Commitment to Supervisors and Organizations and Turnover

Christian VandenbergheHEC Montreal, Montreal, Qc, Canada

Kathleen BenteinUQAM, Montreal, Qc, Canada

Introduction

• The interest of researchers and practitioners in employee commitment derives from its established links to desirable work outcomes, particularly turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Tett & Meyer, 1993).

• However, work in the multiple commitments area has suggested that different constituencies exist within organizations (e.g., Becker, 1992; Reichers, 1985; Siders, George, & Dharwadkar, 2001; Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004).

• Researchers have generally neglected the fact that commitment to internal foci may have implications for intended and actual turnover.

• Among foci that might be of relevance for predicting withdrawal behavior, the supervisor appears particularly important.

• Supervisors are formally responsible for monitoring the performance of employees on behalf of the organization, and as such have direct contact with employees in both day-to-day operations and during human resource events such as performance appraisals and promotion decisions.

• Throughout these activities, supervisors often come to develop specific exchanges with employees, as is evidenced by research in the leader-member exchange (LMX) literature (e.g., Graen & Ulh-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997).

• Both employee-supervisor and employee-organization relationships develop through social exchange processes and may thus have consequences for turnover decisions. However, affective commitment to the organization and to the supervisor have rarely been assessed as joint predictors of turnover.

• Based on past research that has demonstrated a negative relationship between affective organizational commitment and intended and actual turnover (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Tett & Meyer, 1993), we expect this relationship to hold in this study while we control for employees’ level of affective commitment to their supervisors.

• Hypothesis 1a: Controlling for affective commitment to the supervisor, affective organizational commitment will be negatively related to turnover intentions.

• Hypothesis 1b: Controlling for affective commitment to the supervisor, affective organizational commitment will be negatively related to actual turnover.

• Because the supervisor is an agent of the organization and is often the only representative of the organization with whom employees interact on an ongoing basis (Levinson, 1965; Tangirala, Green, & Ramanujam, 2007), s/he may be perceived by employees as particularly important.

• Hypothesis 2a: Controlling for affective organizational commitment, affective commitment to the supervisor will be negatively related to turnover intentions.

• Hypothesis 2b: Controlling for affective organizational commitment, affective commitment to the supervisor will be negatively related to actual turnover.

• By the very fact that they act on behalf of the organization, supervisors may become substitutes for it in cases where exchanges between employees and the organization are difficult to establish. In these cases, it will be difficult for employees to develop a commitment to their organization, but they could very well compensate for this by developing a commitment to their supervisor.

• One can reasonably hypothesize that when exchanges between employees and organizations are not well established (i.e., affective organizational commitment is low), affective commitment to supervisors will be more strongly related to intended and actual turnover.

• Hypothesis 3a: When affective organizational commitment is low, affective commitment to the supervisor will be more strongly (and negatively) related to turnover intentions.

• Hypothesis 3b: When affective organizational commitment is low, affective commitment to the supervisor will be more strongly (and negatively) related to actual turnover.

Method

• Sample 1: – N = 172 (pharmaceutical company)– Measures: affective organizational

commitment (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993); turnover intentions (2 items); age, sex, organizational tenure, and tenure with one’s supervisor

• Sample 2: – N = 186 (hospital nurses)– Measures: affective organizational

commitment (Meyer et al., 1993); turnover intentions (3 items); age, sex, and organizational tenure

• Sample 3: – N = 442 (university alumni)– Measures: affective organizational

commitment (Meyer et al., 1993); actual turnover (6 months); age, sex, organizational tenure, tenure with one’s supervisor, organization size

Results: Correlations for Samples 1 and 2

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables for Samples 1 and 2

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD

1. Age 32.34 6.39 – .11 .72** .13 .04 -.08 33.20 7.42 –

2. Sex 1.51 .50 – .11 .08 .12 .05 -.12 1.80 .40 –

3. Organizational tenure 5.14 3.50 – -.12 .07 .16* .15 -.17* 7.57 6.37 –

4. Tenure with supervisor 3.82 3.50 – -.18* .08 .41** –

5. AC-ORG 3.06 .50 .81 .14 .00 .03 -.00 .26** -.36** 3.09 .85 .84

6. AC-SUP 3.25 .56 .87 .02 -.14 .05 .08 .22** -.38** 2.89 .72 .86

7. Turnover intentions 1.86 1.02 .84 -.08 .21** -.13 -.10 -.32** -.26** 1.82 1.04 .80

Note. For Sex, 1 = Male, 2 = Female. AC-ORG = Affective commitment to the organization; AC-SUP = Affective commitment to the

supervisor. Correlations for Sample 1 (N = 172) are reported below the diagonal while those for Sample 2 (Ns = 178-186) are reported

above the diagonal. Means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for Sample 1 are reported on the left while those for Sample 2

are reported on the right.

