Organizational Commitment Scale
Content
Malaysian Management Review, June 1999 A PSYCHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF THE MALAY VERSION OF MEYER AND ALLEN'S ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT MEASURE
DR ALI YUSOB MD ZAIN School of Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia DR ROGER GILL The Leadership Trust, Hereford shire,
ABSTRACT Meyer and Allen's (1991) model of organizational commitment conceptualizes it in terms of three distinct dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative. The purpose of this study was to examine its generalizability in Malaysia. Meyer and Allen's research instrument was translated into Malaysian language and distributed to non-supervisory employees in 61 organizations in the government, semigovernment and private sectors. Data from 672 respondents were analyzed using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The results generally support the cross-cultural generalizability of Meyer and Allen's model and utility of their questionnaire. The results also support McGee and Ford's (1987) proposal that continuance commitment may be better represented by two sub-dimensions: one associated with the costs of leaving and the other associated with the availability of alternatives. INTRODUCTION Culture plays a dominant role in organizational studies. The importance of cross-cultural study in management was recognized by many researchers. Gill (1983) emphasized that "understanding cross-cultural personality differences can help management and government to achieve more harmonious adjustment of expectations where managers are transferred from one country to another". Triandis (1980) suggested that "for a complete science of behavior we need to tie the characteristics of the ecology with the characteristics of humans". Moreover, Bass and Barrett (1976) asserted that "generalizations about management and supervision in the cross-cultural context are limited ... concepts and constructs tend to shift in meaning as we move from one culture to another ... cross-cultural investigations have considerable utility for industrial and organizational psychology". Organizational commitment in recent years has become an important concept in organizational research and in the understanding of employees' behaviour in the workplace. It reflects the extent to which employees identify with an organization and are committed to its goals. A meta-analysis of 68 studies and 35,282 individuals revealed a strong relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Tett and Meyer, 1993). However, another study showed that only 38 per cent of employees feel any long-term commitment to their organization (Today, 1995). Yet greater organizational commitment can aid higher productivity (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990).
UK
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Interest in organizational commitment has led to the development of several instruments to measure the construct. Morrow (1983) noted that there were some 25 concepts and measures related to commitment, and Sutton and Harrison (1993) called for a moratorium on developing additional measures until existing ones could be further analyzed and tested. One of the major models of organizational commitment is that developed by Meyer and Allen (1991), which conceptualizes organizational commitment in terms of three distinct dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative. Affective commitment For several authors, the term commitment is used to describe an affective orientation toward the organization. Kanter (1968), for example, defined what she called "cohesion commitment" as the attachment of an individual's fund of affectivity and emotion to the group. Likewise, Buchanan (1974) described commitment as a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values, and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth. Porter and his associates (Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1979; Porter, Crampon and Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian, 1974) described commitment as the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization. It is a "partisan affective attachment to the goals and values of an organization apart from its instrumental worth" (Popper and Lipshitz, 1992). Employees who are affectively committed to an organization remain with it because they want to do so (Meyer, Allen and Gellatly, 1990). Continuance Commitment For Stebbins (1970), continuance commitment was the awareness of the impossibility of choosing a different social identity because of the immense penalties involved in making the switch. Still others have used the term "calculative" to describe commitment based on a consideration of the costs and benefits associated with organizational membership that is unrelated to affect (Etzioni, 1975; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972; Stevens, Beyer and Trice, 1978). Finally, Farrell and Rusbult (1981) suggested that commitment is related to the probability that an employee will leave his job and involves feelings of psychological attachment which is independent of affect. Meyer and Allen (1991) suggested that recognition of the costs associated with leaving the organization is a conscious psychological state that is shaped by environmental conditions (e.g. the existence of side bets) and has implications for behaviour (e.g. continued employment with the organization). Employees wise primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so (Meyer and Allen,1991). Normative Commitment Finally, a less common, but equally viable, approach has been to view commitment as an obligation to remain with the organization. Marsh and Mannari (1977), for example, described the employee with "lifetime commitment" as one who considers it morally right to stay in the
