GENDER
AND EMOTIONS AT WORK: A
RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Ron Fisher
Lecturer
Department of
Management
Gold Coast
Campus
PMB 50, GCMC
Qld 9726
Ph: +617 55529022
Fax: +617 55528058
e-mail: r.fisher@griffith.edu.au
Maree V Boyle (Author for correspondence)
Senior Lecturer
Department of
Management
Nathan Campus
NATHAN
Qld 4111
Australia
Ph: 617 38610256
e-mail: m.boyle@griffith.edu.au
Liz Fulop
Associate Dean Research and Research Training
Professor of Management
Gold Coast
Campus
PMB 50, GCMC
Qld 9726
Ph: +617 555 28544
Fax: +617 555 28909
e-mail: l.fulop@griffith.edu.au
Research
paper submitted for inclusion in Stream C: Gender and Diversity in
Organisations
GENDER
AND EMOTIONS AT WORK: A RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
In this paper we propose a
reconceptualization of organizational commitment utilizing current theoretical
developments on gender and emotions in the workplace. We contend that, as organizational commitment
has been studied mainly from a functionalist and positivist approach, that an
interpretive methodological approach should be utilized to further develop the
concept of organizational commitment. The reasons for this reconceptualization
are related to the fact that commitment has been predominantly studied from a
psychological perspective with a focus on affective and behavioral aspects of
commitment. Current approaches focus on measurement rather than on the meaning
of commitment itself. Important issues such as emotions and gender are not
considered. As a consequence, the
commitment of women, and some men, is not accurately and clearly understood in
the context of the modern workplace.
This leads to the perception that women, and some men, are lacking in
commitment to their organizations. We discuss three preliminary
themes that have emerged from early analysis of how university academics
conceptualize commitment. These themes reflect gender-biased and emotion-laden
indicators of levels of commitment.
KEY WORDS:
Commitment, emotions,
gender, interpretive methods
Introduction
In this paper we propose
the need for a reconceptualization of organizational commitment. The need for this stems from perceived
deficits in current conceptualizations and subsequent
application of the construct. We contend
that the effects of gender and emotions upon how commitment is experienced and
used, both at an individual and organizational level, are currently not
adequately addressed. The paper will
proceed as follows. First, we provide a
critical overview of the literature on organizational commitment, with a
specific focus on the operationalization and measurement of commitment. Second, we discuss how recent research by Singh and
Vinnicombe (2000a regarding links between gender, emotion and
perceived levels of organizational commitment indicates a need to fully
understand how these interact in relation to organizational commitment. Finally, we discuss three
preliminary themes that have emerged from early analysis of how university
academics conceptualize commitment.
These themes include flexibility, presenteeism and ability to
meet prescribed standards as reflect gender-biased
and emotion-laden indicators of levels of commitment.
Commitment: Definition and
Measurement
The substantial commitment
literature contains a number of approaches to the study, definition, and and measurement of
commitment. Included in these are the
divergent views that commitment is a psychological state (Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990), a situation involving individual choice (Weick, 1995), and a phenomenon that is not clearly understood due to
flawed theoretical and methodological approaches (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2000a).
Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) proposed that three distinct themes can be identified in the
psychological approach – fFirst, as a
psychological state that is mainly an attachment between employee and
organization (affective); sSecond, as a perceived cost associated with leaving the
organization (continuance); and third, as an obligation to remain a member of
the organization (normative). These measures include the
attitudinal and behavioral components of commitment. Weick (1995) proposed a different approach to understanding commitment
based on the notion that individuals invest greater effort in understanding
actions to which they are most strongly committed, a behavioral view of
commitment. Behavioral commitment is defined
by Salancik (1977, p62) as “a state of being in which an individual becomes bound by
his actions and through these actions to beliefs that sustain the activities
and his own involvement.” Individuals
become bound (committed) when behavior is public, explicit, volitional and
irrevocable (Weick, 1995). These four behaviors act together to indicate
that the action did occur, and that it occurred because the individual chose to
do it. While organizations have the
ability to change situations in order to encourage commitment, Weick (1995) suggested that many organizations, particularly
bureaucracies, do not encourage individual choice due to the nature of
organizational control within these organizational forms.
