108
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL 41, NO 2, MAY 1994
Professional and Organizational Commitment
Among Engineers: Conflicting or Complementing?
S. Gayle Baugh and Ralph M. Roberts
Abstruct- Organizational commitment and professional commitment have been viewed as both complementary and conflicting
in their effects on organizational outcomes. Engineering has many
characteristics of a profession, but its practitioners usually have
careers in organizational settings. Thus, the effects of these commitments on job satisfaction, job performance and job problems
are particularly important in an engineering work environment.
Results of this study based on data collected from 114 engineers
in a bureaucratic work environment indicate that organizational
commitment has a significant and direct effect on job satisfaction
and job performance and a significant inverse effect on job
problems. Professional commitment was marginally significant
in respect to job performance. In addition, the highest levels of
satisfaction and performance were reported by individuals high
on both forms of commitment, while the lowest levels of satisfaction and performance were reported by individuals with low
organizational commitment and high professional commitment.
Results were mixed for job problems. Tenure also was found
to be important; increased satisfaction, increased performance,
but also increased problems with the superior were associated
with longer tenure in the organization. These results suggest that
managers seeking enhanced performance and job satisfaction
from engineers must take specific actions to build organization
commitment, then actions to enhance professional commitment,
and finally action to mitigate the job problems which confront
their engineers.
body of knowledge, (2) autonomy in the application of that
knowledge, (3) commitment to a specialized line of work,
(4) identification with the profession or line of work, (5)
responsibility to society for the ethical use of specialized
knowledge, and (6) collegial maintenance of performance
standards [l], [ 5 ] , [24]. Engineering includes a common body
of knowledge (as outlined in accreditation standards), and
a reasonable degree of autonomy in the application of that
knowledge. Although engineers rarely decide the organizational purpose to which their expertise is directed, there is
a reasonable degree of autonomy in the process of performing engineering work. And while many engineers expect to
become less technically involved as their careers progress
and to move into engineering management or even out of
engineering altogether, there are still many individuals who
identify with the field of engineering as a lifetime commitment
[4].The collegial maintenance of standards is accomplished
through the Professional Engineer certification, as well as
through the accreditation of engineering schools and programs.
Thus, engineering shows many characteristics of a profession,
even though most engineers develop careers in organizational
settings and also identify with the employing organization.
Index Terms- Engineering management, engineers’ satisfac- Further, within the field of engineering there is variation
tion, engineers’ performance, engineers’ commitments, engineers’ among individuals in the extent to which they identify with
conflicts, engineering professionalism, job conflicts.
and are committed to engineering as a profession. Some
individuals may respond more as “professionals” in the classic
definition than do others. This variation in individual levels of
I. PROFESSIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
commitment to engineering as a profession will be the focus
AMONGENGINEERS:
CONFLICTING OR COMPLEMENTING?
T IS APPARENT that the nature of the workforce is of this research.
Gouldner [lo], [ 111 first introduced the distinction between
changing. Trends include increasing levels of education,
professional
employees considered “locals” and those conincreasing professionalization, and decreasing organizational
sidered
“cosmopolitans.”
“Locals” had high loyalty to the
loyalty among the workforce. These trends may not be independent-that is, increasing levels of education and profes- employing organization, and low commitment to their prosionalism may contribute to generally reduced commitment fession, along with an organizational reference group. “Cosand loyalty to employers. Engineers and other professional mopolitans” displayed the opposite pattem; low commitment
employees in large organizations are particularly subject to to the employer, but high loyalty to the profession, and an
external (or professional) reference group. Gouldner’s work
these changes.
While engineering does not fit the classic definition of a focuses on behavioral, rather than attitudinal, commitment,
profession, there are many elements of professionalism within but it does raise the question of the compatibility of the two
the field. Characteristics of a profession include (1) a common loci of identification-organization and profession. Because
his discussion did not include employees having high identifiManuscript received August 11, 1992. Reviews of this manuscript were
cation with both profession and organization simultaneously,
processed by Editor G. Fanis. This work was supported by grants from
the University of West Florida and the Human Resources Planning Society. there is a suggestion of incompatibility between the loci of
A previous version of this work was presented at Southern Management identification in Gouldner’s work.