company, regardless of how much status enhancement or satisfaction the firm gives over the years. In a similar vein, Wiener (1982) defined commitment as the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets organizational goals and interests and suggested that individuals exhibit these behaviours solely because they believe it is the right and moral thing to do. Normative commitment is characterized by feelings of loyalty to a particular organization resulting from the internalization of normative pressures on the individual (Popper and Lipshitz,1992). Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel they ought to remain with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). PURPOSE OF THE STUDY There have been repeated calls since the early 1980s for clarification of the definition and measurement of organizational commitment (McGee and Ford,1987; Meyer and Allen, 1984; Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1982; Reichers, 1985). Several distinct views of commitment have evolved and become well established over the years, making it unlikely that any one approach will dominate and be unanimously accepted as the correct definition of commitment. It is important, therefore, that the various instruments measuring organizational commitment be tested in order to clarify the distinctions among the various conceptualizations of organizational commitment dimensions. Thus, the main purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure of the Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment measure by using data obtained from a sample in Malaysia. It is hoped that the findings from this study will provide some indications of cross-cultural generalizability of the model. The other purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Malaysian version of the three-component organizational commitment questionnaire. The Malaysian version was translated from the original questionnaire developed by Meyer and Allen (1991). METHODOLOGY The Sample The sampling frame used was non-supervisory employees in 61 organizations in the northern states of Malaysia (Kedah, Perlis and Pulau Pinang). A variant of cluster sampling (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996; Aaker, Kumar and Day,1995) was used. Between 10 and 25 sets of questionnaires were sent to each of the 61 organizations for distribution by the heads of their personnel/human resource departments. The Instrument A questionnaire was developed using items taken from Allen and Meyer's (1990) instrument. Each dimension of organizational commitment affective, continuance, and normative - was measured by eight items. Possible responses were arrayed on a five-point Likert scale (rather than on Allen and Meyer's seven-point scale) comprising "strongly disagree" (1), "disagree" (2), "undecided" (3), "agree" (4), and "strongly agree" (5).
The questionnaire was translated from English into Bahasa Malaysia by a university lecturer competent in both languages and then backtranslated into English by a different lecturer. Both the English versions (the original and the translated) were compared to ensure similarity. The items and the dimensions they measure are shown in Table 1.
Procedure It was not possible to obtain all the names of non-supervisory employees in each of the 61 organizations included in the study. The selection of the respondents was therefore decided by the heads of the organization's personnel/human resource departments. They were asked to distribute the required number of questionnaires to non-supervisory employees at random in their organizations. A covering letter outlining the purpose of the study, defining the target sample, and the procedures of questionnaire distribution was enclosed together with the sets of questionnaires sent to the organizations. Statistical Analysis In addition to descriptive analysis, factor analyses (both exploratory and confirmatory) were used to determine the dimensions of Meyer and Allen's organizational commitment instrument. Exploratory factor analysis, using varimax rotations, was performed on the 24-item measure. Following Nunnally (1978), only factors with eigenvalues greater than one were selected for further analysis. Results obtained from exploratory factor analysis were further analyzed using both orthogonal
and oblique maximum likelihood factor analyses. The confirmatory factor analyses were carried out for several substantive models as well as for a null model. The indexes of goodness-of-fit which provide an indication of the extent to which a factor model can reproduce or account for the covariation in the correlation matrix were applied to each of the models (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). For the standardized solutions provided by the confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analyses, four indicators - a chi-square test (x2), a x21df ratio, a goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and a root mean square residual (RMSR) were used (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). Customarily, in the interpretation of the various indicators of the closeness of fit, the smaller the values of chi-square, chi-square/df and the RMSR, the superior and closer the degree of fit. On the other hand, the greater the values of GFI and AGFI, the better the degree of fit (Al-Samarrai, Michael and Hocevar,1993). RESULTS Sample Characteristics From a total of 1,280 sets of questionnaires distributed, 672 usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 52.5%. The sample characteristics are shown in Table 2. Of the respondents, 40.6% were employed in private sector organizations, 27.5% in government organizations, and 31.8% in semi-government organizations. 53.1% were male, and most of the respondents (71.5%) were aged 35 years or less. 34.8% had been employed by their organizations for three years or less, 14.6% for four to six years, 6.8% for seven to nine years, 14.7% for 10 to 12 years, and 29% for more than 12 years.
