “the procedures used to determineother fringe benefits are fair and consistent” (Cronbach’s α = .81 and .76,respectively, for the distributive and procedural justice scales.)

In terms of the covariates, occupation was classified as manual ornonmanual. Tenure was simply measured by years of employment. Amongthe respondent demographics, age was measured categorically, and the mid-point of years was assigned to each respondent. Education was measured byyears in school. Gender was dummy coded, assigning 1 for males and 0 forfemales. Finally, the two organizations were dummy coded to control forvariance at the organizational level.

RESULTS

Linear structural equation modeling was used for the analysis (LISREL 8:Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). LISREL affords the advantage of estimating thecausal model while correcting for attenuation due to random measurementerror (see Thye, 2000). The maximum likelihood routines produce a measureof the goodness of fit for the overall model as well as explained variance (R2)of each endogenous variable. The standardized coefficients reported belowcan be interpreted as standardized betas in ordinary least square regression.The analysis is broken into four parts. First, we conduct a confirmatory factoranalysis to determine if our key theoretical constructs are distinct. Second,




we examine the correlation between key variables. Third, we estimate thepath coefficients for the dual process model of commitment. Finally, weexamine the direct and indirect effects of the exogenous variables to assessthe explanatory power of the endogenous pathways.

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

To assess whether organizational commitment, overall job satisfaction,and perceived organizational support are distinct constructs, we conducted aconfirmatory factor analysis. Specifically, we compare the three-factormodel (i.e., all factors distinct) with several alternative formulations (i.e.,Model 1 is the single-factor model; Model 2 represents all possible two-factor models). The three-factor model is the baseline model for this compar-ison (Model 3). Multiple indicators are used to assess the fit, including theComparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), the Tucker-LewisIndex (TLI) (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), andthe Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Tocompare the three models, we use a chi-square significance test to determinesignificant improvements in fit (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982).

Model 1 presumes one overall factor and fits the data poorly, as indicatedby low values of CFI, TLI, GFI, and AGFI (.77, .72, .84, and .78, respectively).The standardized factor loadings also reveal that items measuring overall jobsatisfaction loaded quite poorly on the global factor. Model 2 hypothesizesthree distinctive two-factor models, overall job satisfaction, and perceivedorganizational support (Model 2a = organizational commitment + perceivedorganizational support, overall job satisfaction; Model 2b = organizationalcommitment + overall job satisfaction, perceived organizational support;Model 2c = perceived organizational support + overall job satisfaction, orga-nizational commitment). The associated GFIs are somewhat improved com-pared to the single-factor model. However, the values are still below normallyaccepted levels. The values for CFI, TLI, GFI, and AGFI associated witheach model are as follows: Model 2a (.87, .85, .91, and .87), Model 2b (.82,.78, .88, and .82), and Model 2c (.86, .83, .89, and .84). Model 3, which hypoth-esizes three distinctive factors, shows considerable improvement in the GFI(.93, .91, .95, and .93, respectively, for CFI, TLI, GFI, and AGFI). Com-paring Model 3 to the best two-factor model (i.e., Model 2a) yields a CFIimprovement of .06. Based on Widaman’s (1985) suggestion that an increasein CFI of greater than 0.01 represent substantive improvement, we concludethat Model 3 provides the best relative fit. We also find that the chi-square dif-ference between Model 2a and Model 3 is significant, χ2 (2, N = 2,850) =721.5, p < .001, which is further evidence in support of the three-factor




model. The factor loadings for Model 3 are shown in Table 1. All of the itemsload significantly on their respective factors, and all loadings are greater than.46. An examination of the cross-loadings did not indicate values larger than.27. Overall, these findings suggest that perceived organizational support,overall job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are distinct constructs.3

CORRELATION MATRIX

Table 2 presents the LISREL corrected correlation matrix for all variablesin the analysis. In general, the pattern of correlations supports the pathshypothesized in the model. As predicted, both perceived organizational sup-port and overall job satisfaction are related to organizational commitment(r = .62 and r = .60, respectively). We also find the exogenous variables are


TABLE 1: Confirmatory Factor Loadings for the Three-Factor Model (N = 2,850)

PerceivedOrganizational Organizational Overall JobCommitment Support Satisfaction

Organizational commitmentI am proud to tell others I am an .85

employee of this company.I speak highly of the company .82

to my friends.I feel very little loyalty to this .54

company. (R)I don’t care about the fate of .59

the company in which I work. (R)Perceived organizational support

My company really cares about .74my well-being.

