Commitment and Employee Behavior: Comparison of Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment With Perceived Organizational Support

Transcription

1 Journal of Applied Psychology 1993, Vol. 78, No. 5, Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc IO/93/S3.00 Commitment and Employee Behavior: Comparison of Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment With Perceived Organizational Support Lynn McFarlane Shore and Sandy J. Wayne The social exchange view of commitment (R. Eisenberger, R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, & D. Sowa, 1986) suggests that employees' perceptions of the organization's commitment to them (perceived organizational support, or POS) creates feelings of obligation to the employer, which enhances employees' work behavior. The authors addressed the question of whether POS or the more traditional commitment concepts of affective commitment (AC) and continuance commitment (CC) were better predictors of employee behavior (organizational citizenship and impression management). Participants were 383 employees and their managers. Although results showed that both AC and POS were positively related to organizational citizenship and that CC was negatively related to organizational citizenship, POS was the best predictor. These findings support the social exchange view that POS creates feelings of obligation that contribute to citizenship behaviors. In addition, CC was unrelated, whereas AC and POS were positively correlated, with some impression management behaviors. Much literature has examined the notion of organizational commitment, and many conceptualizations and measures have been proposed and tested (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Meyer and Allen have extensively researched two types of commitment, called affective commitment and continuance commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984). Affective commitment is denned as "an affective or emotional attachment to the organization such that the strongly committed individual identifies with, is involved in, and enjoys membership in, the organization" (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 2). Continuance commitment is "a tendency to 'engage in consistent lines of activity' (Becker, 1960, p. 33) based on the individual's recognition of the 'costs' (or lost side bets) associated with discontinuing the activity" (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 3). Much evidence has been accrued on the distinctiveness of Meyer and Allen's (1984) Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) and Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS; Allen & Meyer, 1990; McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990) and on the differential relationships each has with antecedents and outcomes (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989; Shore & Barksdale, 1991). Although affective and continuance commitment represent employee commitment to the organization, recent work by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) has sug- Lynn McFarlane Shore, Department of Management and W. T. Beebe Institute of Personnel and Employment Relations, Georgia State University; Sandy J. Wayne, Department of Management, University of Illinois at Chicago. We gratefully acknowledge Kevin Barksdale for his assistance in data collection and preparation and Rodger Griffeth, Tom Lee, K. M. Kacmar, and Janet Szumal for their helpful reviews of earlier drafts of the article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynn McFarlane Shore, Department of Management, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4014, Atlanta, Georgia gested the value of studying the organization's commitment to the employee. Eisenberger et al. suggested that employees' perceptions of the organization's commitment to them, referred to as perceived organizational support (POS), are based on employees' global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their wellbeing. Using a social exchange framework, Eisenberger and his colleagues argued that employees who perceive a high level of organizational support are more likely to feel an obligation to "repay" the organization in terms of affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and work-related behavior (Blau, 1964; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Eisenberger etal., 1986). Although POS is a commitment concept, it represents a departure from the traditional approach of studying employee commitment to the organization, raising the question of whether employer commitment, or POS, provides a unique and valuable contribution to the literature. A recent confirmatory factor analysis by Shore and Tetrick (1991) indicated that the ACS, the CCS, and the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986) are distinct measures. However, before the present study, research has not compared employee commitment with employer commitment (i.e., POS) to determine the potentially unique explanation of behavior provided by POS relative to the well-established concepts of affective commitment and continuance commitment. In a recent meta-analysis, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) presented evidence on the links between organizational commitment and a number of critical in-role behaviors, including performance, absence, lateness, and turnover. However, commitment may also be important in explaining behaviors that are not formally rewarded or sanctioned by the organization, referred to as nonrole behaviors. As with in-role behaviors, nonrole behaviors can contribute to or detract from organizational effectiveness (Borman & Motowidlo, in press), so that under- 774