Exploratory Factor Analysis To examine the factor structure of the Bahasa Malaysia version of Meyer and Allen's organizational commitment measure, exploratory factor analyses using orthogonal (varimax) rotations were performed. The first factor analysis yielded a five-factor solution. One item in the normative commitment scale ("I think people these days move from
organization to organization too often") loaded on a factor. This might be due to the way the question was asked: it concerned other people's commitment. As the purpose of this study concerns measuring respondents' own commitment, the item was dropped from subsequent analysis. A second factor analysis was conducted on the remaining items. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. The analysis yielded four meaningful factors rather than the three factors that Meyer and Allen found: their dimension of continuance commitment was found to be composed of two dimensions, one concerning the costs of leaving the organization and the other concerning the availability of job alternatives. The eigen-values were 7.09 for factor 1 (affective commitment), 2.84 for factor 2 (normative commitment), 1.69 for factor 3 (continuance commitment: costs of leaving), and 1.02 for factor 4 (continuance commitment: availability of alternatives).
The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the dimensions are shown in Table 4. All but one pair of intercorrelations were significant at the 0.001 level. The correlation between Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment (Availability of Alternatives) was not significant.
Reliability coefficients (a) were calculated for the measures of the dimensions of commitment in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the questionnaire. The measures showed generally acceptable internal consistency. They are shown in Table 5.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using the results obtained from exploratory factor analysis, a series of oblique and orthogonal maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses was conducted. The results of the confirmatory factor analyses are presented in Table 6.
Based on the goodness-of-fit indexes shown in Table 6, it could be concluded that substantial support was obtained for the four-factor oblique model. This indicates that, for the Malaysian sample, the construct of organizational commitment is best represented by four
correlated dimensions: affective, normative, continuance leaving), and continuance (availability of alternatives). DISCUSSION
(costs
of
Two major conclusions may be drawn from this study. First, Meyer and Allen's conceptualization of organizational commitment is generally supported by its findings and therefore is generalizable to Malaysia. Second, their model might be further refined as a four-component model, with the third component, continuance commitment having two dimensions: continuance commitment (costs of leaving) and continuance commitment (availability of alternatives). Several reservations, however, must attach, to the findings from this study. First, the sample employed is assumed to be representative of non-supervisory employees in Malaysian organizations in general. Also, it did not encompass supervisory, professional or managerial employees. Second, there may be further aspects to organizational commitment among Malaysian employees that are not represented in the questionnaire items. The questionnaire might suffer from cultural bias in having originally been designed and tested in the "Western" culture. That this could be the case is exemplified by Bond and colleagues' (1987) extension of Hofstede's (1984) essentially "Western" instrument for measuring dimensions of national cultural differences in relation to Asian values and the resulting enhanced model. Third, the respondents are assumed to have been expressing their true feelings and perceptions in respect of organizational commitment. The findings and conclusions of this study, therefore, need to be interpreted in the light of these limitations. This study suggests that translated versions of questionnaires developed in one culture can provide reliable and valid measures in different cultures. There has been much debate about the cross-cultural transferability of such questionnaires, and indeed of management policies and practices based on findings of research using them. Variations in work values across cultures, in the case of North America and Malaysia, apparently do not necessarily preclude attitudinal and behaviour commonality. The results from both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses lend support to McGee and Ford (1987), who suggested that the continuance commitment scale consists of two meaningful sub-scales, one concerning the personal sacrifice associated with leaving the organization and the other an awareness of the availability of job alternatives. Future research might categories as well as conclusive evidence of model of organizational REFERENCES Aaker, D A, Kumar, V and Day, G S (1995). Marketing research, 5th Ed. New York: John Wiley. usefully include respondents from other job from other regions in Malaysia to obtain more the generalizability of the Meyer and Allen's commitment.