Commitment has also traditionally been theorized and
measured through the predominant psychological approach, utilizing quantitative
methods designed mainly by men. Using this approach has resulted
in little consideration being given to gender differences affecting commitment
in the workplace. Qualitative research by Singh and
Vinnicombe (2000a) suggested that the meaning of commitment, as discovered
through the life experiences of individuals in the work place, differed between
men and women. Consequently, when women’s
commitment is judged using the traditional quantitative approach we contend
that the results may be inaccurate and misleading.
Singh and Vinnicombe’s (2000a) research has important implications for the theory and
measurement of commitment. In many workplaces women and some
men, often the majority of workers, are incorrectly seen as having low
commitment based on the traditional approach.
This has the potential to impact
adversely on performance appraisal and opportunities for promotion. While literature on commitment focuses on different
sources, such as professional and work
commitment (Morrow, 1990), this paper is concerned with pursuing the
issue of gender and emotions through a study of organizational
commitment.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment
has been the subject of organizational studies for over thirty years (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). As mentioned previously, most
research tends to be psychological in nature, focusing in the main on whether
commitment is an attitude or a behavior.
Attitudinal commitment tends to focus on the organization
(Angle & Perry, 1983; Mowday,
Steers, & Porter, 1979), with the needs of the
individual being satisfied by interaction with the organization. The
result is that the individual increasingly identifies him or herself with the
organization while wishing to retain membership in order that the relationship
may continue (Mowday et al., 1979).
Behavioral commitment tends to focus on the individual,
in the belief that the behavior of the member is central to organizational
commitment (Angle & Perry, 1983; Mowday et
al., 1979). An
example of behavioral commitment is that of Becker’s (1960) theory of side-bets, where side-bets or investments (e.g.
long service leave, sick leave, flexible working hours etc) accrue on behalf of
the individual and act to commit him or her to the organization. Individually, side-bets may
appear trivial. However, taken together
they accumulate to commit the individual to the organization.
Measures of organizational commitment tend to be
quantitative, mainly involving factor, correlation and regression
analyses. Organizational commitment has
been measured in various ways by different researchers, mainly along behavioral
(Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Ritzer
& Trice, 1969) and attitudinal or
affective lines (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer et
al., 1990; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974).
Affective commitment, as measured by the Porter et al. (1974), Allen and Meyer, (1990) and Meyer et al. (1990) instruments, was determined by responses made to
pre-determined items. These items
purport to measure emotional commitment.
However, this is not
accomplished, as organizational commitment has traditionally been defined by
researchers rather than through the life experiences of workers themselves (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2000a).
Moreover, few
studies have focused on women’s commitment specifically. Where
women have been identified as a discrete group within research, the issue of gender,
that is theorizing it, has tended to receive little attention. Where
gender has been a consideration, no consistent relationship between gender and
organizational commitment has been noted (Cohen & Lowenberg, 1990; Mathieu
& Zajac, 1990). It
appears from the lack of a consistent relationship, together with negligible
measurable differences between genders, that gender has not been an important
consideration for researchers using quantitative measures of organizational
commitment.
Men,
using male-oriented rationalistic approaches, have in the main developed
measures of organizational commitment. Most studies have followed the
functionalist paradigm, identified by Burrell and Morgan (1979) as the dominant paradigm used for organizational
studies. The functionalist paradigm is
based on a dualistic ontology and an objectivistic epistemology. A
dualistic ontology proposes that phenomena exist as knowable, observable
realities independent of those who may observe them (Locke, 2001; Sandberg, 2000). An objectivistic epistemology
presumes that sense is made of the world by means of approaches like the
hypothetico-deductive method where hypotheses are formed a priori then either confirmed or falsified by reality, means that
are independent of the human mind (Locke, 2001; Sandberg, 2000). Consistent use of the
functionalist paradigm in organizational studies has resulted in either the
exclusion of an issue such as emotions or focusing predominantly on its
measurement.
It is proposed
that emotions, and their gendered nature, are more appropriately dealt with
through the interpretive paradigm, identified by Burrell and Morgan (1979) as an approach based on a
nominalist ontology and anti-positivistic epistemology. A nominalist ontology presumes
that reality is not prescribed, being built up over a period of time through
the empirical experiences of people. An
anti-positivistic epistemology presumes that the scientific method is not the
way that sense is made of reality, instead reality can only be known through
the interaction of the individual and the phenomenon. Through the consistent adoption
of the functionalist paradigm no consideration has been given to attributes
usually associated with women, though not excluding men, such as compassion and
empathy. In keeping with the functionalist
approach, emotions have been regarded as though they are atomized as separate
entities independent of the individual.
