FASE I: Gestionar el riesgo

In the process of defining organisational commitment, numerous writers have advanced knowledge concerning the basic nature of the concept. Meyer and Allen (1991) have noted the lack of consensus about definitions. In a later work, Meyer and Allen (1997) acknowledged the widely accepted distinction between attitudinal and behavioural commitment, and the ramifications for studying the development and consequences of these particular concepts. Guest (1992) traced the conceptualisation of attitudinal commitment back to the work of Buchanan (1974). Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) proposed the more widely used definition, which is sub-divided into three elements. These included “an identification with the goals and values of the organisation, a desire to belong to the organisation; and a willingness to display effort on behalf of the organisation”, (Armstrong 2001, p. 171). The authors developed the Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) to measure these elements (Mowday et al. 1982; Mowday, Steers and Porter 1979; Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian 1974). Meyer and Allen (1997) noted that research efforts to determine whether attitudinal commitment is linked to positive outcomes (lower absenteeism and turnover) and/or certain personal characteristics, have for the most part been unable to establish causality as they have “employed cross-sectional designs in which commitment and its antecedents and/or consequences were measured at the same time”, (p. 9).

Salancik (1977) summarised the behavioural approach to commitment stating that “the degree of commitment derives from the extent to which a person’s behaviours are binding. Four characteristics of behavioural acts make them binding, and hence determine the extent of commitment: explicitness; revocability, volition; and publicity”, (p. 4). Meyer and Allen (1997) suggested that behavioural commitment to a certain course of action can develop retrospectively in order to lessen dissonance and maintain positive self-perceptions. This position contrasts with the progressive direction in which attitudinal commitment is widely thought to develop. Further comparison by Legge (1995) highlighted that “whilst both forms of commitment assume instrumental or calculative motivations, attitudinal commitment suggests that commitment is exchanged for valued rewards, in contrast to behavioural commitment which involves a calculation of the costs of leaving rather than the rewards for staying with the organisation”, (p. 181). Guest (1992) provided a further definitional distinction in his review of the various approaches to commitment. The author noted that the concept of exchange commitment, contained in the writings of Becker (1960) and Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972), “implies that satisfaction and identification with the organisation is less important than a sense of being tied to it through investments such as pay, pensions, promotion expectations and social relationships. Commitment to an organisation will result for as long as an individual believes that membership provides him or her with the best exchange available”, (Guest 1992, p. 116). Legge (1995) has classified this under the heading of behavioural commitment.

A more recent approach taken to classifying organisational commitment is outlined in Meyer and Allen's (1991) ‘three-component model of commitment’. This attitudinal-based model delineates between affective, continuance and normative commitment by describing the nature of the psychological state symptomatic of each form. Differentiating between these concepts, Meyer and Allen (1991) posited, “affective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organisation. Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with the organisation because they want to do so. Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs

associated with leaving the organisation. Employees whose primary link to the organisation is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so. Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organisation”, (p. 67). Guest (1992) acknowledged, along with the attitudinal aspects, the links between earlier versions of this theory (Meyer and Allen 1984) and exchange commitment. Behavioural commitment was also incorporated into the three-component model both as an antecedent of affective commitment and as part of the feedback loop to on-the-job behaviours. This inclusion recognised the assertion of Mowday et al. (1982) that a reciprocal relationship existed between attitudinal and behavioural commitment.

Meyer and Allen (1991) emphasised the importance of viewing the affective, continuance and normative strains of commitment as components that may be simultaneously experienced by workers. In support of the three-component model, Guest (1992) noted that “one of the reasons Meyer and Allen’s work could be important is their suggestion that each type of commitment has different behavioural consequences”, (p. 116). Based on McGee and Ford's (1987) findings, the author goes on to assert that affective commitment is linked to effort while continuance commitment is associated with low worker turnover.

In the course of their extensive review of the nature of commitment, Meyer and Allen (1997) attach great significance to their three-component model. Given the way this model has been adopted in the literature (Guest 1992; Legge 1995), however, this positioning may well be justified. Meyer and Allen (1997) identified the work of other researchers who have focused upon the multi-dimensional nature of the commitment construct including Angle and Perry (1981) and O'Reilly and Chatman (1986). As a separate direction taken to examining commitment, Meyer and Allen (1997) also highlighted research contributions that emphasise the ‘to whom or what’ commitment is focused (for example, commitment demonstrated towards a certain work group, division or the organisation as a whole). Becker (1992), Lawler (1992) and Reichers (1985) are all offered as adherents of this

multiple-constituency tradition. Whilst it is beyond the scope of the current review to examine these contributions separately, further reference will later be made to certain themes that arise from this research direction.

Meyer and Allen (1997) have proposed, “an important goal for future research is to develop a more unified approach to the classification and measurement of commitment”, (p. 15). They combined the multi-dimensional components of the concept (affective, continuance and normative) with the various foci (organisation, top management, unit, unit manager, work team and team leader) to which commitment can be directed, to propose a matrix framework for the integration of these two approaches. Meyer and Allen (1997) asserted that this matrix will better assist researchers to frame their studies in relation to aspects of commitment, a claim which, due to its relative recency of inception, will require time to establish.