My company is willing to help me if .61I need a special favor.

My company does not care about .44my opinions and extra effort. (R)

My company is proud that I am a .57member of this organization.

Overall job satisfactionI find enjoyment in my job. .73I often think my job is very good. .73I like my current job. .80I am contented with my job itself. .81I am losing interest in my job. (R) .58

NOTE: (R) indicates the item is reverse coded.All factor loadings are statistically significant, p < .001.



related to perceived organizational support as expected. For example, per-ceived organizational support is significantly correlated with variety (r =.23), autonomy (r = .36), communication (r = .67), procedural justice (r =.72), and distributive justice (r = .59). Although the correlations are some-what smaller, job satisfaction is also related to key exogenous variables.Table 2 shows that job satisfaction is moderately related to variety (r = .45),procedural justice (r = .33), distributive justice (r = .36), and autonomy (r =.44). There is a strong relation between job satisfaction and communication(r = .62). We were somewhat surprised to find that work overload is notrelated to organizational support (r = .00) or job satisfaction (r = .01). Fur-thermore, pay is significantly related to job satisfaction (r = .12) but not per-ceived organizational support (r = .02).

We also find that certain exogenous factors are differentially related toperceived organizational support and job satisfaction. For example, varietyand autonomy are more strongly related to job satisfaction than perceivedorganizational support (see Table 2). As predicted, perceived organizationalsupport is more strongly related to procedural justice (r = .72) than to distrib-utive justice (r = .59), whereas job satisfaction is more strongly related to dis-tributive justice (r = .36) than to procedural justice (r = .33). Interestingly,communication is a good predictor of both organizational support and jobsatisfaction (r = .67 and r = .62, respectively). In sum, the pattern of correla-tion dovetails nicely with our theoretical model.

MODEL ESTIMATION

We adopt a progressive strategy to estimate the semi-chain path modelshown in Figure 1. After estimating the hypothesized model, we relax certainpaths to improve the model’s overall fit. Among numerous strategies fordoing so (Bollen, 1989; Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; Wheaton, 1987),we adhere to a conservative approach. That is, we retain all original pathseven when they were not supported.

Table 3 shows results of the LISREL estimation. Model 1 represents theestimation of the model given in Figure 1, whereas Model 2 shows anotherestimation after paths were added to improve the model fit. The chi-squarefor Model 1 is 5,988 with 889 degrees of freedom (p = .000). The GFIs show areasonable fit between this model and the data (GFI = .91, AGFI = .89, TLI =.87). And although Model 2 uses 5 additional degrees of freedom, the overallfit is significantly improved as indicated by the chi-square test (χ2 = 5,826,df = 884, p = .000). Furthermore, the related GFIs remain nearly unchangedin the second model (GFI = .92, AGFI = .90, TLI = .88). For these reasons, wefocus the remaining analysis on Model 2 shown in Table 3.




TABLE 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations Between all Variables (N = 2,850)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Organizational commitment 1.002. Organizational support .62 1.003. Job satisfaction .60 .61 1.004. Autonomy .32 .36 .44 1.005. Variety .25 .23 .45 .24 1.006. Workload .03 .00 .01 .07 .03 1.007. Communication .48 .67 .62 .51 .28 –.06 1.008. Procedural justice .44 .72 .33 .22 .14 .03 .41 1.009. Distributive justice .37 .59 .36 .20 .16 –.07 .29 .73 1.00