2 COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR 775 standing how commitment relates to these types of behaviors would be a valuable contribution to the literature. Furthermore, commitment may be particularly important in predicting nonrole behaviors (Scholl, 1981; Wiener, 1982), such as organizational citizenship and impression management. We chose to include these two nonrole behaviors in our study because the former has been viewed as enhancing organizational functioning (Organ, 1990) whereas the latter has been shown to detract from organizational effectiveness by, for example, resulting in lower job satisfaction (Gandz & Murray, 1980) or creating bias in performance ratings (Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is extrarole behavior that is generally not considered a required duty of the job or part of a traditional job description (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1990). OCB includes behaviors that an individual chooses to offer or withhold without concern for immediate formal rewards or sanctions. Several empirical studies have suggested that the relationship between commitment and OCB depends on the type of commitment examined. O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) found that identification and internalization, which are conceptually similar to affective commitment, were positively related to OCB. However, Williams and Anderson (1991) failed to replicate these findings; they found that internalization and identification were not significantly associated with OCB. This inconsistency of results may be because O'Reilly and Chatman used self-reports of OCB whereas Williams and Anderson gathered OCB information from managers. Basically, these studies suggest that affective commitment will be positively, but perhaps weakly, related to OCB. Because prior empirical research has not examined the relationship between continuance commitment and nonrole behaviors, a question arises about whether or not this type of commitment should be linked with OCB. We did expect a relationship between continuance commitment and OCB for two reasons. First, as suggested by Meyer and Allen (1991), "Employees who want to belong to the organization (affective commitment) might be more likely than those who need to belong (continuance commitment)... to exert effort on behalf of the organization" (pp ). Second, because in-role behaviors tend to be correlated with OCB (Williams & Anderson, 1991) and continuance commitment has been found to result in lower job performance (Meyer et al., 1989), we expected that there would be a negative relationship between continuance commitment and OCB. Eisenberger and his colleagues found that POS was related to absenteeism (Eisenberger et al., 1986), conscientiousness in carrying out conventional job responsibilities, and innovation on behalf of the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1990). In addition, the social exchange framework that underlies POS suggests that these perceptions create feelings of obligation that serve to increase behaviors that support organizational goals. We therefore expected that POS would be positively associated with OCB. Hypothesis 1: Affective commitment and POS will be positively associated with OCB, whereas continuance commitment will be negatively associated with OCB. Impression management (IM) consists of behaviors that employees may use to influence others' attributions for their behavior and, thus, the impressions that others form of them (Jones & Pittman, 1982). IM may consist of behaviors whereby the employee alters or manipulates information given to the supervisor for his or her performance to be viewed more positively than it should be (e.g., Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1982) or may consist of doing favors or complimenting the supervisor (e.g., Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). A common theme in the literature is that the use of IM is influenced by a need to defend or promote oneself to avoid punishment or to receive a desirable reward (Liden & Mitchell, 1988). We predicted that employees with a strong affective commitment would have less of a need to promote themselves because their emotional attachment to the organization is, by itself, useful for creating and maintaining a positive impression on others. Similarly, employees with high levels of POS may have less of a need to use IM because they are already receiving desirable rewards in terms of support from the organization. Therefore, we predicted that employees with a strong affective commitment and high levels of POS would be less likely to use IM. On the other hand, Meyer and Allen (1991) have suggested that, when an employee's primary tie to the organization is need based (continuance commitment), the employee engages in behaviors that would help guarantee continued employment; nonetheless, such an employee is not likely to exert extra effort on behalf of the organization. Thus, in an effort to protect their job security, employees with high continuance commitment may engage in IM behaviors to appear as though they are supportive of the organization. This suggests that there would be a positive relationship between continuance