An empirical test of conceptual arguments to retire the three-component model of work commitment. Implications for commitment research
| Pages | 887-902 |
| Date | 08 November 2019 |
| Published date | 08 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2019-0246 |
| Author | Mark Somers,Dee Birnbaum,Jose Casal |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
An empirical test of conceptual
arguments to retire the
three-component model of
work commitment
Implications for commitment research
Mark Somers
Martin Tuchman School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology,
Newark, New Jersey, USA
Dee Birnbaum
Department of Commerce and Business, Rhodes College, Memphis,
Tennessee, USA, and
Jose Casal
Martin Tuchman School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology,
Newark, New Jersey, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to empirically assess conceptually based arguments that the three-
component model (TCM) is not a model of commitment but rather of employee turnover, and that the
mindsets that comprise the TCM do not form a unified construct.
Design/methodology/approach –A survey design was used that was comprised of 223 staff nurses
located in a large, urban hospital in the USA. Data were analyzed using dominance analysis, a variant of
multiple linear regression that provides more accurate estimates of the strength of relationships between
predictor and criterion variables when multicolinearity among predictors is present.
Findings –Results from OLS regression and dominance analysis provided no support for concerns about the
viability of the TCM. First, there was no evidence that the continuance and normative mindsets were
associated only with employee turnover, and there was strong support that this was not the case. Second, our
overall patterns of results indicated that the mindsets that comprise the TCM operated as a unified construct
that is consistent with the theory and research underpinning the TCM.
Practical implications –This study indicates that work commitment is multidimensional and must be
managed accordingly so that it is important to be mindful of the development and implications of different
constellations of work commitment.
Originality/value –Conceptually grounded criticisms of the TCM have not been tested empirically leading
to uncertainty about the nature of work commitment. This study adds an empirical perspective that is
augmented by an advanced application of multiple regression analysis.
Keywords Quantitative, Commitment, Advanced statistical, Turnover, Hierarchical regression
Paper type Research paper
Commitment research has evolved so that much more emphasis is being placed on multiple
target studies. In this process, “work commitment”has been reframed as a construct that
includes multiple targets and mindsets (cf., Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001). The value of this
research strategy, in gaining a greater understanding of commitment processes has been
recognized for some time, but progress has been hampered by confusion and disagreements
about definitions, measures and methods (Gerarda et al., 2018). Rather than stalling,
however, commitment research has fragmented with different models and methods used to
study similar problems.
Personnel Review
Vol. 49 No. 3, 2020
pp. 887-902
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2019-0246
Received 14 May 2019
Revised 3 September 2019
Accepted 8 September 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
887
The three-
component
model of work
commitment
The three-component model (TCM) of commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990) is the most
widely accepted framework, and it has guided work commitment research for almost
30 years. Despite its dominant position, alternatives to the TCM are evident in the recent
literature because the TCM has not been viewed as accurately representing the
psychological state associated with being committed (cf., Klein et al., 2012; Solinger et al.,
2008). Thus, it is possible that the concept defined as “commitment”for almost three decades
does not capture the essence of commitment. Nonetheless, most work commitment research
continues to be guided by the TCM, while its critics have used alternative measures and
conceptual frameworks to study work commitment (cf., Klein et al., 2014; Solinger et al.,
2016). Consequently, we are left with multiple definitions, measures and models, and with
the confusion that comes with this state of affairs (Gerarda et al., 2018).
Criticisms of the TCM are based primarily on conceptual arguments with comparatively
little empirical evidence to either confirm or disconfirm them. Consequently, concerns about
the TCM have been based on mostly logical analyses. Thus, it is possible that Allen and
Meyer (1990) development of the TCM to study organizational commitment did not
adequatelyrepresent the psychologicalstate associated with commitmentso that its extension
into a general model of work commitment (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001) is compromised.
However, it is also possible that criticisms of the TCM are overstated or inaccurate.
Resolving this issue is important for both theory development and HRM practice. With
respect to theory development, widespread agreement about the definition, scope and
processes associated with work commitment is necessary for theory development to
advance. Put simply, contemporaneous research streams guided by different commitment
models with different underlying processes are not conducive to refining theory and to
augmenting knowledge in this area. With respect to HRM practice, accurately calibrating
the breadth of the psychological state associated with work commitment is central to
building employee commitment and to better understanding and managing its
consequences. For example, approaches to building work commitment to both manage
work outcomes such as turnover and employee well-being vary considerably based on the
model of commitment utilized. The TCM points practitioners to building affective and
normative based attachments while being mindful of employees’accrued psychological and
financial ties to an organization, while alternative models offer a more targeted approach to
building work commitment. As such, the scope of HR programs to build employee
commitment varies considerably based on the model of commitment that is adopted.
Limited empirical testing of criticisms of the TCM represents a noticeable gap in work
commitment research. In particular, without empirical evidence to either support or
disconfirm concerns about the TCM, debate about the viability of the model and the nature
of work commitment can continue indefinitely. Further, should empirical testing not support
the TCM, the findings are likely to provide direction in developing an alternative model.
This study tests two criticisms of the TCM that, if supported, call for significant
rethinking about the nature of work commitment. The first criticism is that the TCM
operates as a model of employee turnover and not commitment (Solinger et al., 2008) because
the continuance and normative mindsets within the TCM are associated primarily with the
decision to retain organizational membership. The second criticism is the three commitment
mindsets within the TCM (both within and among commitment targets) do not form a
global, integrated construct (Klein et al., 2012).
The three-component model of work commitment
In the TCM, commitment is defined in terms of three mindsets (affective, continuance and
normative) which reflect cost-based, value-based and emotional attachments at work (Allen
and Meyer, 1990; Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001). The three mindsets that comprise the TCM
draw upon existing commitment theory and research to form what is intended to be an
888
PR
49,3
To continue reading
Request your trial