Al-Sammarai, N, Michael, W B and Hocevar, D (1993). "The development and validation of an Arabic version of an academic self-concept scale", Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, pp. 249-257. Allen, N J and Meyer, J P (1990). "The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment", Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, pp. 1-18. Bass, B M and Barrett, GV (1976). "Cross-cultural issues in industrial and organizational psychology", in: M D Dunnette, ed., Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, New York: Rand McNally. Becker, H S (1960). "Notes on the concept of commitment", American Journal of Sociology, 66, pp. 32-42. Bond, M H and The Chinese Culture Connection (1987). "Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture", Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 18, pp. 143-164. Buchanan, B (1974). "Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations", Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, pp. 533-546. Etzioni, A (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations, New York: Free Press. Farrel, D and Rusbult, C E (1981). "Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives and investments", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, pp. 78-95. Frankfort-Nachmias, C and Nachmias, D (1996). Research methods in the social sciences, 5th Ed. London: St Martin's Press. Gill, R (1983). "Personality profiles of Singapore-Chinese, British and American Managers: A cross-cultural comparison", Singapore Psychologist, 1, pp. 35-39. Hofstede, G (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications. Hrebiniak, L G and Alutto, J A (1972). "Personal and factors in the development of organizational Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, pp. 555-573. role-related commitment".
Joreskog, K G and Sorbom, D (1989). LISREL 7: User's reference guide, 1st Ed. Mooreville, Indiana: Scientific Software, Inc. Kanter, R M (1968). "Commitment and social organizations: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities", American Sosciological Review, 33, pp. 499-517. Marsh, R M and Mannari, H (1977). "Organizational commitment and turnover: A predictive study", Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp. 57-75.
Mathieu, J E and Zajac, D M (1990). "A review and metaanalysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. McGee, G W and Ford, R C (1987). "Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Re-examination of affective and continuance commitment scales", Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, pp. 638-642. Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (1991). "A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations", Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61-98. Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (1984). "Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations", Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, pp. 372-378. Meyer, J P, Allen, N J, and Gellatly, l R (1990). "Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations", Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, pp. 710-720. Morrow, P (1983). "Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment", Academy of Management Review, 8, pp. 486-500. Mowday, R T, Porter, L W and Steers, R M (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover, San Diego: Academic Press. Mowday, R T, Steers, R M and Porter, L W (1979). "The measurement of organizational commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, pp. 224-247. Nunnally, J C (1978). Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw-Hill. Popper, M and Lipshitz, R (1992). "Ask not what your country can do for you: The normative basis of organizational commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, pp.1-12. Porter, L W, Crampton, W J and Smith, F J (1976). "Organizational commitment, managerial turnover". Organizational Behavior and human Performance, 15, pp. 87-98. Porter, L W, Steers, R M, Mowday, R T and Boulian, P V (1974). "Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians", Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, pp. 603609. Reichers, A E (1985). "A review and conceptualization of organizational commitment", Academy of Management Review, 10, pp. 465-476. Stebbins, R A (1970). "On misunderstanding the concept of commitment: A theoretical clarification", Social Forces, 48, pp. 526-529. Stevens, J M, Beyer, J M, and Trice, H M (1978). "Assessing personal, role and organizational predictors of managerial commitment", Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 380-396.