commitment and IM. Hypothesis 2: Affective commitment and POS will be negatively associated with IM, whereas continuance commitment will be positively associated with IM. A number of views have been put forth in the literature that are relevant for comparing affective commitment and continuance commitment with POS in terms of the ability to predict employee behavior. On the one hand, Eisenberger et al. (1990) found that POS was positively related to expressed affective and calculative involvements in the organization. This raises the question about whether POS may be necessary for understanding employee behavior, because affective and continuance commitment may be outcomes of organizational support and thus may be more closely linked to employee behavior. However, this perspective assumes that the influence of organizational support on employee behavior is solely through affective and continuance commitment. Theoretical and empirical research does not seem to support this proposition (Shore & Tetrick, 1991). Thus, although POS is likely to be related to affective and continuance commitment, these forms of commitment are not redundant with POS. From a theoretical perspective, the relationship between POS and work behavior, unlike the conceptualizations for affective commitment and continuance commitment, is based on a social exchange framework. That is, although perceptions of organizational support obligate employees to support organizational goals as repayment, affective and continuance commitment do not generate these same feelings of obligation. Rather, affective commitment may increase OCB and decrease IM because it is the right and moral way to behave (Wiener, 1982), whereas continuance commitment reflects feel-

3 776 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND SANDY J. WAYNE ings of being stuck (Shore & Barksdale, 1991), leading to lower OCB and greater IM. Given the vastly different conceptualizations linking these three constructs and employee behavior, we expected that POS would provide additional explanation of work behavior beyond that provided by affective and continuance commitment. Hypothesis 3: POS will explain additional variance in OCB and IM beyond the explanation provided by affective commitment and continuance commitment. Subjects Method Participants were 276 pairs of employees and their direct supervisors working in a large multinational firm headquartered in the southeastern United States. Three hundred eighty-three employees (305 men and 78 women) and 231 supervisors (198 men and 33 women) completed surveys. Although some supervisors rated more than 1 employee (18%), very few supervisors (6.5%) rated more than 2 employees. The average age of the employees was years, and the average age of the supervisors was years. The participants held a variety of job positions, such as mechanic, secretary, and accountant. Measures Employees reported their levels of affective commitment, continuance commitment, and POS. Supervisors described their employees' OCB and IM behavior. Affective and continuance commitment. Affective commitment and continuance commitment were assessed with 16 items developed by Meyer and Allen (1984). The Cronbach alpha estimates were.88 for affective commitment and.82 for continuance commitment. Scale anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). POS. Weuseda 17-itemscaledevelopedbyEisenbergeretal.(1986) to measure POS. The Cronbach alpha estimate was.95. Scale anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). OCB. We assessed OCB with a 16-item scale developed by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). The scale measures two dimensions of OCB: altruism (7 items) and compliance (9 items). The Cronbach alpha estimates were.88 for altruism and.87 for compliance. Scale anchors ranged from 1 (disagree completely) to 5 (agree completely). IM behavior. We modified the 24-item Wayne and Ferris (1990) Impression Management Scale, which was developed for employee selfreports of IM behavior, to measure supervisory reports of IM behavior. Supervisors reported how often their subordinates had engaged in a particular IM behavior on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Procedure The measures used in this study were included in a larger organizational survey. A random stratified sample (by age and tenure) of 1,071 employees were contacted by mail and asked to participate in a longitudinal study of employee attitudes that involved completing four surveys over a 2-year period. Forty-one percent of the employees contacted agreed to participate and were thus sent surveys. The data used in the present study came from the second and third survey administrations. The return rate for employees who agreed to participate was 90%, and the return rate for their supervisors was 73%. The employee data we used were collected 6 months before the supervisor data (note that the surveys administered at these two times were virtually identical, so that predictor and criterion data were collected at both survey administrations). (Hereinafter, the first survey, employee data, is referred to as Survey 1 and the second survey, manager data, is referred to as Survey 2.) The surveys were mailed to participants along with a cover letter, computer answer sheets, and a preaddressed return envelope. Results Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted a series of principal-component factor analyses using varimax rotation for the IM and