The development and validation of a Multitarget Affective Commitment Scale
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2013-0099 |
| Published date | 02 March 2015 |
| Date | 02 March 2015 |
| Pages | 286-307 |
| Author | Kristina Schoemmel,Thomas Skriver Jønsson,Hans-Jeppe Jeppesen |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The development and validation
of a Multitarget Affective
Commitment Scale
Kristina Schoemmel
Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences,
Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Thomas Skriver Jønsson
Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University,
Aarhus, Denmark, and
Hans-Jeppe Jeppesen
Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences,
Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose –In order to contribute to the understanding of affective commitment towards distinct
workplace targets, the purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a Multitarget Affective
Commitment Scale (MACS) through two data collections. The MACS uses similarly worded items for
distinct targets and reflects the most recent theoretical development of affective commitment.
Design/methodology/approach –In the first data collection, items from previous commitment
scales were tested through the social network service Facebook (n¼305). The second data collection
was conducted in the healthcare system of Denmark (n¼496) using survey questionnaires.
Findings –In Study 1, exploratory factor analyses were conducted to reduce the items based on the
Facebook data. In Study 2, the authors confirm the findings of Study 1 and further reduce the items
based on the healthcare sample. The healthcare sample is also used in Study 3, where the authors
validate the MACS by investigating its relationship with predictors, correlates, and outcomes.
Originality/value –The results suggest that the MACS are a reliable and valid measure of affective
commitment compatible with the diverse targets to which affective commitment often occurs.
Consequently, the MACS is applicable for research investigating multiply affective commitments,
thereby advancing the understanding of interactions between affective commitments and diverse
targets, among other applications.
Keywords Quantitative, Affective commitment, Performance, Scale development,
Turnover intention, Multiple targets, Perceived influence
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Managers are increasingly recognizing their employees as one of their most valuable
assets. Hence, employee commitment becomes a significant source of competitive
advantage (Meyer, 2009). Within the commitment field the value for managers and
researchers of distinguishing among multiple targets or foci to which an employee can
become committed has been emphasized (e.g. team, job, clients, profession, decision)
(Vandenberghe et al., 2004; Becker et al., 1996; Morin et al., 2011). Here studies suggest
the benefit of investigating commitments to multiple targets because these have been
found differently related to outcomes such as performance, turnover intention, and
Personnel Review
Vol. 44 No. 2, 2015
pp. 286-307
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-06-2013-0099
Received 14 June 2013
Revised 29 January 2014
Accepted 6 March 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewer and to Associate Editor Professor Thomas
N. Garavan for their helpful and critical comments that have formed and improved the paper.
286
PR
44,2
organizational citizenship behavior (e.g. Becker, 2009; Becker and Kernan, 2003;
Vandenberghe et al., 2004). Further, research implies that when multiple workplace
commitments are compatible they create synergy and, consequently, the positive
outcomes of commitment are reinforced (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005).
Hence, the practitioner has even more reason to strive for simultaneously developing
employees’commitments towards distinct targets. Therefore, researchers are
increasingly investigating commitment to a more diverse range of targets such as
the profession, the team, and goals other than the traditional focus of the organization
(e.g. Bishop and Scott, 2000; Ellemers et al., 1998; Klein et al., 1999).
To date, the tree-component conceptualization of workplace commitment by Meyer
and Allen (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991, 1997) has been regarded
as the dominant model in commitment research. In this approach, commitment is
a motivational force that is differentiated in three distinctive mindsets: an affective
(desire to commit), a normative (perceived obligation to commit), and a continuative
mindset (perceived cost of not committing). Among the three mindsets of commitment,
affective commitment has been found to correlate most strongly with the organizationally
relevant outcomes (e.g. retention, performance, organizational citizenship behavior)
and employee-relevant outcomes (e.g. wellbeing, less stress, less work-family conflict).
The affective mindset is initially defined as an employee’s emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in the target (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Meyer and
Allen, 1991, 1997). However, it is widely supported –both conceptually and empirically
–that affective commitment and identification should be separated as distinct but
related constructs (e.g. Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Meyer et al., 2006; Riketta, 2005;
Gautam et al., 2004; Klein et al., 2009).
Although the theory suggests that affective commitment to a given target can
interact with affective commitments to other targets, supportive research remains
limited (e.g. Vandenberghe et al., 2004; Brandes et al., 2004; Vandenberghe and Bentein,
2009; Becker, 2009; Johnson et al., 2009). An obstacle to further research on affective
commitments to multiple targets has been the absence of an affective commitment scale
that is compatible with multiple targets (Klein et al., 2012). Most studies investigating
affective commitment use Allen and Meyer’s (1990) affective commitment scale or the
later version by Meyer et al. (1993). Though these scales tend to have high internal
reliability and demonstrate good nomological validity (Allen and Meyer, 1996), they are
constructed for organizational commitment, which implies that new scales must be
developed for other commitment targets. For example, the item “I would be very happy
to spend the rest of my career with this organization”(Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 6) is
difficult to use to measure affective commitment to another target (e.g. decision,
organizational change, clients) without reformulating the item.
While the attempt to develop measures of affective commitment to different
targets is not new, the need for a Multitarget Affective Commitment Scale (MACS)
persists for two main reasons. First, another scale is needed because prior scales
specify different questions to the selected targets (e.g. Morin et al., 2009;
Vandenberghe et al.,2004).Whendifferentitemsareused for measuring affective
commitment towards distinct targets, it is questionable whether the exact same
construct is being measured across targets. In the commitment literature (e.g. Meyer
and Herscovitch, 2001; Becker et al., 2009) it is generally assumed that commitments
to multiple targets consist of the same psychological mechanisms. Thereby, the same
core mechanisms will operate similarly for commitment to different concrete,
interpersonal, and abstract targets.
287
Multitarget
Affective
Commitment
Scale
To continue reading
Request your trial