Models of organizational commitment

At this point, is it useful to examine three theories of organizational commitment to determine the factors that influence how and why employees are tuned in to the needs of a company.

Richard M Steers hypothesized three major facets of the work environment that contribute to organizational commitment:

A combination of these three elements determines the extent to which an employee is committed to the organization. The strength of this commitment manifests itself in the employee's desire and intention to remain, attendance and retention, and the level of job performance.

In his research, Steers identified six factors of prime importance:

Roy J Lewicki saw commitment as an opportunity for the employee to satisfy the personal needs of security, self- esteem, and self-actualization. The more the employee's needs are met, the greater the commitment.

He presented four major managerial strategies to meet these needs:

Gerald R Salancik explained commitment as a force that binds one to one's actions. An organization, he feels, can strengthen the cohesion between company and individual by applying three ideas: visibility, attachment, and volition.

Visibility is utilized by giving employees recognition for their work. If management informs all employees of what each is doing, visibility is heightened and employees are more likely to show commitment and less likely to show dissonance. Without this recognition, the motivation toward commitment is weakened.

Second, firms can bind employees to organizations by developing attachments that make it more difficult for them to leave. This can be accomplished through nontransferable benefits, team-building efforts, family approaches, and the development of employee skills that might not be valuable in other organizations.

The third concept is outside the control of the manager but is essential to a binding relationship. An employee must choose of his or her own volition to accept personal responsibility for involvement in the firm. This internal choice maintains a behavioral direction during fluctuations within the organizational climate.

Important to Salancik's explanation of commitment is the concept of ideological myths. In the myth-making process, employees act as if their actions are valuable. As they act, they renew that belief. Without realizing it, they have created a myth. The myth sustains the action, the action the myth. Myths give meanings to actions, sustain involvement, and make sense of sacrifices. Myths bind an individual to an organization by strengthening the belief that the work experience has value.

The models contain several common ideas. The main factors that influence an individual's commitment are investments, reciprocity, lack of alternatives, and identification.

As individuals invest more in an organization in time, energy, and commitment, the less likely they are to leave as they accept future rewards—promotions, for example—for their contribution. If they leave the company, their investments will not be recovered.

The idea of reciprocity is based on the assumption that if employees feel they are getting more than they deserve—that the rewards of the job are more than expected—they will remain with the organization in order to repay this debt through future performance.

Lack of alternatives, in line with Salancik's idea of attachment, means that the more specific skills become to a particular organization, the less opportunity is available to use those skills outside the organization. This is not very important, however, in the hospitality industry, where the job in one hotel differs little from that in another.

Identification is defined as the linking of one's social identity to one's work. As identification increases, change becomes harder and commitment is strengthened.