Theories of workplace commitment have become increasingly complex with propositions regarding its multiple-component structure (e.g., affective, normative, continuance) and multiple foci (e.g., organization, supervisor, team). To date, most research has taken a variable-centered approach (e.g., regression, SEM) to address the additive and interactive effects of commitment components and foci on behavior and well-being. This assumes that research samples are homogeneous and that the same theoretical framework and empirical findings apply uniformly to employees in general. More recently, it has been proposed that a sample can contain subgroups and that the variables of interest (e.g., commitment components or foci) might combine and relate differently to other variables within these subgroups. Consequently, there has been an increase in the use of person-centered strategies (e.g., cluster analysis, latent profile analysis) to identify and compare these subgroups. We provide an overview of commitment theory and research to demonstrate how use of a person-centered research strategy can provide new insights into the nature and implications of commitment. We also provide a critical evaluation of person-centered strategies with the objective of encouraging greater use of more advanced analytic procedures in future research. Finally, we discuss the benefits of person-centered research for theory and practice.
Over the last few decades, commitment theory has become increasingly complex. Among other things, it has been proposed that commitment can be divided into component parts (Meyer and Allen, 1991, Meyer and Allen, 1997 and O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986), be directed at different targets (Becker, 1992, Cohen, 2003, Morrow, 1983 and Reichers, 1985), or both (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Moreover, the components and foci of commitment can combine in various ways that have implications for employee behavior and well being. We argue here that the complexity created by these potential combinations poses a challenge for the variable-centered strategies (e.g., regression; structural equation modeling) commonly used in commitment research. Therefore, we propose that there may be benefits to adopting the person-centered strategy (e.g., cluster analysis; latent profile analysis) that is gaining currency in the organizational sciences (cf. Vandenberg and Stanley, 2009, Wang and Hanges, 2011 and Zyphur, 2009) as a complement to the more traditional variable-centered approach.
This call for the adoption of a person-centered strategy is not new. Indeed, in a critique of personality research written over forty years ago, Block (1971, p. 13) noted that there are limits to what we can learn from strict reliance on a variable-centered approach. Specifically, Block noted that variable-centered analyses are appropriate if the goal is to understand how individuals are different or to capture relationships among a limited number of variables within a group of individuals. However, he argued that researchers also need to understand configurations of variables and how they operate within individuals.
More recently, Morin, Morizot, Boudrias, and Madore (2011. p 59) expressed a similar sentiment with regard to commitment research. They pointed out that, although we continue to learn a great deal about commitment using increasingly sophisticated variable-centered research strategies, these strategies have their limitations. Specifically, they stated:
