ارتباط ساختار شخصیت پنج عامل بزرگ با تعهد سازمانی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34204||2006||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 41, Issue 5, October 2006, Pages 959–970
This study explored the linkages between the five-factor model of personality and Meyer and Allen’s (1991) model of organizational commitment using a field sample. Results indicated that Extraversion was significantly related to affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience were all significantly related to continuance commitment. Lastly, Agreeableness was significantly related to normative commitment. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.
Over the past two decades, organizational commitment has become a highly researched job attitude. Indeed, commitment has been the subject of several meta-analyses (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005, Mathieu and Zajac, 1990 and Meyer et al., 2002), theoretical reviews (Lawler, 1992 and Reichers, 1985), and one overview book (Meyer & Allen, 1997), largely because employees with low levels of commitment are more likely to leave their organizations (Meyer et al., 2002). Although the antecedents of commitment have received increased attention, environmental rather than dispositional sources are typically considered, despite a surge in research looking at the dispositional sources of other job attitudes, such as job satisfaction (e.g., Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). The logic underlying the individual difference approach to understanding job attitudes is twofold: theoretically, an attitude has been defined as a psychological tendency that is expressed by an evaluation (favorable or unfavorable) of a particular entity (Eagley & Chaiken, 1993), which maps onto the prevailing conceptualization of job satisfaction; empirically, research has provided evidence that some individuals may be dispositionally predisposed to experience heightened or diminished levels of job satisfaction (e.g., Staw & Ross, 1985). In the past 15 years, as studies have continued to explore this question, evidence has continued to mount supporting this trend, lending credence to the argument that job satisfaction is, at least partially, dispositionally based (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996). Interestingly, so far only minimal attention has been directed toward understanding the dispositional basis of organizational commitment. Although research has investigated relationships between an isolated facet of personality and organizational commitment (e.g., Cropanzano et al., 1993 and Thoresen et al., 2003), all of these studies have employed the positive affectivity (PA)–negative affectivity (NA) taxonomy of affective temperament (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), despite meta-analysis demonstrating that Conscientiousness is related to job satisfaction, and unlike Extraversion and Neuroticism, is a Big Five personality trait not subsumed under the PA–NA typology (Judge et al., 2002). Because organizational commitment, like job satisfaction, is a job attitude, the five-factor model of personality may include traits not covered by the PA–NA typology that provide a more in-depth understanding of commitment development. As such, the application of the Big Five model may provide much needed integration in this literature. However, to date, we are not aware of any studies that have investigated the relationship between the Big Five and organizational commitment. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the relationship between these constructs to better understand the dispositional basis of organizational commitment. 1.1. The five-factor model of personality The Big Five model implies that personality consists of five relatively independent dimensions that altogether provide a meaningful taxonomy for the study of individual differences. Our interpretation of the Big Five directly corresponds to our measurement of the five-factor model of personality. The first factor we measured was Extraversion. The behavioral tendencies used to measure this factor include being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The second factor that we explored was Neuroticism. It represents individual differences in the tendency to experience distress (McCrae & John, 1992). Typical behaviors associated with this factor include being anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and insecure (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Agreeableness was the third factor we examined. It describes the humane aspects of people—characteristics such as altruism, nurturance, caring, and emotional support at one end of the dimension, and hostility, indifference to others, self-centeredness, spitefulness, and jealousy at the other end (Digman, 1990). The behavioral tendencies typically associated with this factor include being courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The fourth factor we looked at is referred to as Conscientiousness. It is related to dependability and volition and the typical behaviors associated with it include being hard-working, achievement-oriented, persevering, careful, and responsible (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The last factor we explored was Openness to Experience, which is related to scientific and artistic creativity, divergent thinking, and political liberalism (see Judge et al., 2002 and McCrae, 1996). The behavioral tendencies typically associated with Openness to Experience include being imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, intelligent (Digman, 1990), and having a need for variety, aesthetic sensitivity, and unconventional values (McCrae & John, 1992). 1.2. Organizational commitment Although multiple definitions of organizational commitment have been proposed, they each share the view that commitment is a psychological state that characterizes an employee’s relationship with his or her organization and has implications for that employee continuing membership in the organization (see Meyer & Allen, 1997). What has traditionally differed among these definitions of organizational commitment is the nature of the psychological state being described (e.g., Becker, 1960, Mowday et al., 1979 and Wiener, 1982). In order to acknowledge these differences, Meyer and Allen (1991) developed a three-component model of organizational commitment. The first component is affective commitment, which refers to an employee’s “emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in an organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67). The next component is continuance commitment, which refers to an employee’s perceptions of the costs associated with leaving an organization. These costs can either be work-related (e.g., wasted time and effort acquiring non-transferable skills) or nonwork-related (e.g., relocation costs). The last component is normative commitment, which refers to an employee’s feelings of obligation to remain in his or her organization. 