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Results: Moderated Linear Regressions for Samples 1 and 2

Table 3

Results of the Moderated Linear Regression Analysis for Turnover Intentions in Samples 1 and 2

Sample 1 Sample 2

Step Variable entered Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

1 Age -.13 -.09 -.14 -.08 -.13 -.12

Sex .21** .24*** .25*** -.06 -.04 -.06

Organizational tenure -.12 -.11 -.13 -.18 -.22* -.26*

Tenure with supervisor -.07 -.08 -.09

AC-ORG -.31*** -.34***

AC-SUP -.21** -.33***

R2 .13*** .18*** .09** .15*** .16*** .04

2 AC-ORG -.27*** -.27*** -.28*** -.28***

AC-SUP -.15* -.15* -.27*** -.27***

R2 .07*** .02* .11*** .07*** .07*** .18***

3 ACORG x ACSUP .21** .17*

R2 .04** .03*

Note. For Sex, 1 = Male, 2 = Female. AC-ORG = Affective commitment to the organization; AC-SUP = Affective commitment to the supervisor. Except for R2 rows, entries are standardized regression coefficients. Full-model statistics (Model 3): Study 1: F (7, 161) = 7.43, R2 = .24, p < .001; Study 2: F (6, 163) = 9.01, R2 = .25, p < .001. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Results: Interaction for Sample 1

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

Commitment to the supervisor

Tu

rno

ve

r in

ten

tio

ns

High organizational commitment Low organizational commitment

Results: Interaction for Sample 2

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

Commitment to the supervisor

Tu

rno

ve

r in

ten

tio

ns

High organizational commitment Low organizational commitment

Results: Correlations for Sample 3Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables for Sample 3

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age 30.68 4.28 –

2. Sex 1.28 .45 .04 –

3. Organizational tenure 3.68 3.19 .66** -.02 –

4. Tenure with supervisor 2.17 2.19 .43** .05 .58** –

5. Organizational size 3.34 1.55 -.05 .02 .06 -.20** –

6. AC-ORG 3.14 .84 .08 .06 .11** .02 -.09* (.81)

7. AC-SUP 3.09 .95 -.05 -.03 -.06 -.01 -.03 .39** (.87)

8. Turnover 1.08 .28 -.13** .01 -.12* -.07 -.03 -.01 -.11* –

Note. Ns = 423-567. For Sex, 1 = Male, 2 = Female. For Organizational size: 1 = 1-50 employees, 2 = 51-100 employees, 3 = 101-500

employees, 4 = 501-1000 employees, 5 = more than 1000 employees. For Turnover: 1 = Stayers, 2 = Voluntary leavers. AC-ORG =

Affective commitment to the organization; AC-SUP = Affective commitment to the supervisor. Reliability coefficients are reported in

parentheses on the diagonal.

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Results: Moderated Logistic Regression for Sample 3

Table 4

Results of the Moderated Logistic Regression Analysis for Turnover in Sample 3

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Step Variable(s) entered B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B)

1 Age -.11 .89 -.11 .89 -.11 .89

Sex .01 1.01 .06 1.07 .06 1.06

Organizational tenure -.15 .86 -.13 .88 -.13 .88

Tenure with supervisor .04 1.04 .02 1.02 .03 1.03

Organizational size -.02 .98 -.02 .98 -.02 .98

AC-ORG -.07 .93

AC-SUP -.46* .63

NagelkerkeR2 .09* .06 .06

2 AC-ORG .15 1.16 .15 1.16

AC-SUP -.51** .60 -.51** .60

NagelkerkeR2 .00 .03** .04*

3 AC-ORG x AC-SUP .38* 1.46

NagelkerkeR2 .02*

Note. For Sex, 1 = Male, 2 = Female. For Organizational size: 1 = 1-50 employees, 2 = 51-100 employees, 3 = 101-500 employees, 4 = 501-1000 employees, 5 = more than 1000 employees. AC-ORG = Affective commitment to the organization; AC-SUP = Affective commitment to the supervisor. Full-model statistics (Model 3): ² (8) = 20.90, p < .01, -2LL = 220.04, Constant = 1.05; Nagelkerke R2 = .11. * p < .05; ** p < .01.

Results: Interaction for Sample 3

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

Commitment to the supervisor

Pre

dic

ted

od

ds

turn

over

High organizational commitment

Low organizational commitment

Hypothesis testing results

• H1a: Controlling for affective commitment to the supervisor, affective organizational commitment will be negatively related to turnover intentions: SUPPORTED

• H1b: Controlling for affective commitment to the supervisor, affective organizational commitment will be negatively related to actual turnover: REJECTED

• H2a: Controlling for affective organizational commitment, affective commitment to the supervisor will be negatively related to turnover intentions: SUPPORTED

• H2b: Controlling for affective organizational commitment, affective commitment to the supervisor will be negatively related to actual turnover: SUPPORTED

• H3a: When affective organizational commitment is low, affective commitment to the supervisor will be more strongly (and negatively) related to turnover intentions: SUPPORTED

• H3b: When affective organizational commitment is low, affective commitment to the supervisor will be more strongly (and negatively) related to actual turnover: SUPPORTED

References• Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment

to the organization: An examination of the construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276.

• Becker, T.E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244.

• Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259.

• Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

• Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.

• Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.

• Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., & Wayne, S.J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47-119.

• Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

• Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.

• Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

• Reichers, A.E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476.

• Siders, M.A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The relationship of internal and external commitment foci to objective job performance measures. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 580-590.

• Tangirala, S., Green, S.G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss’s boss: Effects of supervisors’ upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 309-320.

• Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259-293.

• Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47-71.