Association, Atlanta, GA, November 1991.
Further research has extended Gouldner’s suggestions to
The authors are with the Management Department, University of West
the area of attitudinal commitments, and has explored the
Florida, Pensacola, FL 32514-5752 USA.
IEEE Log Number 94008876.
nature of the relationship between professional and orga-
I
0018-9391/94$04.00 0 1994 IEEE
BAUGH AND ROBERTS: PROFESSIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONALCOMMITMENT AMONG ENGINEERS
nizational commitments. Much research has supported the
negative, or conflicting, relationship between organizational
and professional commitment [ll, [171, [191, [261, 1291, 1381.
Some authors have suggested that the conflict is due to the
restrictions on professional autonomy caused by bureaucratic
organizational structures. Other investigators have posited no
inherent conflict between professional commitment and loyalty
to the organization. Their research indicates that high loyalty
to both profession and organization may occur simultaneously
131, [201, [271, [281, W I , P41.
Some authors have suggested that simultaneous high commitments to both profession and organization may be desirable for the organization. High professional commitment
may serve to overcome some dysfunctions of high organizational commitment, such as the “organization man” syndrome,
while enhancing the positive motivation usually associated
with high organizational commitment [36]. This assertion
is supported by research indicating that the employee with
high professional commitment is most likely to function autonomously on the job [8], [9]. Greene [15] found that high
professional commitment without high organizational commitment can be as dysfunctional as unmitigated organizational
loyalty. His research indicated that role conflict and alienation were strongest among scientists and engineers with
a high commitment to their profession, but low commitment to the organization. Results are not presented for scientists and engineers separately, however, so it is not clear
whether these results are applicable to the subset of engineers
alone.
If the conflict between professional and organizational commitment does affect engineers, the basis for it appears to
lie in conflicting role requirements. The profession requires
autonomous application of professional knowledge, with the
professional being the recognized expert. This situation appears to describe the work setting for engineers. Engineers
apply specialized skills which are not possessed by others
in the setting to organizationally-defined problems. Because
the technical skills required to solve engineering problems
are possessed only by engineers, organizationally-specified
programs for the problem-solving process do not exist. The
engineer must work autonomously in order to be successful.
Organizations, especially bureaucratic organizations, require
reliable conformance to pre-specified role prescriptions. In
the case of engineers, an over-reliance on role prescriptions
may prove to be dysfunctional because the engineer must
have latitude in the application of professional expertise. The
potential for conflict is engendered by bureaucratic rules and
procedures in the organization which constrain professional
autonomy in job performance, (e.g., [l]).
If the conflict between professional and organizational commitment is the result of opposing role requirements, the conflict
would be most severe where the requirements are maximally
different. Thus, potential conflict between professional criteria for engineering activities and organizational requirements
should be most apparent in highly bureaucratic settings. The
present study involves civilian engineers employed by the
government at a U.S. military installation. Because this setting increased the potential for demonstrating organizational-
109
professional conflict, it seemed a logical location for this
study [ 131.
Conflict occurs between professional and organizational
commitments in this setting because the engineers are required
to exercise autonomy with respect to how extensive their work
should be on any particular project. They are responsible for
applying professional expertise in order to maintain equipment
for safe usage. They are subject to influence from others in
the organization, however, who are responsible for the time
schedules and budgets for the engineering work. Thus, the
technical elegance and even the technical adequacy of the
engineer’s work can be at odds with the concerns about schedules and budgets evidenced in other areas of the organization.
The stage is thereby set for conflict between commitment to
one’s professional work, and commitment to the employing
organization in terms of the work that is expected.
In addition to having some effects on job performance,
such conflict may have some influence on job attitudes. In
research to date, little empirical attention has been given
to the effect of the dual commitments on job satisfaction.
Organizational commitment has been positively related to
job satisfaction [313. Professional commitment, which provides intrinsic job satisfaction, combined with organizational
commitment may be posited to produce the highest levels
of satisfaction. Conversely, high professional commitment
coupled with low organizational commitment might lead to
a greater sensitivity to bureaucratic obstacles, and as a result
lead to reduced job satisfaction. Thus, the interaction of professional commitment with organizational commitment should
provide better prediction of job satisfaction than professional
commitment alone.
