1–16 Contingency Theory Contingency means that one thing depends on other things, and for organizations to be effective, there must be a Goodness of Fit between their structure and the conditions in their external environment. What works in one setting may not work in another setting. There is not one best way. Contingency Theory means it depends. Today, almost all organizations operate in highly uncertain environments. Thus, we are involved in a significant period of transition, in which the dominant paradigm of organization theory and design (OTD) is changing as dramatically as it was changed with the dawning (mean: emergence) of the Industrial Revolution. Goodness of Fit: Degree of assurance or confidence to which the results of a sample survey or test can be relied upon for making dependable projections. Described as the degree of linear correlation of variables, it is computed with the statistical methods such as chi square test or coefficient of determination.
OCB (continued…) 1–25 OCBs refer to individual behaviors that are beneficial to the organization and are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system. These behaviors are rather a matter of personal choice, such that their omission are not generally understood as punishable. OCBs are thought to have an important impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of work teams and organizations, therefore contributing to the overall productivity of the organization. OCBs are often considered a subset of contextual performance.
Employee Engagement & Organizational Commitment 1–30 Not inclined to put a lot of effort into the work and has no interest in the organization o desire to stay there Fully identified with the organization and proud to go on working there but not prepared to go the extra mile in the job. Excited about the job and puts best efforts into doing it but not particularly interested in the organization except as the provider of the opportunity to carry out the work. Excited about the job and puts best efforts into doing it. Fully identified with the organization and proud to go working there. Organizational Commitment
Affective commitment – a literature review 1–31 For several authors, the term commitment is used to describe an affective orientation toward the organization. Kanter (1968), for example, defined what she called "cohesion commitment as the attachment of an individual's fund of affectivity and emotion to the group. Likewise, Buchanan (1974) described commitment as a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values, and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth. Porter and his associates (Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1979; Porter, Crampon and Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian, 1974) described commitment as the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization. It is a "partisan affective attachment to the goals and values of an organization apart from its instrumental worth" (Popper and Lipshitz, 1992). Employees who are affectively committed to an organization remain with it because they want to do so (Meyer, Allen and Gellatly, 1990).
Continuance Commitment – a literature review 1–32 For Stebbins (1970), continuance commitment was the awareness of the impossibility of choosing a different social identity because of the immense penalties involved in making the switch. Still others have used the term "calculative" to describe commitment based on a consideration of the costs and benefits associated with organizational membership that is unrelated to affect (Etzioni, 1975; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972; Stevens, Beyer and Trice, 1978). Finally, Farrell and Rusbult (1981) suggested that commitment is related to the probability that an employee will leave his job and involves feelings of psychological attachment which is independent of affect. Meyer and Allen (1991) suggested that recognition of the costs associated with leaving the organization is a conscious psychological state that is shaped by environmental conditions (e.g. the existence of side bets) and has implications for behaviour (e.g. continued employment with the organization). Employees wise primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so (ibid).
Normative Commitment – a literature review 1–33 Finally, a less common, but equally viable, approach has been to view commitment as an obligation to remain with the organization. Marsh and Mannari (1977), for example, described the employee with "lifetime commitment" as one who considers it morally right to stay in the company, regardless of how much status enhancement or satisfaction the firm gives over the years. In a similar vein, Wiener (1982) defined commitment as the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets organizational goals and interests and suggested that individuals exhibit these behaviours solely because they believe it is the right and moral thing to do. Normative commitment is characterized by feelings of loyalty to a particular organization resulting from the internalization of normative pressures on the individual (Popper and Lipshitz,1992). Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel they ought to remain with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991).
References (continued…) 1–35 Meyer, J P, Allen, N J, and Gellatly, l R (1990). "Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations", Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, pp. 710-720. Mowday, R T, Steers, R M and Porter, L W (1979). "The measurement of organizational commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, pp. 224-247. Popper, M and Lipshitz, R (1992). "Ask not what your country can do for you: The normative basis of organizational commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, pp.1-12. Porter, L W, Crampton, W J and Smith, F J (1976). "Organizational commitment, managerial turnover". Organizational Behavior and human Performance, 15, pp. 87-98. Porter, L W, Steers, R M, Mowday, R T and Boulian, P V (1974). "Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians", Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, pp. 603- 609. Stebbins, R A (1970). "On misunderstanding the concept of commitment: A theoretical clarification", Social Forces, 48, pp. 526-529. Stevens, J M, Beyer, J M, and Trice, H M (1978). "Assessing personal, role and organizational predictors of managerial commitment", Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 380-396. Wiener, Y (1982). "Commitment in organizations: A normative view", Academy of Management Review, 7, pp. 418-428.