Sutton, C D and Harrison, A W (1993). "Validity assessment of compliance, identification, and internalization as dimensions of organizational commitment", Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, pp. 217-223. Tett, R P and Meyer, J P (1993). "Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic findings", Personnel Psychology, Summer, pp.259-293. Today (1995). "Slave bosses don't deserve our loyalty", November 15. Triandis, H C (1980). "Reflections on trends in cross-cultural research", Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 11, pp. 35-58. Wiener, Y (1982). "Commitment in organizations: Academy of Management Review, 7, pp. 418-428. A normative view",
DR ALI YUSOB MD ZAIN School of Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia DR ROGER GILL The Leadership Trust, Hereford shire,
ABSTRACT Meyer and Allen's (1991) model of organizational commitment conceptualizes it in terms of three distinct dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative. The purpose of this study was to examine its generalizability in Malaysia. Meyer and Allen's research instrument was translated into Malaysian language and distributed to non-supervisory employees in 61 organizations in the government, semigovernment and private sectors. Data from 672 respondents were analyzed using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The results generally support the cross-cultural generalizability of Meyer and Allen's model and utility of their questionnaire. The results also support McGee and Ford's (1987) proposal that continuance commitment may be better represented by two sub-dimensions: one associated with the costs of leaving and the other associated with the availability of alternatives. INTRODUCTION Culture plays a dominant role in organizational studies. The importance of cross-cultural study in management was recognized by many researchers. Gill (1983) emphasized that "understanding cross-cultural personality differences can help management and government to achieve more harmonious adjustment of expectations where managers are transferred from one country to another". Triandis (1980) suggested that "for a complete science of behavior we need to tie the characteristics of the ecology with the characteristics of humans". Moreover, Bass and Barrett (1976) asserted that "generalizations about management and supervision in the cross-cultural context are limited ... concepts and constructs tend to shift in meaning as we move from one culture to another ... cross-cultural investigations have considerable utility for industrial and organizational psychology". Organizational commitment in recent years has become an important concept in organizational research and in the understanding of employees' behaviour in the workplace. It reflects the extent to which employees identify with an organization and are committed to its goals. A meta-analysis of 68 studies and 35,282 individuals revealed a strong relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Tett and Meyer, 1993). However, another study showed that only 38 per cent of employees feel any long-term commitment to their organization (Today, 1995). Yet greater organizational commitment can aid higher productivity (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990).
UK
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Interest in organizational commitment has led to the development of several instruments to measure the construct. Morrow (1983) noted that there were some 25 concepts and measures related to commitment, and Sutton and Harrison (1993) called for a moratorium on developing additional measures until existing ones could be further analyzed and tested. One of the major models of organizational commitment is that developed by Meyer and Allen (1991), which conceptualizes organizational commitment in terms of three distinct dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative. Affective commitment For several authors, the term commitment is used to describe an affective orientation toward the organization. Kanter (1968), for example, defined what she called "cohesion commitment" as the attachment of an individual's fund of affectivity and emotion to the group. Likewise, Buchanan (1974) described commitment as a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values, and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth. Porter and his associates (Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1979; Porter, Crampon and Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian, 1974) described commitment as the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization. It is a "partisan affective attachment to the goals and values of an organization apart from its instrumental worth" (Popper and Lipshitz, 1992). Employees who are affectively committed to an organization remain with it because they want to do so (Meyer, Allen and Gellatly, 1990). Continuance Commitment For Stebbins (1970), continuance commitment was the awareness of the impossibility of choosing a different social identity because of the immense penalties involved in making the switch. Still others have used the term "calculative" to describe commitment based on a consideration of the costs and benefits associated with organizational membership that is unrelated to affect (Etzioni, 1975; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972; Stevens, Beyer and Trice, 1978). Finally, Farrell and Rusbult (1981) suggested that commitment is related to the probability that an employee will leave his job and involves feelings of psychological attachment which is independent of affect. Meyer and Allen (1991) suggested that recognition of the costs associated with leaving the organization is a conscious psychological state that is shaped by environmental conditions (e.g. the existence of side bets) and has implications for behaviour (e.g. continued employment with the organization). Employees wise primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so (Meyer and Allen,1991). Normative Commitment Finally, a less common, but equally viable, approach has been to view commitment as an obligation to remain with the organization. Marsh and Mannari (1977), for example, described the employee with "lifetime commitment" as one who considers it morally right to stay in the