OCB scales. An initial analysis with two factors designated a priori included all IM and OCB items for both Survey 1 and Survey 2 (separately). Results showed that 12 of the IM items were loading on a factor with OCB items. When these 12 items were eliminated, subsequent analyses indicated that the remaining 12 items loaded on a separate factor from the OCB items. OCB items were factor analyzed separately from IM items, with two factors designated a priori. This factor structure was quite similar to the Compliance and Altruism subscales generated by Smith et al. (1983), although 2 items that did not load clearly on either factor in the Smith et al. study did so in the present sample (1 item loaded on the altruism factor and the other item loaded on the compliance factor). Thus, in our study, the Altruism scale consisted of 7 items and the Compliance scale consisted of 9 items. An exploratory principal-component analysis with varimax rotation for the 12 IM items yielded three factors (for both Surveys 1 and 2), producing three IM scales (see Table 1). The first scale was called manipulation because items reflected direct attempts by the employee to manipulate the manager's perception of his or her work quality and effort. The second scale was called supervisory awareness because these items reflected employee attempts to communicate and display efforts and accomplishments to the manager. The third scale, called supervisory favors, contained items that described employees doing favors for the supervisor. The Cronbach alpha estimates for the three scales were.89,.68, and.71, respectively. The factor structure of the scale measuring supervisor reports of employee IM behavior was replicated with a separate sample of 193 supervisors working in a large firm located in the southwestern United States. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the variables are shown in Table 2. The pattern of correlations for OCB provided support for Hypothesis 1. As we predicted, affective commitment and POS were positively correlated with both compliance and altruism, whereas continuance commitment was negatively correlated with these same scales. Hypothesis 2 was not supported by our results. We expected that affective commitment and POS would be negatively related to IM behaviors whereas continuance commitment would show a positive relationship with IM behaviors. Continuance commitment was not significantly related to any of the IM behaviors. In addition, none of the commitment measures predicted manipulation behaviors. Furthermore, supervisory favor was positively correlated with both affective commitment and POS, and supervisory awareness was positively correlated with POS. Results of hierarchical regression analyses are shown in Table 3. Results pertaining to OCB strongly supported Hypothesis 3. POS accounted for a significant portion of unique variance in OCB beyond that provided by affective commitment (for altruism, AJ? 2 = 3, p <.01; for compliance, A/? 2 =.032, p <.01)

4 Table 1 Factor Analysis of Impression Management Items To what extent does the employee: 1. Play up the value of a positive event that he or she has taken credit for to you. 2. Try to take responsibility for positive events, even when he or she is not solely responsible. 3. Try to make a positive event that he or she is responsible for appear better than it actually is. 4. Try to make a negative event that he or she is responsible for not appear as severe as it actually is to you. 5. Try to let you think that he or she is responsible for the positive events that occur in your work group. 6. Work hard when he or she knows the results will be seen by you. 7. Let you know that he or she tries to do a good job in his or her work. 8. Create the impression that he or she is a "good" person to you. 9. Work later than the regular hours in order to make a good impression Make you aware of his or her accomplishments. 11. Do personal favors for you. 12. Offer to do something for you which he or she is not required to do; that is, he or she did it as a personal favor for you. Eigenvalue % variance explained Cumulative % variance explained COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR Survey 1 factors Survey 2 factors Note. Factor 1 represents the manipulation scale; Factor 2 represents the supervisory awareness scale; Factor 3 represents the supervisory favors scale. Item 10 was retained despite loading on two factors because the reliability of the supervisory awareness scale dropped significantly and because this item appeared to be conceptually consistent with the other items in this scale. Boldfaced values indicate factors with the strongest loadings and continuance commitment (for altruism, A/? 2 = 1, p < supervisory awareness, A/{ 2 =.021, p <.05; for supervisory.01; for compliance, A/? 2 = 6, p <.01). However, for IM, we favors, Atf 2 =.028, p <.01). found mixed support for Hypothesis 3. POS did not account for unique variance in IM beyond that provided by aifective Discussion commitment. In contrast, POS did account for unique variance As predicted, affective commitment and POS were positively beyond continuance commitment in two of the IM scales (for related to both compliance and altruism whereas continuance Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among the Attitudes and Employee Behaviors Altruism 5. Compliance 6. Manipulation 7 Awareness 8. Favors Variable Affective commitment Continuance commitment Perceived organizational support *p< Survey *.22* *.30* Survey * -.20*.23*.63* * -.37* * * 8.17*.07.16*.29* *.36* M ? SD