1.3. Relationships between the Big Five and organizational commitment 1.3.1. Affective commitment Given that affective commitment represents an employee’s positive emotional reaction to the organization and positive emotionality is at the core of Extraversion (Watson & Clark, 1997), it is reasonable to assume that those high in Extraversion should experience higher affective commitment than those who are less extraverted. In fact, studies have found significant bivariate correlations between positive emotionality and affective commitment in the expected positive direction (Cropanzano et al., 1993 and Williams et al., 1996). Alternatively, Neuroticism should not relate to affective commitment because neurotic individuals tend to experience negative affect (Emmons, Diener, & Larsen, 1985), which should reduce their likelihood of developing a positive emotional reaction to their organization. In addition, Conscientiousness should not relate to this component of commitment because it has been argued to relate to a generalized work-involvement tendency (Organ & Lingl, 1995) but not an organizational-involvement tendency. As research has demonstrated, people are capable of becoming committed to various facets of the workplace including the job, occupation, and organization (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005), and such foci-specific commitments do not necessarily have to be congruent with each other (Reichers, 1985). Furthermore, Openness to Experience should not relate to affective commitment because research has noted that it is a “double-edged sword’ that predisposes individuals to feel both the bad and the good more intensely” (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998, p. 199), leaving its directional influence on affective reactions like affective commitment unclear. Lastly, Agreeableness is not expected to relate to affective commitment because previous studies have found negative relationships with Agreeableness and positive affective reactions such as job satisfaction (see Judge et al., 2002). Based on the preceding logic, Hypothesis 1. Extraversion will positively relate to affective commitment. 1.3.2. Continuance commitment One way in which continuance commitment develops is through an employee’s perceptions of employment alternatives. Specifically, employees who perceive that they have several viable alternatives will have weaker continuance commitment than those employees who perceive that they have few alternatives (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Because extraverts tend to be more socially active, they may develop more social contacts than introverts. Moreover, because extraverts tend to get more of what they want out of social interactions, they may perceive more job alternatives than introverts (Watson & Clark, 1997). Therefore, Hypothesis 2. Extraversion will negatively relate to continuance commitment. It has been shown that neurotic individuals tend to experience more negative life events than other individuals (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993). These findings directly relate to continuance commitment, which may develop out of an employee’s fear of the costs associated with leaving his or her current position (Meyer & Allen, 1997). To the extent that negative events occur in a neurotic’s job, he or she may feel more apprehensive about facing a new work environment that could provide even harsher experiences. Thus, Hypothesis 3. Neuroticism will positively relate to continuance commitment. Organ and Lingl (1995) suggested that Conscientiousness related to job satisfaction because it represents a general work-involvement tendency that provides increased opportunity for an employee to obtain formal (e.g., pay, promotion) and informal work rewards (e.g., recognition, respect). To the extent that a conscientious employee earns such rewards, he or she should have heightened levels of continuance commitment because the costs of leaving an organization have increased. As such, Hypothesis 4. Conscientiousness will positively relate to continuance commitment. Alternatively, Agreeableness and Openness to Experience are not hypothesized to relate to continuance commitment. Although individuals high on Agreeableness often demonstrate respectful and proper workplace behavior (Organ & Lingl, 1995), it is unlikely that this appropriate behavior would be rewarded because it is expected, thereby failing to increase the costs associated with leaving an organization. Finally, Openness to Experience is not hypothesized to relate to continuance commitment because it has been related to divergent thinking (McCrae, 1996), suggesting that formal and informal rewards that generally bind employees to their organizations may not apply to those high on this personality dimension. 1.3.3. Normative commitment Normative commitment develops from the investments that an organization makes in its employees (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Specifically, when an organization upholds its end of the psychological contract, which represents an employee’s beliefs about the mutual obligations between him or her and the organization (Meyer et al., 2002), that individual will feel indebted to his or her organization and want to reciprocate his or her organization’s initiatives. Because positive emotionality is at the core of Extraversion, extraverted employees may seek out more social interactions within the workplace and find these interactions more rewarding than introverts (Watson & Clark, 1997). These experiences may lead extraverted employees to reciprocate the organization for providing a context for these satisfying interpersonal exchanges. Thus, Hypothesis 5. Extraversion will positively relate to normative commitment. Alternatively, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness should not relate to normative commitment. Neurotics tend to worry excessively (Barrick & Mount, 1991), which should diminish thoughts that their organization has upheld its end of the psychological contract. Openness to Experience is related to divergent thinking (McCrae, 1996), suggesting that those high on Openness may not value things that are often valued, such as organizational investments. Conscientiousness is not expected to relate to normative commitment because it has been argued to reflect a “virtue is its own reward” ethic (Organ & Lingl, 1995, p. 341), which suggests that highly conscientious employees will work hard regardless of whether they perceive their organization has invested in them. Lastly, those high on Agreeableness have been found to get along with coworkers in pleasurable ways (Organ & Lingl, 1995), however it is unclear whether this pleasant behavior would serve as a catalyst for, or reaction to, an organization upholding its end of the psychological contract.