company, regardless of how much status enhancement or satisfaction the firm gives over the years. In a similar vein, Wiener (1982) defined commitment as the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets organizational goals and interests and suggested that individuals exhibit these behaviours solely because they believe it is the right and moral thing to do. Normative commitment is characterized by feelings of loyalty to a particular organization resulting from the internalization of normative pressures on the individual (Popper and Lipshitz,1992). Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel they ought to remain with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). PURPOSE OF THE STUDY There have been repeated calls since the early 1980s for clarification of the definition and measurement of organizational commitment (McGee and Ford,1987; Meyer and Allen, 1984; Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1982; Reichers, 1985). Several distinct views of commitment have evolved and become well established over the years, making it unlikely that any one approach will dominate and be unanimously accepted as the correct definition of commitment. It is important, therefore, that the various instruments measuring organizational commitment be tested in order to clarify the distinctions among the various conceptualizations of organizational commitment dimensions. Thus, the main purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure of the Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment measure by using data obtained from a sample in Malaysia. It is hoped that the findings from this study will provide some indications of cross-cultural generalizability of the model. The other purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Malaysian version of the three-component organizational commitment questionnaire. The Malaysian version was translated from the original questionnaire developed by Meyer and Allen (1991). METHODOLOGY The Sample The sampling frame used was non-supervisory employees in 61 organizations in the northern states of Malaysia (Kedah, Perlis and Pulau Pinang). A variant of cluster sampling (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996; Aaker, Kumar and Day,1995) was used. Between 10 and 25 sets of questionnaires were sent to each of the 61 organizations for distribution by the heads of their personnel/human resource departments. The Instrument A questionnaire was developed using items taken from Allen and Meyer's (1990) instrument. Each dimension of organizational commitment affective, continuance, and normative - was measured by eight items. Possible responses were arrayed on a five-point Likert scale (rather than on Allen and Meyer's seven-point scale) comprising "strongly disagree" (1), "disagree" (2), "undecided" (3), "agree" (4), and "strongly agree" (5).
The questionnaire was translated from English into Bahasa Malaysia by a university lecturer competent in both languages and then backtranslated into English by a different lecturer. Both the English versions (the original and the translated) were compared to ensure similarity. The items and the dimensions they measure are shown in Table 1.
Procedure It was not possible to obtain all the names of non-supervisory employees in each of the 61 organizations included in the study. The selection of the respondents was therefore decided by the heads of the organization's personnel/human resource departments. They were asked to distribute the required number of questionnaires to non-supervisory employees at random in their organizations. A covering letter outlining the purpose of the study, defining the target sample, and the procedures of questionnaire distribution was enclosed together with the sets of questionnaires sent to the organizations. Statistical Analysis In addition to descriptive analysis, factor analyses (both exploratory and confirmatory) were used to determine the dimensions of Meyer and Allen's organizational commitment instrument. Exploratory factor analysis, using varimax rotations, was performed on the 24-item measure. Following Nunnally (1978), only factors with eigenvalues greater than one were selected for further analysis. Results obtained from exploratory factor analysis were further analyzed using both orthogonal
and oblique maximum likelihood factor analyses. The confirmatory factor analyses were carried out for several substantive models as well as for a null model. The indexes of goodness-of-fit which provide an indication of the extent to which a factor model can reproduce or account for the covariation in the correlation matrix were applied to each of the models (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). For the standardized solutions provided by the confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analyses, four indicators - a chi-square test (x2), a x21df ratio, a goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and a root mean square residual (RMSR) were used (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). Customarily, in the interpretation of the various indicators of the closeness of fit, the smaller the values of chi-square, chi-square/df and the RMSR, the superior and closer the degree of fit. On the other hand, the greater the values of GFI and AGFI, the better the degree of fit (Al-Samarrai, Michael and Hocevar,1993). RESULTS Sample Characteristics From a total of 1,280 sets of questionnaires distributed, 672 usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 52.5%. The sample characteristics are shown in Table 2. Of the respondents, 40.6% were employed in private sector organizations, 27.5% in government organizations, and 31.8% in semi-government organizations. 53.1% were male, and most of the respondents (71.5%) were aged 35 years or less. 34.8% had been employed by their organizations for three years or less, 14.6% for four to six years, 6.8% for seven to nine years, 14.7% for 10 to 12 years, and 29% for more than 12 years.
