Differences and Similarities Between OI and Affective Organizational Commitment
Knippenberg and Sleebos (2006) have attempted to separate OI and affective organizational commitment by narrowing the scope of the former. According to them, identification is a cognitive/perceptual construct reflecting self-reference, whereas commitment reflects an attitude toward the organization and its members. In addition, identification is self-definitional and implies psychological oneness with the organization, whereas commitment implies a relationship in which both individual and organization are separate entities (Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). Unfortunately as a whole, attempts to distinguish between OI and affective organizational commitment have not been particularly successful because the majority of both OI and affective organizational commitment research has been concerned with the broadening rather than the narrowing of their respective areas of research.
Meyer and Allen (1991), for example, proposed currently well accepted three component—affective, continuance, and normative— model of organizational commitment. In this model, affective commitment is defined as an “emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 1). Other researchers have also considered OI and affective organizational commitment as closely related or even interchangeable constructs. In his meta-analysis, Riketta (2005) examined the extent of the overlap between OI and affective organizational commitment across 96 independent samples. He found a significant and very strong positive correlation between OI and affective organizational commitment (r = .78). This suggests that the average OI study had significant construct overlaps with affective organizational commitment. Nonetheless, Riketta (2005) argued that OI and affective organizational commitment could be distinguished because they differentially relate to several organizational outcomes. Such differences were most pronounced in studies where OI was measured by the Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) scale, which leaves out an emotional attachment component while focusing on employee perception of oneness with and belongingness to the organization. In such studies, OI compared to affective organizational commitment, measured by the affective commitment scale, correlated less strongly with job satisfaction (r = .47 vs. r =.65) and intent to leave (r = -.35 vs. r = -.56), but more strongly with job involvement (r = .60 vs. r = .53) and extra-role performance (r = .39 vs. r = .23).
Conversely, when OI was measured by the organizational identification questionnaire (OIQ), the correlation between OI and intent to leave was stronger than the correlation between affective organizational commitment and intent to leave (r = -.64 vs. r = -.56). In addition, OI had a much stronger association with age (r = .60 vs. r = .15), but there were no differences in how both OI and affective organizational commitment correlated with job satisfaction (r = .68).
Read more about this topic: Organizational Identification
Famous quotes containing the words differences, similarities, affective and/or commitment:
“Generally there is no consistent evidence of significant differences in school achievement between children of working and nonworking mothers, but differences that do appear are often related to maternal satisfaction with her chosen role, and the quality of substitute care.”
—Ruth E. Zambrana, U.S. researcher, M. Hurst, and R.L. Hite. “The Working Mother in Contemporary Perspectives: A Review of Literature,” Pediatrics (December 1979)
“One internationally known twin researcher sees similarities between twins’ relationships and those of couple who have been married a long time. Fifteen-year-old twins, as well as spouses approaching their fortieth anniversary, each know their partners’ likes, dislikes, habits, and idiosyncracies as well as they know their own.”
—Pamela Patrick Novotny (20th century)
“A concern with parenting...must direct attention beyond behavior. This is because parenting is not simply a set of behaviors, but participation in an interpersonal, diffuse, affective relationship. Parenting is an eminently psychological role in a way that many other roles and activities are not.”
—Nancy Chodorow (20th century)
“American families, however, without exception, experience a double message in our society, one that claims a commitment to families and stresses the importance of raising bright, stable, productive citizens, yet remains so bound by an ideal of “rugged individualism” that parents receive little support in their task from the public or private sectors.”
—Bernice Weissbourd (20th century)