Organizational commitment to employees and organizational performance. A simultaneous test of configurative and universalistic propositions
| Date | 25 September 2007 |
| Published date | 25 September 2007 |
| Pages | 867-886 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710822409 |
| Author | Vicente Roca‐Puig,Inmaculada Beltrán‐Martín,Ana B. Escrig‐Tena,J. Carlos Bou‐Llusar |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Organizational commitment to
employees and organizational
performance
A simultaneous test of configurative and
universalistic propositions
Vicente Roca-Puig, Inmaculada Beltra
´n-Martı
´n,
Ana B. Escrig-Tena and J. Carlos Bou-Llusar
Departmento de Administracio
´n Empresas y Marketing,
Facultad Ciencias Jurı
´dicas y Econo
´micas, Universitat Jaume I, Castello
´n, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of organizational commitment to
employees (OCE) on organizational performance through two different approaches – a configurative
approach and a universalistic approach. The theoretical model formulated in this paper integrates both
propositions with the aim of analyzing which has the most relevant impact on organizational
performance.
Design/methodology/approach – Structural equation models were applied to test these
propositions by means of a survey of a random sample of 230 service firms.
Findings – It was found that the configurational hypothesis is more important than the universalist
hypothesis.
Research limitations/implications – The study only included information from one member of
executive management staff. This study is an initial attempt in the strategic human resource
management literature to examine the configurative perspective as a covariation pattern.
Practical implications – OCE by itself does not affect organizational performance. It is necessary
to consider the context in which it is applied in order to understand the effect of OCE on performance.
This explains why not all employers pursue an OCE model.
Originality/value – It is proved that “fit as covariation” can be adequate for studying the
configurative theory. A complementary vision of the configurative and universalistic hypotheses was
adopted, according to which these two hypotheses are not contradictory and could be tested
simultaneously.
Keywords Company performance, Human resourcestrategies, Employee relations
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The commitment-based model is embedded in the strategic hum an resource
management (HRM) literature. Original frameworks proposed by Walton (1985) and
Guest (1987) formally addressed for the first time the conceptualization of the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
This work was carried out as a part of a research project (ref. GV05/125) funded by the
Generalitat Valenciana. It was also supported by a grant from the Bancaixa Foundation (ref. P1
1A2005-11).
Organizational
commitment to
employees
867
Received February 2006
Revised June 2006
Accepted October 2006
Personnel Review
Vol. 36 No. 6, 2007
pp. 867-886
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480710822409
commitment model, which has led to the notion of Organizational Commitment to
Employees –OCE – (Lee and Miller, 1999). OCE may be regarded as a process of
social exchange between management and employees, based on the development and
systematization of a series of visible actions that facilitate communication and the
exchange of ideas and information between employees and management (Lee and
Miller, 1999; Whitener, 2001). In particular, an OCE model emphasizes concern for the
needs and expectations of employees, open and intensive communication between
managers and employees, employee participation in decision making and an explicit
recognition of this cooperation on the part of management (Truss et al., 1997; Guthrie,
2001). This model contrasts with the traditional “Taylorist” model based on the strict
control and subordination of employees. OCE is considered critical to organizational
success. A number of scholars have attempted to demonstrate its impact on
organizational performance as a way of justifying its competitive relevance. In this
vein, the most influential normative frameworks can be grouped into either the “best
fit” or the “best practice” perspective (Boxall and Purcell, 2000; Kelliher and Perret,
2001).
The first normative approach (“best fit”) refers to the alignment of the human
resource model with the specific organizational and environmental context (Baird and
Meshoulam, 1988; Michie and Sheehan, 2005). The literature supporting the vertical or
external fit of HRM posits that this alignment explains the improvements in
organizational effectiveness. The fit between HRM and the organization’s strategy is a
central theme in the “best fit” perspective (Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 1988;
Huang, 2001). Nowadays, strategies based on flexibility are a crucial factor to be
considered in theoretical or empirical work on the social context of HRM systems
(Ferris et al., 1998). Companies are increasingly concentrating on achieving a
competitive advantage based on flexibility. Scholars such as MacDuffie (1995),
Milgrom and Roberts (1995) and Youndt et al. (1996) have analyzed this question.
Moreover, the organizational and human resource strategy must be matched with the
environment in which the organization operates (Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall,
1988; Boxall and Purcell, 2000; Kelliher and Perrett, 2001). In particular, the suitable
level of strategic flexibility and OCE should vary with the level of environmental
dynamism (Hitt et al., 1998; Roche, 1999). Previous empirical studies have partially
examined some of these elements and, therefore, there is a risk of analyzing only
unconnected parts of a far more complex and integrated reality (Miller, 1992). Hence,
this paper adopts a more holistic approach that studies the existence of a positive
association between all these elements.
Within this perspective, the concept of fit attains vital importance. In this vein,
Huselid (1995) and Delery (1998) highlight the generic utilization of fit in this literature
and, consequently, the difficulty of understand its real meaning. This situation cause s
confusion since there are many different forms of fit and not all of them are valid to
analyze a particular theory (Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985; Venkatraman, 1989). In the
“best fit” perspective, two main theories can be differentiated: contingent and
configurative. Different forms of fit underlie these two theories. The contingent theory
has been the most widespread trend in the empirical studies on strategic HRM (e.g.
MacDuffie, 1995; Youndt et al., 1996; Lee and Miller, 1999; Roca-Puig et al., 2005). The
contingent approach posits an interactive relatio nship between organizational
elements (Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Delery and Doty, 1996). It is therefore
PR
36,6
868
To continue reading
Request your trial