Exploratory Factor Analysis To examine the factor structure of the Bahasa Malaysia version of Meyer and Allen's organizational commitment measure, exploratory factor analyses using orthogonal (varimax) rotations were performed. The first factor analysis yielded a five-factor solution. One item in the normative commitment scale ("I think people these days move from
organization to organization too often") loaded on a factor. This might be due to the way the question was asked: it concerned other people's commitment. As the purpose of this study concerns measuring respondents' own commitment, the item was dropped from subsequent analysis. A second factor analysis was conducted on the remaining items. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. The analysis yielded four meaningful factors rather than the three factors that Meyer and Allen found: their dimension of continuance commitment was found to be composed of two dimensions, one concerning the costs of leaving the organization and the other concerning the availability of job alternatives. The eigen-values were 7.09 for factor 1 (affective commitment), 2.84 for factor 2 (normative commitment), 1.69 for factor 3 (continuance commitment: costs of leaving), and 1.02 for factor 4 (continuance commitment: availability of alternatives).
The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the dimensions are shown in Table 4. All but one pair of intercorrelations were significant at the 0.001 level. The correlation between Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment (Availability of Alternatives) was not significant.
Reliability coefficients (a) were calculated for the measures of the dimensions of commitment in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the questionnaire. The measures showed generally acceptable internal consistency. They are shown in Table 5.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using the results obtained from exploratory factor analysis, a series of oblique and orthogonal maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses was conducted. The results of the confirmatory factor analyses are presented in Table 6.
Based on the goodness-of-fit indexes shown in Table 6, it could be concluded that substantial support was obtained for the four-factor oblique model. This indicates that, for the Malaysian sample, the construct of organizational commitment is best represented by four
correlated dimensions: affective, normative, continuance leaving), and continuance (availability of alternatives). DISCUSSION
(costs
of
Two major conclusions may be drawn from this study. First, Meyer and Allen's conceptualization of organizational commitment is generally supported by its findings and therefore is generalizable to Malaysia. Second, their model might be further refined as a four-component model, with the third component, continuance commitment having two dimensions: continuance commitment (costs of leaving) and continuance commitment (availability of alternatives). Several reservations, however, must attach, to the findings from this study. First, the sample employed is assumed to be representative of non-supervisory employees in Malaysian organizations in general. Also, it did not encompass supervisory, professional or managerial employees. Second, there may be further aspects to organizational commitment among Malaysian employees that are not represented in the questionnaire items. The questionnaire might suffer from cultural bias in having originally been designed and tested in the "Western" culture. That this could be the case is exemplified by Bond and colleagues' (1987) extension of Hofstede's (1984) essentially "Western" instrument for measuring dimensions of national cultural differences in relation to Asian values and the resulting enhanced model. Third, the respondents are assumed to have been expressing their true feelings and perceptions in respect of organizational commitment. The findings and conclusions of this study, therefore, need to be interpreted in the light of these limitations. This study suggests that translated versions of questionnaires developed in one culture can provide reliable and valid measures in different cultures. There has been much debate about the cross-cultural transferability of such questionnaires, and indeed of management policies and practices based on findings of research using them. Variations in work values across cultures, in the case of North America and Malaysia, apparently do not necessarily preclude attitudinal and behaviour commonality. The results from both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses lend support to McGee and Ford (1987), who suggested that the continuance commitment scale consists of two meaningful sub-scales, one concerning the personal sacrifice associated with leaving the organization and the other an awareness of the availability of job alternatives. Future research might categories as well as conclusive evidence of model of organizational REFERENCES Aaker, D A, Kumar, V and Day, G S (1995). Marketing research, 5th Ed. New York: John Wiley. usefully include respondents from other job from other regions in Malaysia to obtain more the generalizability of the Meyer and Allen's commitment.