This is in contrast with the conceptualization of Fineman (2000), who argues that that emotions in fact co-exist and
intertwine with so-called “objective” measures of reality.
Most
studies of organizational commitment, for example Meyer and Allen (1997), have involved investigations carried out by external
researchers. External researchers are those who develop
measures and collect data with little or no input from, or interaction with,
the individuals or groups participating in the research. Following the external researcher approach (Meyer & Allen, 1997) has meant that organizational commitment, as a function of
the life-experiences of persons in the workplace, has not been considered. Life-experiences
are important avenues for exploring meaning, sense-making and social
constructions of reality (Marton & Svensson, 1979). From this
perspective, the experiences of individuals, and the contexts in which they
occur, should be the main sources of information and “data”.
In a recent critique of commitment,
Swailes (2002) suggested that researchers had concentrated on measuring
commitment rather than the meaning of commitment itself. Further
research is needed, including research across different occupational groups, in
order to clarify the meaning of commitment (Swailes, 2002).
Recent research (Franzway, 2000; Singh & Vinnicombe,
2000a) suggestsed
that there is a link between gender, emotions and organizational
commitment. Singh and Vinnicombe’s (2000a) research suggested that in an organizational context, women
tend to experience different emotions to men in relation to organizational
commitment. Also, within these differences,
the level of seniority of women acts to modify the emotions displayed. “Differences” are often interpreted as a lack
of commitment, which is not necessarily so.
Singh and Vinnicombe (2000a) also suggested that in the workplace women are perceived as
having lower levels of organizational commitment than men, a view that Singh and
Vinnicombe (2000a) they do not
support. Their Singh and
Vinnicombe’s (2000a) study showed that
women’s commitment involved different emotional considerations to those of the
men in their study. Their approach drew on the shared
and different meanings of commitment between male and female engineers,
utilizing a qualitative case-study approach (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2000a). However, their analysis
focused on trends and themes rather than utilizing an interpretive approach (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2000b), suggesting that .
in-depth
qualitative research is required into how emotions influence, or are linked to,
work commitment as a whole. , particularly when one considers
changes that have occurred in the workplace. Changes in the workplace include
a greater number of women in the workforce together with more women holding
positions at higher levels in organizations. Growth of international business
has brought changes to the workplace, including the restructuring of
organizations into different, usually smaller, entities demanding more complex
forms of managing. Legislative
changes, with a focus on anti-discrimination and equal opportunity in the
workplace, have changed the relationships between managers, peers and
subordinates. New technology has resulted
in the need to retrain and, in some cases, reduce the numbers of workers. Finally, the increase of casual employment
and other peripheral work, at the expense of full-time work, has fundamentally
changed the attachments of many employees to the workplace. Women fill these ranks, but not necessarily
willingly. All of these workplace issues have contributed to changes in the way
that employees are committed to their organizations, occupations and
professions, and their emotional engagement or involvement with their work.
Further
to the workplace changes mentioned above, the relationship between time spent
at work and time spent at home has changed over the past thirty years (Hochschild, 1997).
During this time the balance has changed to the extent that some
employees now turn to the workplace rather than the home for emotional support (Hochschild, 1997). For example, women were more
likely to have most of their friends at work compared to men. Hochschild (1997) also proposed that for some
women, workplaces that emphasize empowerment, quality management, training and
employee assistance schemes, have replaced the home as the most desirable place
to spend time.
GENDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
This of course
is not to say that gender has been wholly ignored in studies of organizational
commitment. In
meta-analysis carried out by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) involving 124 published studies of organizational
commitment, based on the positivist approach mentioned above, there wonly ere 14
studies whereidentified
women were identified as a
discrete group. Mathieu and Zajac’s (1990) research concluded that women tended to be more committed
than men, although the magnitude of the difference was small. It was found that in general there was no
consistent relationship between gender and organizational commitment.
Similar
analysis to that of Mathieu and Zajac (1990) was also carried out by Cohen and Lowenberg (1990), which involved 50 published studies of organizational
commitment. Using positivist or
quantitative approaches for analysis, ten studies were found where women were
identified as a discrete group. Cohen and Lowenberg’s (1990) research concluded that there was a weak relationship
between gender and organizational commitment.
