Why work?. Aligning foci and dimensions of commitment along the axes of the competing values framework
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480810839969 |
| Date | 21 December 2007 |
| Pages | 47-65 |
| Published date | 21 December 2007 |
| Author | Mark van Vuuren,Bernard P. Veldkamp,Menno D.T. de Jong,Erwin R. Seydel |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Why work?
Aligning foci and dimensions of commitment
along the axes of the competing values
framework
Mark van Vuuren, Bernard P. Veldkamp, Menno D.T. de Jong and
Erwin R. Seydel
Institute for Behavioral Research, University of Twente, Enschede,
The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to gain insight into the psychological dynamics of work motivation;
specific work values are related to foci and dimensions of commitment to understand how different
values influence people’s commitments.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey from a hospital (n¼222) was analyzed on the
relationships between organizational values, individual values, affective and normative commitment
on both an organizational and an occupational level.
Findings – Results supported the proposition that dimensions of commitment can be aligned along
the flexibility-control axis of the competing values framework (CVF) and that the foci of commitment
can be aligned along the internal-external axis of the CVF but, in line with recent findings, congruence
effects were absent.
Research limitations/implications – Althoughsmall effect sizes were found, and results based on
self-report have to be handled cautiously, the hypothesized pattern was found for affective and
normative organizational and occupational commitment. This gives insights into the values associated
with these types of commitments.
Practical implications – Specific values which are found to be related to specific kinds of
commitment can direct strategies for influencing commitments in organizational contexts.
Originality/value – As specific values are linked to specific commitments, practitioners gain insight
into which values may lead to a specific kind of commitment, enabling them to develop strategies for
enhancing commitment, and academics see how the CVF corresponds to newly developed insights into
commitment research.
Keywords Organizationalbehaviour, Corporate strategy,Competencies, Motivation (psychology),
Ethics, Job satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Why do people get up early in the morning? Why do they drive to a building where
they spend the better part of the day? Why do they continue to do that for most of their
lives? Why work? Questions regarding the reasons people act the way they do are not
only important for the individual, but also for the organization. The best use of human
capital occurs when leadership is aligned as close as possible to the motivations of the
workforce. It is beneficial for all parties involved when the things that keep people
involved in their work are recognized. In this study, the importance of a human
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Why work?
47
Received 9 January 2006
Revised 30 September 2006
Accepted 13 October 2006
Personnel Review
Vol. 37 No. 1, 2008
pp. 47-65
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480810839969
motivator (values) is assessed for an important asset (commitment), which serves as a
binding force between the individual and an organization or occupation.
Commitment has served as a major construct of research for investigating the ties
that bind someone to a particular occupation in a particular organization . Although
several distinct dimensions of commitment have been found, all of them represent a
binding force that inspires individuals to actions that are relevant t o both the
organization and the individual (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001, p. 301). This binding
force is the perceived reason for taking part in a course of action, and can, arguably, be
helpful for answering questions about the working life of individuals. Therefore,
research on commitment can help us understand organizational considerations on
strategy and goals. It is of strategic importance to understand why members of an
organization join a team and do their work, in order to understand and even predict
reactions to managerial actions. So, commitment can provide a useful fram e of
reference for understanding human behaviour for both individuals and organizati ons.
Scholars who have investigated commitment in organizational contexts have
unpacked the concept of commitment and laid bare a multidimensional structure of
binding forces (e.g. Angle and Perry, 1981; Mayer and Schoorman, 1992; Meyer and
Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1979; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986) and showed the
existence of multiple foci of commitment (Becker and Billings, 1993; Meyer et al., 1993;
Redman and Snape, 2005; Vandenberghe et al., 2004). In studies on the antecedents of
commitment, the importance of values has been repeated underlined. This prominent
attention holds for work values in general (Dose, 1997; Elizur and Koslowsky, 2001,
Kidron, 1978; McDonald and Gandz, 1992; Sagie et al., 1996), for cultural values
(Hofstede et al., 1990; Wasti, 2003), and for value congruence (Chatman, 1991; Dose,
1997; Kalliath et al., 1999; Meyer et al., 1998a; Mayer and Schoorman, 1992; Van Vianen,
2000; Vandenberghe and Peiro
´, 1999).
Various sets of values have been used to explain or predict organizational
commitment, most of them consisting of general lists of values without a coherent
underlying framework of interrelationships (e.g. O’Reilly and Chat man, 1986;
McDonald and Gandz, 1992). A drawback of this approach is that it leads to ad hoc
patterns of values, which are hard to generalize between people and organizations. In
contrast, some researchers have provided a more systematic approach for
investigating values. Hofstede et al. (1990), for instance, validated a framework of
dimensions to distinguish between cultures, which has proven its relevance for the
comparison of national cultures. Quinn et al. (1988); Quinn and Spreitzer (1991); and
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) developed the so-called Competing Values Framework
(CVF), which has become a dominant value set for assessing organizational cultu res
(e.g. Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Harris and Mossholder, 1996; Kalliath et al., 1999;
O’Neill and Quinn, 1993; Van Vianen, 2000; Vandenberghe and Peiro
´, 1999;
Verplanken, 2004).
In this study, we will investigate whether different foci and dimensions of
commitment can be related to the CVF. Earlier research has established a relationship
between organizational commitment and the values represented in the CVF (e.g.
Kalliath et al., 1999; Van Vianen, 2000; Vandenberghe and Peiro
´, 1999). We will move
beyond this by testing theory-based hypotheses about the relationship between the
specific value quadrants of the CVF and both foci (organizational/occupational) and
PR
37,1
48
To continue reading
Request your trial