A similar rationale applies to job performance. There is
some indication that higher organizational commitment is
associated with higher job performance [31]. It seems reasonable to posit that higher professional commitment, with
its emphasis on the work itself, would lead to higher job
performance. However, individuals with high levels of both
commitments would be motivated from two sources, and thus
should exhibit the highest levels of performance. Also, those
with high professional commitment, but low organizational
commitment may accomplish high quality work, but work
which is not maximally focused on the organization’s needs.
As in the case of job satisfaction, it is the interaction of the two
forms of commitment that should provide the best prediction
of job performance.
The predictions for perception of bureaucratic obstacles
to job performance are similar [15]. Employees with high
commitment to the profession, but low commitment to the
organization, would seem likely to report the greatest number
of bureaucratic job problems. This would occur because the
bureaucracy would be blamed for interfering with professional
performance. In other words, as Peters and O’Connor [33]
suggest, situational constraints might be most problematic
for employees with the greatest concern about professional
competence.
The hypothesized effects may be influenced by the length
of time the engineer has been in the particular work setting.
Organizational tenure has been demonstrated to have an effect
110
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEEIUNG MANAGEMENT, VOL. 41, NO. 2, MAY 1994
on job satisfaction [18], [37], perhaps through the process of neer. The researchers answered participants’ questions without
dissonance reduction [39]. In addition, tenure has an effect revealing the specific hypotheses under study. The survey
on adaptation to one’s job [21], [22], [25], and on adaptation instrument was distributed during the meeting and participants
to the organization [6]. As suggested by theories of career were encouraged to use work time to complete it. Postagedevelopment (e.g., [12]), job performance would also be paid envelopes with the researchers’ university address were
affected by tenure. As a result, variation in tenure within provided to ensure confidentiality of responses.
the sample has the potential to obscure results attributable to
organizational and professional commitments. Thus, the effects
of the length of employment were controlled in all of the C. Measures
analyses.
The survey instrument was designed to assess job attitudes,
Based on this review of professional and organizational perceptions of bureaucratic problems, and job performance
commitments among engineers, the following hypotheses are in addition to collecting biographical data. The attitudinal
proposed for this research:
measures were professional commitment, organizational comH1: There is a significant interaction between organiza- mitment, and job satisfaction. Professional commitment was
tional commitment and professional commitment on assessed using three Likert-type items introduced by Ken and
job satisfaction (controlling for organizational tenure), Jermier [23]. The three items explored the extent to which
with individuals high in both commitments reporting job-related information, career-related information, and job
the highest job satisfaction.
satisfaction were obtained through interaction with engineers
H2: There is a significant interaction between organi- not employed on site. This scale produced a low internal
zational commitment and professional commitment consistency reliability (alpha = .60), but it did result in poson job performance (controlling for organizational itive and significant correlations with professional behavior:
tenure), with individuals high on both commitments affiliating with professional organizations (T = .12, p < .lo),
exhibiting the highest rated job performance.
attending professional conferences (T = .14, p < .08), and
H3: There is a significant interaction between organiza- holding the Professional Engineer registration (T = .25, p <
tional commitment and professional commitment on .Ol). These results are consistent with previous findings (301.
perceived job problems (controlling for organizational
Organizational commitment was assessed using the Orgatenure), with individuals high on professional commit- nizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) [3 11. The OCQ
ment but low on organizational commitment reporting included 15 items, and it produced a reliability of alpha = .92
the greatest number of bureaucratic job problems.
in this sample. Participants also responded to the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) [40]. The MSQ included
11. METHOD
two subscales measuring intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction.