10. Pay .04 .02 .12 .24 .19 .08 .11 –.01 .00 1.0011. Tenure –.04 –.08 .09 .15 –.05 –.01 .14 –.22 –.15 .44 1.0012. White .17 .08 –.01 .09 .09 .02 –.02 .16 .12 .02 –.13 1.0013. Age –.04 –.05 .14 .18 .06 .01 .18 –.21 –.15 .56 .79 –.16 1.0014. Education –.03 –.03 .08 .10 .28 .05 .07 .00 .00 .36 –.11 .00 .19 1.0015. Male .00 .10 .17 .15 .19 .14 .24 –.05 .02 .37 .24 –.11 .44 .25 1.0016. Organization A .21 .09 –.05 .01 .03 .19 –.21 .33 .19 –.03 –.34 .43 –.38 –.11 –.19 1.00Mean 2.89 2.90 3.05 3.12 3.23 3.14 2.90 2.65 2.74 14.21 8.29 .30 32.3 14.38 .82 .57Standard deviation .50 .52 .55 .66 .53 .67 .54 .75 .70 .30 5.96 .46 6.5 2.05 .37 .49Cronbach’s α .70 .76 .84 .82 .72 .65 .61 .76 .81

NOTE: Male, White, and Organization A are dummy variables. Their omitted categories are female, manual, and Organization B.

111

©

2002 SA

GE

Pu

blicatio

ns. A

ll righ

ts reserved. N

ot fo

r com

mercial u

se or u

nau

tho

rized d

istribu

tion

. at M

iddlesex University on F

ebruary 22, 2008 http://w

ox.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


TABLE 3: Standardized LISREL Coefficient Estimates for the Causal Model (N = 2,850)

Model 1 Model 2

Organizational Job Organizational Organizational Job OrganizationalIndependent Variable Support Satisfaction Commitment Support Satisfaction Commitment

Controls and covariatesMale .01 –.05** .— .03 –.05* –.07***Age .03 .11*** .— .03 .11*** .—Education –.08*** –.04 .— –.07** –.04 –.04**Tenure –.05 –.02 .— –.05 –.02 .—White .01 –.01 .— –.01 –.01 .06***Organization A .05 .05 .— .01 .04 .17***

Exogenous variablesAutonomy .01 .12*** .— .00 .12*** .—Variety .04 .26*** .— .03 .26*** .—Workload .02 .09*** .— .02 .09*** .—Pay –.01 –.04 .— –.02 –.04 —Communication .47*** .45*** .— .46*** .45*** .12**Distributive justice .15*** .24*** .— .15*** .24*** .—Procedural justice .40*** .09* .— .41*** .08* .—

Mediating variablesOrganizational support .— .— .45*** .— .— .31***Job satisfaction .— .— .32*** .— .— .36***

R 2 .72 .50 .48 .73 .50 .51Degrees of freedom 889 884Chi-square 5,988 (p = .00) 5,826 (p = .00)Goodness-of-Fit Index .91 .92Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index .89 .90Tucker-Lewis Index .87 .88

NOTE: Male, White, and Organization A are dummy variables. Their omitted categories are female, manual, and Organization B.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two tailed tests.

112

©

2002 SA

GE

Pu

blicatio

ns. A

ll righ

ts reserved. N

ot fo

r com

mercial u

se or u

nau

tho

rized d

istribu

tion

. at M

iddlesex University on F

ebruary 22, 2008 http://w

ox.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


Endogenous paths. Overall, the results suggest that dual processes medi-ate organizational commitment. The Table 3 data indicate that the exogenousvariables explain 73% of the variance in perceived organizational supportand 50% of the variance in job satisfaction. In turn, the overall model explains51% of the variance in organizational commitment. The standardized pathcoefficients indicate that both perceived organizational support (beta = .31)and job satisfaction (beta = .36) significantly enhance organizational com-mitment. In terms of the relative strength of each endogenous pathway, a testof equality shows no significant difference in the effect sizes. We find thatorganizational support and job satisfaction play equal mediating roles in thecommitment process.4 Together, these results provide clear and consistentsupport for the model.

Exogenous paths. The model presumes that job and organizational fea-tures significantly predict job satisfaction and perceived organizational sup-port. As expected, job autonomy, variety, and workload significantly increaseboth organizational support and overall job satisfaction (see Model 2,Table 3). Contrary to our prediction, however, pay was not significantlyrelated to either job satisfaction or organizational support. Turning to theorganizational factors, we predicted that communication, distributive justice,and procedural justice would have broader effects, and the data indicate thatthey do. These variables enhance both perceptions of organizational supportand overall job satisfaction (see Model 2).