Although
the meta-analyses carried out by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) and Cohen and Lowenberg (1990) were based on studies that differentiated between women and
men in the sample, none of these studies were conducted to discover women’s
organizational commitment explicitly. Thus, the distinction was only
made possible through the expression of gender made by participants, presumably
captured as nominal data.
Other
studies, using the measures of organizational commitment previously discussed,
have shown mixed results. Studies of business executives (Ngo, 1998) and managerial and professional employees (LaVan & Banner, 1985) concluded that there was no significant relationship between
gender and commitment. Graddick and Farr (1983) noted that women were found to have lower levels of
organizational commitment. Bus drivers studied by Angle and
Perry (1981) showed “the surprising result” that women appear to show
higher levels of attitudinal commitment than men. In a study involving human resource workers (Wahn, 1998) women were found to have higher levels of continuance
commitment than men.
In Singh
and Vinnicombe’s (2000a) study, utilizing 37 matched pairs of men and women workers, it was found
that women’s career prospects were adversely affected by male managers’
perceptions of women’s career and organizational commitment. Their Singh and
Vinnicombe’s (2000a) research also
proposed that women’s adverse career prospects were due to the perception that
male managers held of the capabilities of women as managers. The
male perspective is implicitly reinforced by perceived low levels of
commitment, rather than on experience of women as managers (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2000a). A semi-structured interview approach,
designed to reveal whether shared meaning of commitment existed between male
and female workers, was used by Singh and Vinnicombe (2000a). Analysis revealed that the meaning of
organizational commitment to males was mainly associated with task delivery and
issues involving time frames or objectives.
The meaning attributed to males
was consistent with the existing objectivistic measures of organizational
commitment, reinforcing the proposition that the existing measures are
male-oriented, thereby not representing women’s experiences. Other
meanings associated with males included being proactive, innovative,
value-adding, challenge seeking and quality minded. Meanings
associated with women included enthusiasm, involvement, concern for people and
being available for work. Organizational commitment clearly
had different meanings for men and women (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2000a). Also, the meanings associated
with women were not considered in the items used by the measures developed by
Allen and Meyer (1990) and Meyer et al. (1990).
The
barriers to success faced by women who have to manage the complexities of
family and career have been identified (Franzway, 2000). Current measures also fail to
consider the dual role that some women (and indeed men) undertake in balancing
family and work commitments. Consequently, it appears that
women, together with men who display more “feminine” forms of commitment, are
often incorrectly perceived as having different, mainly lower, levels of
organizational commitment than the majority of male workers. Measures
in current use, developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) and used by most researchers over many years, fail to
identify the complex influence of emotions on commitment and the sources of
these emotions.
The proposition that women express
organizational commitment in a different way to men is supported by Franzway’s (2000) research
involving women working in the trade union movement. Her
research was a case study based on interviews in the context of trade union
practices. During the interviews, women
expressed commitment in terms of passion, consensus, service to members,
enabling and strengthening the capabilities of others, sacrifice and personal
fulfillment. Also,
that the dominant male notion of commitment was the myth of self-sacrifice
based on working long hours, a mind-set unconsciously reinforced by the union
movement itself (Muir, 1994 as cited in Franzway, 2000).
Organizational
commitment has been predominantly measured and studied using approaches that
may have little relevance in today’s business environment. Different
approaches to the study of commitment are required in order to present a
balanced, more gender sensitive and inclusive perspective of the commitment of
all members of the organization. Refocusing on gender and emotions
presents a path to such a reconceptualization.
Fulop
and Linstead (1999) proposed that emotions are an
important and problematical part of organizational life. Emotions that are perceived as
negative or dysfunctional are usually regarded as being part of the personality
of organizational members, and are often suppressed in organizations by
managers. At the same
time, emotions that are perceived as having value for the organization are
encouraged. In the main this has
disadvantaged women.
Excluding emotions from the measures of commitment, or
distortion through quantitative measures, results in an important part of the
meaning of the commitment of organizational members being lost. A
large number of men and women, possibly the majority of workers in some
instances, are affected by the exclusion of emotions in measuring commitment
and the consequent original interpretations that
are sought by managers weaken and flaw the theorizing of the concept. Consequently,
the perspective of senior managers is distorted when considering the
organizational commitment of employees who are not seen as being committed in
the traditional way.