The MSQ has exhibited adequate psychometric properties in
A. Participants
previous research [31]. In this sample, the internal consistency
A group of 149 engineers were invited to participate in reliability was .85 for the full MSQ, .88 for the intrinsic
this research. The participants were civilian employees at a satisfaction subscale, and .76 for the extrinsic satisfaction
U.S. government depot, which maintains and repairs military subscale.
aircraft. Among the study group, approximately 90% were
The survey instrument also included questions about bugraduate engineers and the others were engineering techni- reaucratic obstacles to effective job performance [14]. The
cians.
questions were written in order to tap individual perceptions
Responses were obtained from 114 individuals (76% re- of the degree to which features of the organization itself
sponse rate) after on-site distribution of the questionnaires prevented effective job performance. The scale does not tap
and one follow-up request. Among the respondent group, attitudinal responses to those organizational features, however.
seven individuals (6% of respondents) were female, and nine Previous research indicated five subscales. Factor analysis in
(8%) were engineering technicians. The average age of the the present sample also suggested five factors, four of which
respondents was 35.8 years, with an average of 13.0 years of reached acceptable levels of reliability: problems with daily
full-time work experience. There was an average tenure of 7.3 operations (five items, alpha = .81), structural constraints (five
years in the current department and an average of 4.2 years items, alpha = .71), problems with the superior (three items,
in the current position.
alpha = .62), and obstacles to innovation (three items, alpha
The majority of the sample (73%) held a baccalaureate = .65).
degree in engineering, and 15% held a master’s degree in
Respondents were asked to report their most recent overengineering. Because the sample is relatively well-educated, all performance appraisal rating (a one-item measure) and
and level of education appears to be related to degree of pro- were asked for access to their personnel file to verify the
fessional orientation among engineers [23], testing hypotheses appraisal. About half of the sample granted access. The
regarding dual commitments was deemed appropriate.
correlation between the self-reported superior rating and the
rating obtained from the personnel file was .96, with only one
B. Procedure
individual reporting a rating one unit higher than the record
The research study was explained to the participants in indicated. Superiors’ ratings for the entire group were available
groups of about 30, after an introduction by the Chief Engi- with the names excluded for those individuals who did not
~
111
BAUGH AND ROBERTS: PROFESSIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AMONG ENGINEERS
permit access. A mean difference test indicated no significant
differences in ratings between the group that permitted access
and the group that did not. Thus, the self-reported ratings were
utilized to enhance the sample size.
&um
D. Analysis
Main Effects
The first two hypotheses, suggesting an interaction effect
of the two forms of commitment on job satisfaction and
rated job performance, were tested using 2 x 2 analyses of
covariance (ANCOVA’s), with tenure in the organization as
the covariate. Both the organizational commitment measure
and the professional commitment measure were dichotomized
at the median. Two separate ANCOVA’s were performed,
one using job satisfaction as the dependent variable, and the
other using rated job performance as the dependent variable.
Oneway ANCOVA, again using organizational tenure as the
covariate, was used to test for differences among cell means
following a significant interaction.
The third hypothesis, suggesting an interaction between
organizational and professional commitment on perceived bureaucratic job problems, was tested in a similar fashion. After
dichotomizing organizational commitment and professional
commitment at the median, four 2 x 2 ANCOVA’s controlling
for organizational tenure were performed. Again, oneway
ANCOVA was used as a follow-up test for any significant
interaction effects.
111. RESULTS
The analysis of covariance on job satisfaction provided
support for Hypothesis 1. (Because results for both subscales
of the MSQ were similar, only the overall results are presented
here.) Table I shows department tenure as a significant covariate. Organizational commitment has a significant main effect
and there is a significant interaction between organizational
commitment and professional commitment. Post hoc oneway
ANCOVA indicated that the highest levels of satisfaction were
reported by individuals high on both forms of commitment,
and the lowest level of satisfaction accrued to individuals
with high professional commitment and low organizational
commitment. Groups high on organizational commitment were
significantly more satisfied with the job than groups low on
organizational commitment.
The ANCOVA using rated performance as the outcome measure showed some support for Hypothesis 2. Results indicated
that, again, organizational tenure was a significant covariate.
A main effect for organizational commitment appeared, along
with a marginally significant main effect for professional
commitment. A marginally significant interaction between
organizational commitment and professional commitment also
was found (see Table 11).Post hoc oneway ANCOVA indicated
that individuals high on both forms of commitment also
obtained the highest performance ratings, and individuals
low on organizational commitment and high on professional
commitment reported the lowest performance rating.