We also predicted that although distributive and procedural justice wouldaffect both job satisfaction and perceived organizational support, their sizeswould differ. The results show this to be the case. We found the impact of dis-tributive justice on job satisfaction (beta = .24, p < .001) is greater than that ofprocedural justice (beta = .08, p < .05; see Model 2 in Table 3). In contrast, theimpact of procedural justice on perceived organizational support (beta = .41,p < .001) is greater than that of distributive justice (beta = .15, p < .001). Inter-estingly, we found no significant direct effect of either procedural or distribu-tive justice on commitment. This suggests that when organizational supportand job satisfaction are taken into consideration, the effect of justice on com-mitment is spurious. Again, this highlights the importance of the endogenousprocesses at the core of our model.

We were somewhat surprised by one pattern in the results: the slight butsignificant effect of workload on job satisfaction (beta = .09, p < .001, seeTable 3). This indicates that work overload mildly increases job satisfaction.In previous studies, work overload has been found to be a job stressor, damp-ening job satisfaction (Iverson & Roy, 1994; Ko et al., 1997; Yoon et al.,1996). We return to this issue in the discussion.




Among the variables measured here, communication emerged as the sin-gle best predictor of both perceived organizational support (beta = .46, p <.001) and job satisfaction (beta = .45, p < .001). The importance of communi-cation is further evidenced by the significant direct effect it has on commit-ment (beta = .12, p < .01). In some regards, this pattern is not surprising. Ifcommunication plays both instrumental and expressive roles, as we speculateabove, then we would expect to see strong effects running through bothendogenous processes. That we found such effects is not only consistent withour theoretical model but also with past research (Suzuki, 1998; Weick, 1987;Yates & Orlikowski, 1992). The direct effect of communication on commit-ment means there are effects above and beyond the endogenous processes.Clearly, communication is a strong predictor (both direct and indirect) oforganizational commitment.

Controls and covariates. We also made predictions concerning a varietyof interpersonal control variables. The results indicate that male employeesare slightly less satisfied and perceive less organizational commitment thanfemale employees, more educated employees perceive less organizationalsupport and are less committed to their organizations, and the elderly aremore satisfied with their job than younger coworkers. These results aremostly consistent with previous findings (Luthans, McCaul, & Dodd, 1985;Sommer, Bae, & Luthans, 1996; Yoon, 1996). We also find that nonmanualworkers are more committed to the organization than manual workers—aresult that might reflect the tendency for manual workers to identify morewith their union. Finally, we find some differences in organizational supportand commitment between the two companies. In light of the many ways thetwo companies differ, this finding is difficult to interpret.

EFFECT DECOMPOSITION

To assess the mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational supporton commitment, we first estimate the direct paths from the exogenous vari-ables to organizational commitment based on Model 2. We then decomposethe total effect of the exogenous variables on commitment into direct andindirect components. Support for the dual process model comes in the formof large indirect effects. Such a finding indicates that the exogenous variablesoperate mostly through the mediating processes of the model.

Table 4 shows the decomposition of the total effects for key exogenousvariables. Again, the data strongly support the assumptions of the theoreticalmodel. Notice that communication is the only exogenous variable thatdirectly affects organizational commitment. Furthermore, only 13% of the




total causal effects are direct. A full 87% of the exogenous impact is mediatedthrough job satisfaction and organizational support. Among the two mediat-ing processes, job satisfaction mediates 51% of the total causal effect andorganizational support mediates 36%. Also notice that except for proceduraljustice, the mediating effect of each exogenous variable through job satisfac-tion is larger than that for organizational support. Recall that in the previoussection, we found job satisfaction and organizational support to have similardirect effects on commitment. Taken together, these two findings suggest thatalthough job satisfaction mediates a wider range of organizational features,once established, job satisfaction and perceived organizational support areequally potent in producing commitment. Both findings point to the impor-tance of job satisfaction and perceived organizational support as mediatingfactors.

DISCUSSION

Our study reveals that job characteristics and organizational features pri-marily operate through job satisfaction and perceived organizational supportto produce organizational commitment. An estimation of the theoreticalmodel finds that these two constructs mediate a majority of the total variancein organizational commitment. We also identify a variety of factors (such asopen communication, perceptions of distributive, and procedural justice) thatpromote organizational commitment through both paths. In this section weconsider some of the more general issues these findings address.

