Now, I review the works that examined the influence of affective organisational commitment on task performance, proactive behaviour, affiliative OCB, and
counterproductive work behaviour. The research findings regarding the association between affective organisational commitment and employee voice behaviour were elaborated in the review on voice literature, and therefore not included in the following review.
Task performance. Because affectively committed employees have shared values and goals with their organisation and are driven by intrinsic motivation, they tend to perform at a high level. This positive relationship between affective organisational
commitment and task performance has been demonstrated in various works (Chen & Francesco, 2003; Hunter & Thatcher, 2007; Luchak & Gellatly, 2007; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002).
Proactive behaviour. Similar to the conflicting findings regarding the impact of affective organisational commitment on employee voice behaviour, works examining the relationship between affective organisational commitment and proactive behaviour also show inconsistency. There is much evidence to support the positive effect of affective organisational commitment on proactive behaviour. In these works, affective organisational commitment is depicted as an attitudinal indicator of the extent to which employees perceive themselves to be in a positive and supportive relationship with the organisation, and therefore affectively committed employees are expected to reciprocate to their organisation in positive ways (Griffin et al., 2007). Supporting this argument, Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) reported that employees’ affective organisational commitment can positively predict supervisor-rated self-initiatives. Similarly, Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007) found a positive association between employees’ affective organisational commitment and their proactivity. Rank, Carsten, Unger, and Spector (2007) also reported that affectively committed employees are more likely to engage in proactive service. In addition, Ng, Feldman, and Lam (2010) indicated that a higher initial status of affective organisational commitment is associated with higher innovation-related behaviour. Moreover, a decline in affective organisational commitment causes a decline in innovation-related behaviour over time.
However, affective organisational commitment is expected to have no direct relevance to proactive behaviour. Parker (2000) argued that, although commitment is often operationalised in terms of a desire to invest extra effort, the direction of extra effort is not considered and could be applied towards relatively passive behaviours.
Consistent with this argument, Parker, Williams, and Turner (2006) found that employees’ affective organisational commitment is not related to their proactive idea implementation or their proactive problem solving. Similarly, Chiaburu, Marinova, and Lim (2007) reported that employees’ affective commitment to their work unit has no effect on their proactive behaviour.
One possible explanation for the mixed findings regarding the association between affective organisational commitment and proactive behaviour may be that the effect of affective organisational commitment is contingent on the form of proactive behaviour. Chamberlin et al. (2017) suggested that affective organisational commitment is more related to non-challenging forms of voice behaviour than to challenging forms. As Parker and Collins (2010) indicated, proactive behaviour encompasses a wide range of constructs, such as personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996), taking charge (Morrison et al., 1999), proactive problem solving and proactive idea
implementation (Parker et al., 2006), self-initiated role expansions (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997) and innovation (Parker, 1998). Some forms of proactive behaviour avoid explicit challenges to the status quo by virtue of being additive to the status quo. An example of this is proactive customer service, which is defined as employees’ self- started, long-term-oriented, and persistent service behaviour that goes beyond the explicitly prescribed performance requirements (Rank et al., 2007). Some other forms of proactive behaviour are more challenging and imply more personal cost, such as proactive problem solving, which refers to self-starting, future-oriented responses with the aim to prevent the reoccurrence of a problem by addressing its root (Parker et al., 2006). Therefore, the differences between various forms of proactive behaviour may account for the inconsistency in the research findings.
In addition, distinguishing the target to which proactive behaviour may contribute to may also help to address the inconsistency. Because affective
organisational commitment reflects the extent of the positive and supportive relationship between employees and their organisations, affective organisational commitment may predict proactive behaviour that has the purpose of improving the overall effectiveness of the organisation, but not those directed towards the others. In fact, Griffin et al. (2007) has found that affective organisational commitment is related to proactive behaviour directed towards organisation, but is unrelated to proactive behaviour directed towards the team or individual (the employee). Similar findings were also reported by Strauss, Griffin, and Rafferty (2009). Therefore, the conflicting
findings may also be the result of the different beneficiaries of the distinct forms of proactive behaviour.
In summary, although some works have found a positive association between affective organisational commitment and proactive behaviour, the effect is inconsistent. Future research investigating the relationship between affective organisational
commitment and proactive behaviour should consider the differences in the challenging nature and beneficiaries of the distinct forms of proactive behaviour.
Affiliative OCB. Compared with the inconsistencies in research investigating the influence of affective organisational commitment on employee voice and proactive behaviour, affective organisational commitment has been found to have consistent positive effect on affiliative OCB, although this relationship is contingent on certain factors (Akoto, 2014; Ng et al., 2010; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). For example, Chen and Francesco (2003) found that affective organisational commitment can positively predict altruism and conscientiousness (two dimensions of affiliative OCB). Similarly, LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002) also reported a positive association between affective
organisational commitment and affiliative OCB. Further, Eisenberger et al. (2010) found that affectively committed employees are more likely to engage in organisational spontaneity. In addition, by distinguishing the target of citizenship behaviour, Lavelle et al. (2009) indicated that affective organisational commitment will trigger certain forms of employee affiliative OCB that are directed towards the organisation. More direct evidence can be seen in the meta-analyses by Meyer et al. (2002) and Ng et al. (2011). Counterproductive work behaviour. Affective organisational commitment also helps to decrease the likelihood of employees’ engagement in counterproductive work behaviour. For example, affective organisational commitment has been repeatedly found to have a negative influence on employees’ voluntary absenteeism (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Hausknecht, Hiller, & Vance, 2008; Luchak et al., 2007; Somers, 1995). In addition, affective organisational commitment has also been found to have a consistent negative relationship with employees’ deviant behaviour, (Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004; Mulki, Jaramillo, & Locander, 2006; Tepper, Henle, Lambert,
Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008).
It is worth noting that the vast majority of past research on affective organisational commitment as an antecedent to predict the above behavioural outcomes largely relied on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which emphasises reciprocity in social
relationships, without giving enough consideration to the cognitive or affective processes that may link affective organisational commitment to these behavioural outcomes. As a result, there is a lack of understanding of how affective organisational commitment triggers or inhibits these behaviours. Therefore, there is a need for more work to explore the psychological mechanism that underlies the influence of