5 778 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND SANDY J. WAYNE Table 3 Results of Regression Analyses Altruism Step & variable ft R 2 AR 2 AF Citizenship Impression management Compliance Manipulation Awareness Favors R 2 AR 2 AF 0 R 2 AR 2 AF 0 R 2 AR 2 AF 0 fl 2 AF Model 1 1. AC 2. POS.05.27** " 12.74" " * 9.01" " Model 2 1. POS.27" **.23" " * ** 2. AC " Overall F 13.55" 7.38" * Model 3 1. CC -.18** " -.18" " POS.29" ".21" " *.17" " Model 4 1. POS.29" ".21" " *.17" " 2. CC -.18" " -.18" " Overall F 18.59" 12.25" * 4.51* Variable F(3, 268) F(3, 267) F(3,268) F(3, 268) F(3. 268) AC.03 CC -.18" POS.26".122 Overall F 12.42" Model " " " * Note. AC = affective commitment; POS = perceived organizational support; CC = continuance commitment. Models I through 4 utilized hierarchical regression, and one variable was entered on each step; Model 5 which displays the results of simultaneous entry of AC, CC, and POS was not directly relevant to the hypotheses, but was provided for potentially interested readers. For all AF tests, dfe = 1 and 270 with the exception of compliance, where dfs = 1 and 269. For models 1-4, dfo = 2 and 269 for the overall Ftests with the exception of compliance, where dfs = 2 and 268. *p<.05. **/><.01. commitment was negatively related to these same constructs. Furthermore, the regression results suggest that POS may be a better predictor of employee citizenship behaviors than either affective commitment or continuance commitment. This is quite consistent with Organ's (1990) perspective that social exchange theory provides a stronger conceptual framework for understanding OCB than does organizational commitment. Thus, employees who feel that they are supported by the organization may, over time, reciprocate and reduce the imbalance in the relationship by engaging in citizenship behaviors. In contrast, affective commitment, which is based on emotional attachment and identification with the goals of the organization, may be inadequate for sustaining employees' citizenship behaviors. Over time, affectively committed employees who engage in OCB may perceive the overall exchange as unfair if the organization does not reciprocate by providing support. Therefore, the present results suggest that employee behavior that goes beyond role requirements is most likely to be elicited when the employee feels obligated to repay the organization for support received. Our pattern of results may also help to explain a previous inconsistency in the literature (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Williams & Anderson, 1991) linking affective commitment and OCB. POS has been found to predict both affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and OCB, so that when a significant correlation is found between affective commitment and OCB this may reflect a common cause (i.e., POS) rather than a causal link. Indirect support for this contention was shown in Williams and Anderson's study, in which they found that OCB was not influenced by affective commitment but was influenced by the fairness of overall organizational treatment. However, because neither O'Reilly and Chatman nor Williams and Anderson included POS in their study designs, it was not possible to determine conclusively whether POS influenced the differential results. Clearly, additional research is needed to determine whether the present pattern of relationships exists across other settings and also to examine the notion of common cause. The results of our study indicate the importance of POS as a determinant of employee behavior. Thus, a critical issue is what influences employees' perceptions of organizational support. Eisenberger et al. (1986) suggested that perceived support is influenced by various aspects of an employee's treatment by the organization, such as the organization's likely reactions to, for example, the employee's mistakes, performance, suggestions,

6 COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR 779 and illnesses. However, the relative importance of these factors has not been explored. Consequently, additional research is needed to explore the individual and situational factors that may influence perceptions of organizational support. Another interesting finding was that continuance commitment provided additional explanation of OCB over and above that provided by POS. Furthermore, consistent with prior research on job performance (Meyer et al., 1989), our results showed that continuance commitment was associated with lower levels of OCB. These results suggest that employees who feel bound to their employing organization because of an accumulation of side bets are less inclined to engage in extrarole behaviors that support organizational goals. This result was particularly interesting given that both side bet theory (Becker, 1960) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) are based on the notion of exchange. This pattern of results suggests that employees who are bound by economic exchanges (i.e., side bet theory) are least likely to be good citizens whereas those who are bound by social exchanges are most likely to be good citizens. That is, employees operating under an economic exchange would engage in OCB only if the behavior was directly rewarded, whereas employees operating under a social exchange would engage in OCB despite no immediate reward. It