This project offers a unique opportunity to compare the relative strengthof job satisfaction and perceived organizational support as mediating


TABLE 4: Standardized Direct and Indirect Causal Effects of the Key Exoge-nous Variables on Organizational Commitment (N = 2,850)

Indirect Through

Direct Job Organizational TotalExogenous Variable Effect Satisfaction Support Effect

Autonomy .00 .04** .00 .04**Variety .00 .10*** .01** .11***Workload .00 .03** .01* .04**Pay .00 –.02 .00 –.02Communication .12*** .16*** .14*** .42***Distributive justice .00 .09*** .05*** .14***Procedural justice .00 .03** .12*** .15***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed test.



constructs. We find that both constructs are strong predictors of organiza-tional commitment (betas = .36 and .31, respectively). The primary differ-ence between the two is that job satisfaction appears to be more stronglyrelated to a wider range of organizational policies and job practices. We arenot surprised that everyday work experiences (i.e., autonomy, variety, andworkload) have the strongest and most direct effect on everyday feelings ofsatisfaction and are less predictive of more abstract perceptions of organiza-tional support. Other researchers have speculated that job satisfaction is themost important predictor of commitment, precisely because it is sensitive to awide range of job-related traits (Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Lincoln &Kalleberg, 1990; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mueller & Price, 1990). Our studyis consistent with this assertion.

We also find that communication is especially important in producingcommitment. In fact, communication has multiple indirect effects and is theonly theoretical variable that has an impact on organizational commitmentdirectly. Communication, as such, appears to have several positive aspects inthe organization. Earlier we claimed that communication plays an instrumen-tal role in the completion of work routines (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1976; Weick,1987; Yates & Orlikowski, 1992) and that it triggers important cues concern-ing in-group membership (Dollar & Zimmers, 1998; Suzuki, 1998). To theextent the dual paths of our theoretical model capture instrumental andexpressive processes, the findings suggest this to be the case.

Our study also poses new questions concerning the role of justice in thecommitment process. Prior research indicates that procedural justice tends toaffect the relationship between the employee and organization (e.g., trust,legitimacy, and commitment), whereas distributive justice tends to have animpact on individual experiences and decisions (e.g., job satisfaction andturnover) (Brockner et al., 1992; Tyler, 1990, 1994). With this in mind, wehypothesized that procedural justice would operate through organizationalsupport, whereas distributive justice would operate through job satisfaction.Both hypotheses were supported. However, those effects are not exclusive.We also found small but significant effects of procedural justice on job satis-faction and distributive justice on perceived organizational support. Thesefindings indicate that justice perceptions have broader effects and suggest theneed for additional theory and research.

Autonomy and variety are well-known to be intrinsic job rewards (Hack-man & Oldham, 1975). Pay can be construed as a reward that is extrinsic tothe job itself. Although we predicted that all three variables would increasejob satisfaction, only autonomy and variety received the expected support.This suggests that intrinsic job rewards play a more important role in thedevelopment of job satisfaction than do extrinsic factors. In fact, neither job




satisfaction nor organizational commitment were found to increase with paywhen intrinsic job factors were controlled. More generally, these data suggestthat inherent job features are the proximate cause of satisfaction; externalrewards appear to be less central.

We were somewhat surprised by one finding: the small but positive effectof workload on job satisfaction. This finding may be interpreted in severalways. First, it may suggest that under some conditions, employees with highworkloads have greater opportunity to contribute to the company and there-fore experience greater self-efficacy and esteem. The converse may also betrue. That is, corporations may assign difficult and challenging tasks to themost competent employees. In either case, future researchers should findpositive relations between workload, job satisfaction, and measures ofemployee self-esteem or self-efficacy. A final possibility is that the finding isnot reliable and will not replicate in future studies. Only future research willbe able to distinguish among these possibilities.