Results for Hypothesis 3 are presented in Table 111. Tenure in
the organization was a significant covariate only for problems
with the superior. Significant main effects for organizational
TABLE I
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ON JOB SATISFACTION
Covariate
1
277.51
277.51
4.04
,047
Organizational
Commitment
1
4092.27
4092.27
59.52
,001
Professional
Commitment
1
0.78
0.78
0.01
ns
1
269.01
269.01
3.91
,051
92
6324.99
68.75
Department
Tenure
Interaction
Professional
Commitment x
Organizational
Commitment
Error
Adjusted Cell Means
(Standard Deviations in Parentheses)
Professional Commitment
High
High
Organizational
Commitment
Low
’
I
I
77.08
(7.811
73.47
(5.971
59.98
110.48)
63.10
18.651
TABLE II
ANALYSIS
OF COVARIANCE
ON RATEDJOBPERFORMANCE
df
ss
-F
SQYLCe
Covariate
Department
Tenure
1
1.72
1.72
7.41
,008
Organizational
Commitment
1
0.93
0.93
3.99
,049
Professional
Commitment
1
0.69
0.69
2.98
,087
1
0.78
0.78
3.35
,070
92
21.37
0.23
Main Effects
Interaction
Professional
Commitment x
Organizational
Commitment
Error
Adjusted Cell Means
(Standard Deviations in Parentheses)
Professional Commitment
Hiah
LOW
High
Organizational
Commitment
(0.31)
(0.491
(0.601
(0.50)
Low
commitment appeared for all four job problems: problems
with daily operations, structural constraints, problems with the
superior, and obstacles to innovation. Professional commitment made a marginally significant contribution only to the
prediction of obstacles to innovation. A significant interaction
effect was found for problems with daily operations and
obstacles to innovation, and a marginally significant interaction
112
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 41, NO. 2, MAY 1994
TABLE IV
ADJUSTEDCELL MEANSAND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS
FOR ANALYSIS
OF JOB PROBLEMS
TABLE 111
ANALYSIS
OF COVARIANCE
ON JOB PROBLEMS
Problems with Daily Operations
w
df
ss
Department
Tenure'
1
0.91
Organizational
Commitment
1
415.97
415.97
17.38
Professional
Commitment
1
0.02
0.02
0.00
ns
Interaction'
1
59.79
59.79
4.96
,028
95
1136.72
11.97
$&UE2
Error
F
0.91
0.08
,001
ss
MS
1
1.01
1.01
0.14
Organizational
Commitment
1
271.88
271.88
36.37
Professional
Commitment
1
1.11
1.11
0.15
ns
1
22.65
22.65
3.03
,085
95
710.22
7.46
F
ns
w
df
5s
Ms
1
20.04
20.04
5.58
,020
Organizational
Commitment
1
90.66
90.66
25.25
,001
Professional
Commitment
1
0.12
0.12
0.03
ns
3.08
,083
F
1
11.05
11.05
Error
95
341.08
3.59
Source
df
ss
MS
Department
Tenure'
1
0.11
0.11
0.03
ns
Organizational
Commitment
1
118.04
118.04
31 .OO
,001
Professional
Commitment
1
12.11
12.11
3.18
,078
1
22.68
22.68
5.96
,017
95
361.77
3.81
Obstacles to Innovation
Interaction'
Error
High
Low
Problems with
Daily Operations
14.64
(2.951
16.19
13.901
11.90
(3.761
10.34
(3.731
Structural
Constraints
12.22
(2.451
13.37
(3.051
9.73
(2.931
8.97
13.031
Problems with
the Superior
4.63
(1.58)
7.30
(2.071
5.38
(2.291
6.71
12.251
Obstacles to
Innovation
6.02
(2.03)
9.28
11.741
6.30
11.911
7.64
(2.141
Note: Standard deviation is in parentheses under the adjusted cell mean
IV. DISCUSSION
Department
Tenure'
Interaction'
Low
,001
Problems with the Superior
Source
High
w
df
Department
Tenure'
Interaction2
LOW
Organizational Commitment
Structural Constraints
Error
Professional Commitment
High
ns
F
'Covariate
'Interaction of the two main effects: Organizational Commitment and Professional
Commitment
(b)
effect was obtained for structural constraints and problems
with the superior. Post hoc ANCOVA's indicated that in all
cases the group low on organizational commitment but high on
professional commitment reported the most difficulty with job
problems. Table IV shows the adjusted cell means for these
analyses.