is important to note that employees who perceived high levels of organizational support were more likely to engage in supervisory awareness behavior. This pattern implies that communicating accomplishments may not represent employee attempts to manage impressions for self-serving purposes, but may, in fact, be viewed by supervisors as an appropriate work behavior. In addition, both affective commitment and POS were positively associated with supervisory favors, and this form of IM was positively related to altruism (r =.29). Altruism and supervisory favors have some conceptual similarity in that they may both involve some degree of self-sacrifice. Whereas altruism involves prosocial gestures toward others in the organization (e.g., new employees, co-workers, or supervisor; Borman & Motowidlo, in press), supervisory favors represent prosocial behaviors that specifically benefit the supervisor. Thus, doing favors for the supervisor may be less of an attempt to impress the supervisor than a consequence of having positive feelings about the organization. An implication of these results is that it is important to examine various forms of IM because managerial perceptions of these tactics may vary. One limitation of our results was the rather low correlations between employee attitudes and managerial reports of IM and OCB. Although these results were fairly typical of studies linking employee attitudes and behaviors, they do suggest the need for including additional variables, such as employee ideology (Eisenberger et al., 1986), to help better explain employee behavior. Another limitation was the fairly low occurrence of IM behaviors. This may explain the somewhat small amounts of variance accounted for in these behaviors by the three commitment measures. Another possible explanation for these results may be that some forms of IM may have less to do with feelings about the employing organization than with feelings about the manager. Future research should replicate the present study and should also include information on employee perceptions of the manager to further explore these relationships. Although there are limitations of this study, there are also a number of strengths. In particular, this study extended prior research by focusing on two outcomes rarely examined in relationship to commitment: OCB and IM. In addition, we studied the relationship between the outcome variables and three different forms of commitment. This approach allows for a greater understanding of the underlying reason for the relationship between commitment and behavior. Furthermore, the hypotheses of interest were tested longitudinally and included responses from both employees and supervisors. One of our most important conclusions is that POS explained a significant proportion of the variance in OCB beyond affective commitment and that these perceptions appear to better predict OCB than does affective commitment. This suggests that feelings of obligation, rather than emotional attachment, may be the basis for citizenship behaviors. Future research should further explore the role that social exchange plays in the development of commitment and extrarole behaviors. Finally, additional studies that compare perceptions of organizational support with more extensively researched commitment constructs, such as affective and continuance commitment, are clearly warranted. References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 26, Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New \brk: Wiley. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (in press). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Caldwell, D., & O'Reilly, C. (1982). Responses to failure: The effects of choice and responsibility on impression management. Academy of Management Journal, 25, Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, Jones, E., & Pittman, T. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,

7 780 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND SANDY J. WAYNE Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 7, Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. 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, Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, Shore, L. M., & Barksdale, K. (1991, August). A longitudinal assessment of the antecedents of affective and continuance commitment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management conference, Miami, FL. Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. W. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp ). Chicago: St. Clair. Received May 28, 1992 Revision received January 11, 1993 Accepted January 15, APA Convention "Call for Programs" The "Call for Programs" for the 1994 APA annual convention appears in the September issue of the APA Monitor. The 1994 convention will be held in Los Angeles, California, from August 12 through August 16. The deadline for submission of program and presentation proposals is December 3,1993. Additional copies of the "Call" are available from the APA Convention Office, effective in September. As a reminder, agreement to participate in the APA convention is now presumed to convey permission for the presentation to be audiotaped if selected for taping. Any speaker or participant who does not wish his or her presentation to be audiotaped must notify the person submitting the program either at the time the invitation is extended or before the December 3 deadline for proposal submission.