We also found slight evidence of cultural norms at work. We suspectedthat group orientation, social relationships, and familism would be particu-larly important in our Korean sample. These factors, in turn, suggest that(a) procedural justice and communication should be good predictors of theendogenous processes and (b) organizational support would have a greatereffect on commitment than job satisfaction. These hypotheses were partiallysupported. Although communication and procedural justice operate as pre-dicted, organizational support was not a stronger predictor of commitment.Some of the control variables related to commitment as in previous U.S. stud-ies, but others did not. For instance, we found that educated and male employ-ees were less committed to their organization, as is often reported in U.S.samples (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Sommer et al., 1996). However, contrary toprevious studies in the United States, we did not find a positive impact of ageand tenure on organizational commitment (Luthans et al., 1985; Sommer et al.,1996). Given the strong emphasis in Korea on respect for the elderly, thesefindings may reflect subtleties in the particular organizations of our study.

CONCLUSION

We developed and tested a new model of commitment that integrates ideasfrom two independent research programs: job satisfaction and organizationalsupport. Whereas previous research has tended to examine these constructsas separate processes, our model suggests that organizational commitmentand job satisfaction are equally weighted affective and cognitive processesthat stem from a variety of job and personal characteristics.




At a theoretical level, our findings are consistent with Lawler and Yoon’s(1996) theory of relational cohesion. According to this theory, there are twoendogenous processes leading to commitment: social bonding and boundarydefining. Social bonding is an affective process that explains the develop-ment of commitment in terms of the emotions aroused through social interac-tion. Boundary defining is a cognitive process wherein collections of peoplecome to see themselves as members of an overarching group and share a com-mon group identity. The theory has been rigorously tested and supportedunder a variety of conditions (Lawler, Thye, & Yoon, 2000; Lawler & Yoon,1996).

Interpreting our study from this perspective, job satisfaction can be con-strued as a type of positive emotion that is directed at the organization. Per-ceived organizational support can been seen as a salient cognition that theorganization is concerned with employee well-being. As such, organiza-tional support may reinforce the boundary between the organization andemployee by making organizational membership a component of the individ-ual’s core identity. In this regard, our study represents a field application ofthe theory of relational cohesion and provides further evidence for the impor-tance of cognitive and emotional processes known to produce commitment.

In terms of practical implications, this project suggests that organizationswishing to improve employee commitment should aim to develop two kindsof programs. The first program should be aimed at increasing everyday jobsatisfaction. This could involve any policy that gives the employee a greatersense of variety, autonomy, and control over his or her job. The second set ofdirectives should seek to make the organizational boundary more salient.This might involve corporate profit-sharing plans, weekly awards that aregiven to especially deserving employees, or any other activity aimed at build-ing a sense of organizational responsibility and communal identity. To theextent such plans are instated, our research suggests that workers will experi-ence job satisfaction, perceive high levels of organizational support, and ulti-mately become committed to the organization.

LIMITS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In this section, we discuss some of the limitations of our research andspecify reasons why our findings must be interpreted cautiously. We firstconsider methodological issues and then move to issues of theory and appli-cability. We conclude by examining how recent economic changes in Koreamay affect the organizational dynamics of our theory.

Because this research employs a cross-sectional survey, it is difficult tomake definitive causal claims based on the findings. The model presumes a




specific time ordering among the exogenous variables, job satisfaction, per-ceived organizational support, and commitment. Yet all variables were mea-sured at a single point in time. Only experimental or time-series data on com-parable processes can fully determine the correct causal sequence. A relatedissue stems from the limitations that are inherent to any perception-to-perceptionmethodology. Because we rely on perceptual data measured with a series ofquestionnaire items, our results may be affected by response artifacts such ascommon methods variance and/or demand characteristics. For example, thetheory distinguishes perceived organizational support from perceived jobsatisfaction. And although the confirmatory factor analysis supports this dis-tinction, artifacts may still exist when information is collected from a singlesource. Future studies can resolve this issue by using research designs thatgather multiple sources of information over time.

With respect to the theory, our model explains 51% of variance in organi-zational commitment and 50% of the variance in job satisfaction. These num-bers suggest that some important theoretical variables may be missing fromthe model. Although the demographic controls in our study help to absorbextraneous variation due to potential misspecification (Harris & Mossholder,1996; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989), such errors may still exist. Futureefforts should be directed at developing more theoretically precise models tohandle potential specification errors. Finally, we note that our model of com-mitment is tested with a sample drawn from two relatively large firms. Thus,special caution should be taken when the model is applied to smaller organi-zations, because they may embody different organizational dynamics. Forinstance, smaller firms or those with a unique market niche may engender aneven greater sense of organizational identity. As such, perceived organiza-tional support may become even more potent as a predictor of commitment.