Previous studies of commitment have not considered
emotions but rather emotional factors. Also, new research (Franzway, 2000; Singh &
Vinnicombe, 2000a, 2000b) showed that, in the main,
women’s commitment has a greater emotional content than that of men or that the
content is perceived differently. However, this does not
necessarily mean that women have lower levels of commitment. As
the emotional content of commitment has been suppressed or distorted, women’s
perspectives of commitment have been largely ignored. Consequently, women have been incorrectly
perceived as having lower commitment than men, resulting in lost opportunities
for promotion and inappropriate measurement of performance. Males who do not display “traditional
patterns” of commitment may also be disadvantaged.
Methodology and Key Findings
It is proposed that emotions, and their gendered
nature, are more appropriately dealt with through the interpretive paradigm,
identified by Burrell and Morgan (1979) as an approach based on a
nominalist ontology and anti-positivistic epistemology. A nominalist ontology presumes that reality is not
prescribed, being built up over a period of time through the empirical
experiences of people. An
anti-positivistic epistemology presumes that the scientific method is not the
way that sense is made of reality, instead reality can only be known through
the interaction of the individual and the phenomenon. Thus, Iit is proposed to
reconceptualize organizational commitment utilizing an interpretive
approach. The methodology to being
used for
the in our pilot study will bdraws on grounded
theory. This approach was introduced by
Glaser and Strauss (1967) as a description of the way in which qualitative information
had been collected and interpreted by them in sociological research undertaken
in a hospital setting during the 1960’s.
Glaser and Strauss (1967) proposed that theory could be built inductively, based on
empirical observation. Since
this time the grounded theory approach to data analysiscollection,
interpretation, and
theory building has been adopted by other disciplines, including management
studies, and is widely used as a framework for conducting interpretive research
(Locke, 2001).
Grounded
theory allows researchers to understand people’s experiences in a rigorous and
detailed manner (Ryan & Bernard, 2002). This is achieved by obtaining
text derived from interviews, identifying concepts and categories emerging from
the text utilizing a process of constant comparison, and eventually linking building categories
into theory (Locke, 2001).
The pilot study has involved
interviewing staff working in our academic
institution. There has been a deliberate effort to include an
equal number of male and female academic staff respondents. We have not controlled for many other demographic
details such as age, level of education etc., because for us gender
is the most important characteristic of our respondents. Interviews, using only a minimal
amount of
prompt questions, have been conducted each of
approximately one hour duration. Examples of prompt questions include, “how do
you feel about working here”, “can you give me an example of what you find
meaningful in your work life”, and “what do other people in the workplace do
that leads you to believe that they are committed to the organization”. Interviews have been tape-recorded and the transcripts collected have
been treated as textual material. Analysis of the material has been undertaken by the
interviewer, the first author.
Preliminary
analysis indicates the following themes emerging that can be
differentiated along gender lines: (i) flexibility – being
available when requested; (ii) presenteeism; and (iii) pPerceived ability to
meet standards. We will now briefly discuss each of these in turn In
relation to flexibility, or being available when requested, this theme
juxtaposes the discourse of workplace flexibility and work-family balance. It
is well documented that many women, and some men who have significant
home responsibilities, are “flexible” in term of family demands. Respondents
described a number of instances where their level of commitment was questioned
due to their refusal to be totally flexible and always ready for work-related
activities. More women
than men reported this as a problem of negative
perceptions by others of their level of organizational commitment.
In relation to the theme of
presenteeism, there is a link between this phenomenon as an indicator of
commitment and the number of hours worked.
Along with the availability
theme, presenteeism has increasingly been perceived as an indicator of
organizational commitment. Several
respondents described a double standard in relation to presenteeism. Men
were more likely to be able to be absent for significant periods of time if the
reasons for their absenteeism related to academic matters. While
absenteeism was legitimized as an indicator of commitment for male academics,
excessive displays of presenteeism in female academics were often grounds for
stigmatizing women as over-committed. Thus, as an indicator of
commitment, presenteeism can present challenges for women in terms of the
perception of over as well as under commitment.
Distinctions were also made
regarding involuntary absences and commitment, such as illness versus parental
or carers leave.
In
relation to perceived ability to meet standards, respondents indicated that
there still exist strong perceptions about women being more likely to “fail the
test”. Women respondents, while aware of
the male-centric nature of performance standards, also believed that these
standards should be applied equally across all genders, and were loath to
receive “positive discrimination”.
Reconceptualizing
commitment qualitatively, as described above, will enable an area of
organizational studies that has been neglected in several important respects,
to be understood from the perspective of organizational members and in terms of their
gender.