Al-Sammarai, N, Michael, W B and Hocevar, D (1993). "The development and validation of an Arabic version of an academic self-concept scale", Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, pp. 249-257. Allen, N J and Meyer, J P (1990). "The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment", Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, pp. 1-18. Bass, B M and Barrett, GV (1976). "Cross-cultural issues in industrial and organizational psychology", in: M D Dunnette, ed., Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, New York: Rand McNally. Becker, H S (1960). "Notes on the concept of commitment", American Journal of Sociology, 66, pp. 32-42. Bond, M H and The Chinese Culture Connection (1987). "Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture", Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 18, pp. 143-164. Buchanan, B (1974). "Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations", Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, pp. 533-546. Etzioni, A (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations, New York: Free Press. Farrel, D and Rusbult, C E (1981). "Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives and investments", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, pp. 78-95. Frankfort-Nachmias, C and Nachmias, D (1996). Research methods in the social sciences, 5th Ed. London: St Martin's Press. Gill, R (1983). "Personality profiles of Singapore-Chinese, British and American Managers: A cross-cultural comparison", Singapore Psychologist, 1, pp. 35-39. Hofstede, G (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications. Hrebiniak, L G and Alutto, J A (1972). "Personal and factors in the development of organizational Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, pp. 555-573. role-related commitment".
Joreskog, K G and Sorbom, D (1989). LISREL 7: User's reference guide, 1st Ed. Mooreville, Indiana: Scientific Software, Inc. Kanter, R M (1968). "Commitment and social organizations: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities", American Sosciological Review, 33, pp. 499-517. Marsh, R M and Mannari, H (1977). "Organizational commitment and turnover: A predictive study", Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp. 57-75.
Mathieu, J E and Zajac, D M (1990). "A review and metaanalysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. McGee, G W and Ford, R C (1987). "Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Re-examination of affective and continuance commitment scales", Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, pp. 638-642. Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (1991). "A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations", Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61-98. Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (1984). "Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations", Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, pp. 372-378. Meyer, J P, Allen, N J, and Gellatly, l R (1990). "Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations", Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, pp. 710-720. Morrow, P (1983). "Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment", Academy of Management Review, 8, pp. 486-500. Mowday, R T, Porter, L W and Steers, R M (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover, San Diego: Academic Press. Mowday, R T, Steers, R M and Porter, L W (1979). "The measurement of organizational commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, pp. 224-247. Nunnally, J C (1978). Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw-Hill. Popper, M and Lipshitz, R (1992). "Ask not what your country can do for you: The normative basis of organizational commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, pp.1-12. Porter, L W, Crampton, W J and Smith, F J (1976). "Organizational commitment, managerial turnover". Organizational Behavior and human Performance, 15, pp. 87-98. Porter, L W, Steers, R M, Mowday, R T and Boulian, P V (1974). "Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians", Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, pp. 603609. Reichers, A E (1985). "A review and conceptualization of organizational commitment", Academy of Management Review, 10, pp. 465-476. Stebbins, R A (1970). "On misunderstanding the concept of commitment: A theoretical clarification", Social Forces, 48, pp. 526-529. Stevens, J M, Beyer, J M, and Trice, H M (1978). "Assessing personal, role and organizational predictors of managerial commitment", Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 380-396.
Sutton, C D and Harrison, A W (1993). "Validity assessment of compliance, identification, and internalization as dimensions of organizational commitment", Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, pp. 217-223. Tett, R P and Meyer, J P (1993). "Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic findings", Personnel Psychology, Summer, pp.259-293. Today (1995). "Slave bosses don't deserve our loyalty", November 15. Triandis, H C (1980). "Reflections on trends in cross-cultural research", Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 11, pp. 35-58. Wiener, Y (1982). "Commitment in organizations: Academy of Management Review, 7, pp. 418-428. A normative view",