In closing, we note that many changes have transpired in Korea since our1996 survey. Most large Korean companies under the International MonetaryFund (IMF) regime experienced restructuring and downsizing as a result ofthe 1998 exchange deficit. There is some evidence that these dynamics trig-gered substantial changes in employee perceptions and emotions directedtoward the organization. For instance, Eisenberger and associates (1997)claimed that such economic restrictions do more to dampen employee jobsatisfaction than perceived organizational support. They assert that dissatis-fied employees can attribute the problem externally and thereby retain theimage of a supportive organization. Beyond this, many Korean firms underIMF have adopted Western standards in human resource practices andaccounting guidelines. These companies now pay employees based on merit;factors such as age, seniority, and rank in the organization are simply lessimportant. This implies that the traditional hierarchical structure centered on




collectivism and seniority can no longer be assumed. Such changes beget ashift in strategy for scholars interested in the contemporary work dynamics ofKorea. Researchers must be sensitive to the unique blending of cultural andorganizational forces that combine to produce basic social processes such ascommitment (Cornfield, 1997).

NOTES

1. Many researchers distinguish affective commitment from intent to stay. The two are oftenreferred to as attitudinal and behavioral commitment, respectively (Mueller & Price, 1990).These constructs are also analogous to Allen and Meyer’s (1990) “affective and continuancecommitment,” O’Reilly and Chatman’s (1986) “identification and compliance,” and Kanter’s(1968) “affective and instrumental commitment.” Scholars typically focus on one dimension orthe other. Rusbult and Farrell (1983) focused on the continuance commitment or intent to stay,whereas organizational psychologists such as Mowday et al. (1982) and Lincoln and Kalleberg(1990) tended to focus on affective commitment.

2. The causal ordering of job satisfaction and commitment has been debated in this literature(Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In all, however, more studies support the posi-tion that job satisfaction causes commitment than the converse (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990;Mueller & Price, 1990). This is also consistent with our theoretical model.

3. We also performed a more inclusive confirmatory factor analysis that included all nine the-oretical constructs. Once again, the nine-factor model also fits the data very well (Goodness-of-Fit Index [GFI] = .93, adjusted GFI = .92, the Tucker-Lewis Index = .90, and Comparative Fit In-dex = .91), and none of the cross-loadings surpassed .30. Furthermore, there was no seriousintercorrelation among the measurement errors. Taken in the context of the three-factor model,this provides further evidence for the validity of our constructs.

4. In the model, the equation errors for job satisfaction and organizational support are speci-fied to be intercorrelated with one another. We also tested for a reciprocal effect between per-ceived organizational support and job satisfaction, but the result did not support thisnonrecursive model. The results are available from the author on request.

REFERENCES

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organi-zational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective responses totask characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 3, 311-321.

Bae, K., & Chung, C. (1997). Cultural values and work attitudes of Korean industrial workers incomparison with those of the United States and Japan. Work and Occupations, 24, 80-96.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and socialinteraction. New York: Elsevier-North-Holland.

Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.




Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 35, 307-311.

Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measure of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551-570.Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The

effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a fieldexperiment. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 62, 55-62.

Brockner, J., Tyler, T., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to aninstitution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 37, 241-261.

Brooke, P. P., & Price, J. L. (1989). The determinants of employee absenteeism: An empiricaltest of a causal model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 1-19.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers inwork organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Cha, J. (1994). Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis,C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 157-174).Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitmentand personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.

Cornfield, D. B. (1997). Applying U.S. research on labor union membership participation toSouth Korean unions: An assessment. Korea Journal of Population and Development, 26,121-137.

Cummings, T. G., Molloy, E. S., & Glen, R. (1977). A methodological critique of fifty-eight se-lected work experiments. Human Relations, 8, 675-708.

Dollar, N. J., & Zimmers, B. G. (1998), Social identity and communicative boundaries. Commu-nication Research, 25, 596-617.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational sup-port, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,812-820.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support andemployee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,51-59.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizationalsupport. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

Farkas, A., & Tetrick, L. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of sat-isfaction and commitment in turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,855-868.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions topay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.

Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of acausal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 469-485.

Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. Pallak &R. Perloff (Ed.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 60, 159-170.

Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruencewith culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22,527-547.

Hechter, M. (1987). Principles of group solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.




Hegtvedt, K. A., & Markovsky, B. (1995). Justice and injustice. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S.House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 257-280). Boston: Allyn& Bacon.

Hong, D. (1997). Dynamics of Asian workplaces: An introductory essay. Work and Occupa-tions, 24, 5-11.

Iverson, R. D., & Roy, P. (1994). A causal model of behavioral commitment: Evidence from astudy of Australian blue-collar employees. Journal of Management, 20, 15-41.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis, assumptions, models, anddata. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of orga-nizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319-337.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with theSIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress:Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley.

Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mecha-nisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517.

Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. InU. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collec-tivism (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and collec-tivism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s three-componentmodel of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,961-973.

Kollock, P. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncer-tainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 315-345.

Lawler, E. J. (1992). Choice processes and affective attachments to nested groups: A theoreticalanalysis. American Sociological Review, 57, 327-339.

Lawler, E. J., Thye, S., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange.American Journal of Sociology, 106, 616-657.

Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of rela-tional cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61, 89-108.

Lincoln, J., & Kalleberg, A. (1990). Culture, control and commitment: A study of work organiza-tion and work attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbookof industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1293-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Luthans, F., McCaul, H. S., & Dodd, H. S. (1985). Organizational commitment: A comparison ofAmerican, Japanese, and Korean employees. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 213-219.

Marsh, H., Balla, J., & McDonald, R. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factoranalysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.

Martin, T. N. (1979). A contextual model of employee turnover intentions. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 22, 313-324.

Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate cul-ture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.




Michaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobbley,Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53-59.

Mottaz, C. J. (1985). The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinantsof work satisfaction. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 365-385.

Mottaz, C. J. (1987). An analysis of the relationship between work satisfaction and organiza-tional commitment. Sociological Quarterly, 28, 541-558.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages. NewYork: Academy Press.

Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1990). Economic, psychological and sociological determinants ofvoluntary turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 9, 321-335.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach-ment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1976). Relationships among components of credibility andcommunication behaviors in work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 99-102.

Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House.Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Green-

wich, CT: JAI.Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on

job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives,and investments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 429-438.

Sagie, A. (1998). Employee absenteeism, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: An-other look. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 156-171.

Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and fairnessperceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 132, 277-290.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R.C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceivedorganizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived orga-nizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-643.

Smith, P. A. (1992). In pursuit of happiness: Why study general job satisfaction? In C. J. Cranny,P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and howit affects their performance (pp. 6-19). New York: Lexington Books.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The revised Job Descriptive Index. BowlingGreen, OH: Bowling Green State University Press.

Sommer, S. M., Bae, S., & Luthans, F. (1996). Organizational commitment across cultures: Theimpact of antecedents on Korean employees. Human Relations, 49, 977-993.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerningautonomy and participation at work, Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016.

Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable out-comes at the workplace. Organizational Science, 5, 51-71.

Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 22, 46-56.

Suzuki, S. (1998). Ingroup and outgroup communication patterns in international organizations:Implications for social identity theory. Communication Research, 25, 154-182.

Thye, S. R. (2000). Reliability in experimental sociology. Social Forces, 74, 1277-1309.Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor

analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.




Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive andprocedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.

Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. (1986). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuringstress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,8, 141-157.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support andleader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal,40, 82-111.

Weick, K. E. (1987). Theorizing about organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication(pp. 97-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociologi-cal Methods and Research, 16, 118-154.

Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models formultitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1-12.

Williams, L., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as pre-dictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,601-617.

Yammarino, F. J., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Asian Americans and leadership: A level of analysis per-spective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 47-67.

Yates, J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structural ap-proach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17,299-326.

Yoon, J. (1996). Fairness issues and job satisfaction among Korean employees: The significanceof status value and procedural justice in work orientation. Social Justice Research, 9,121-143.

Yoon, J., Han, N., & Seo, Y. (1996). Sense of control among hospital employees: An assessmentof choice processes, empowerment, and buffering hypotheses. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 26, 687-716.