In
the first instance the existing measures of organizational commitment are
biased by virtue of their composition. Current approaches, largely
devised by male researchers, are not appropriate measures of the organizational
commitment of women and some men in our contemporary workplaces.
Secondly,
the existing measures are based on an objectivistic epistemology and a
dualistic ontology (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Sandberg,
2000), where pre-determined,
structured questions are analyzed using quantitative methods. The
use of this research paradigm (Burrell & Morgan, 1979) precludes or distorts consideration of emotions in
organizations. Emotions are an integral part of
organizational life that has been excluded, in the main, by the privileging of
a dualistic ontology and objectivistic epistemology.
Studying oOrganizational
commitment will
be studied, in the proposed research, using an interpretive
approach
and , drawing on grounded theory, allows us to .
Thirdly,
current measures of commitment are misleading.
By excludinginclude emotions in
the reconceptualisation it is impossible and hence, to obtain
a more realistic
picture of the commitment of women, let alone tha as well tof
men. Our preliminary research reveals certain gendered
aspects to commitment that are different to those found in other studies.
Understanding
commitment is a prerequisite to actually achieving increased levels of
commitment. A more complete
understanding of commitment is particularly important in a rapidly changing
business environment. Equitable employee
performance management and promotion of the most appropriate employees are
fundamental to business success. To this
end, a reconceptualization of organizational commitment is needed.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The
measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment
to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Angle, H.,
& Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment
and organizational effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1-14.
Angle, H.,
& Perry, J. L. (1983). Individual and organizational differences. Work and Occupations, 10(2), 123-146.
Becker, H. S.
(1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American
Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40.
Burrell, G.,
& Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological
paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate
life. London: Heinmann.
Cohen, A.,
& Lowenberg, G. (1990). A re-examination of the side-bet theory as applied
to organizational commitment: A meta-analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 1015-1050.
Fineman, S.
(Ed.). (2000). Emotion in organizations.
London: Sage.
Franzway, S.
(2000). Women working in a greedy institution: Commitment and emotional labour
in the union movement. Gender, Work and
Organization, 7(4), 258-268.
Fulop, L.,
& Linstead, S. (1999). Management: A
critical text. Australia: Macmillan.
Glaser, B.,
& Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery
of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Graddick, M.
M., & Farr, J. L. (1983). Professionals in scientific disciplines:
Sex-related differences in working life commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 641-646.
Hochschild, A.
(1997). When work becomes home and home becomes work. California Management Review, 39(4), 79-97.
Hrebiniak, L.
G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the
development of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 17, 555-573.
LaVan, H.,
& Banner, D. K. (1985). The perception of role conflict, role ambiguity and
organizational commitment differences between sexes. International Journal of Manpower, 6(5), 32-36.
Locke, K.
(2001). Grounded theory in management
research. London: Sage.
Marton, F.,
& Svensson, L. (1979). Conceptions of research in student learning. Higher Education, 8, 471-486.
Mathieu, J.
E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
Meyer, J. P.,
& Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in
the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Meyer, J. P.,
Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. 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(6), 710-721.
Meyer, J. P.,
Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4),
538-551.
Morrow, P.
(1990). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich: JAI
Press.
Mowday, R. T.,
Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 142, 224-247.
Ngo, H.
(1998). Employment practices and organizational commitment: Differential
effects for men and women? International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3), 251-267.
Porter, L. W.,
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5,
603-609.
Ritzer, G.,
& Trice, H. M. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker's side-bet
theory. Social Forces, 47, 475-479.
Ryan, G. W.,
& Bernard, H. R. (2002). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Salancik, G.
R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In
B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New
directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St Clair Press.
Sandberg, J.
(2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretive approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 9-25.
Singh, V.,
& Vinnicombe, S. (2000a). Gendered meanings of commitment from high
technology engineering managers in the United Kingdom and Sweden. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(1),
1-19.
Singh, V.,
& Vinnicombe, S. (2000b). What does "commitment" really
mean? Views of UK and Swedish
engineering managers. Personnel Review,
29(2), 228-254.
Swailes, S.
(2002). Organizational commitment: A critique of the construct and measures. International Journal of Management Reviews,
4(2), 155-178.
Wahn, J. C.
(1998). Sex differences in the continuance component of organizational
commitment. Group and Organizational
Management, 23(3), 256-267.
Weick, K.
(1995). Sensemaking in organizations.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.