This study suggests that the relationship between organizational and professional commitment may be complementary,
rather than conflicting or mutually exclusive. This result was
anticipated because high job performance for individuals high
on both commitments has been demonstrated previously in
the literature [9].
We may speculate as to reasons for the complementary
relationship. Organizational commitment may serve as a motivational factor for higher job performance. Professional commitment may represent a capability factor. Engineers high on
this factor are more likely to stay current in their profession
and therefore will be more capable of job contributions. Or
perhaps professional commitment is a second motivational
factor, leading engineers to strive for high quality engineering
work. These combinations of motivation and ability may result
in the higher levels of performance found in this study.
Previous studies have not reported that enhanced satisfaction
is associated with high professional and organizational commitment. This effect was found for both intrinsic and extrinsic
satisfaction subscales, as well as for the overall satisfaction
scale, which was reported here. Enhanced satisfaction may
be attributed to the opportunity to use advanced skills (a
professional factor) in a desirable setting (an organizational
factor).
Other results indicate that high professional commitment,
taken alone, does not lead to increased sensitivity to bureaucratic obstacles to performance. This relationship has been
suggested in previous research, but was not found in this
study. High professional commitment coupled with low organizational commitment, however, tended to result in greater
perceptions of bureaucratic problems. It appears that high
organizational commitment counteracts the reduced tolerance
113
BAUGH AND ROBERTS: PROFESSIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AMONG ENGINEERS
for bureaucracy suggested for high professionally committed
engineers [24].
The strongest result associated bureaucratic problems with
organizational commitment. Individuals with high organizational commitment perceived fewer job problems. Perhaps
individuals with high organizational commitment were better prepared to avoid, overlook, or mitigate job difficulties,
or perhaps the reverse was true for individuals with low
organizational commitment.
Professional and organizational commitment jointly affected
perceived job problems, however, particularly for problems
with day-to-day work process and for initiating change or
innovation in the organization. That is, if high levels of
professional commitment are not supplemented by high levels
of commitment to the organization, it appears that frustration
may be the result. The heightened sensitivity to bureaucratic
annoyances was predicted for this group based on the potential
conflict in the role requirements. These results suggest that
professional commitment will have more positive effects on
both job satisfaction and job performance in settings where
organizational and professional role requirements are more
congruent. These findings are consistent with results reported
by Aranya and Ferris [2] for accountants.
The significance of tenure in the work organization should
not be overlooked. The importance of the tenure variable
suggests that engineers do adapt to their organizational environment over time. Both job satisfaction and rated job
performance were positively associated with increasing tenure,
suggesting that an engineer becomes more valuable to the
employing organization over time. But problems with the
superior also increased with increasing tenure, suggesting that
length of service does not have a uniformly positive effect.
Actions on the part of the supervisor, then, can be suggested in
order to ensure that the positive effects of organizational tenure
are not attenuated by supervisory behavior. This suggestion
is strengthened by the fact that the professional commitment
that engineers have leads them to value autonomy in their
work, which may result in conflicts with the superior. Thus,
managementlsupervisory action can help to align and maintain
organizational and professional role requirements to a greater
degree.
V. CONCLUSION
These results indicate that it is wise for organizations to encourage engineering professionals to be both organizationally
and professionally committed. Job satisfaction and to some
extent job performance will be somewhat improved by minimizing the effects of daily bureaucratic hassles, particularly
for high professionally committed engineers.
Professional commitment is enhanced by encouraging employees to remain professionally and technically active [5].
Organizational support for professional growth will serve to
bring organizational and professional role requirements closer
together. This suggests that the organization should have
a process for encouraging, planning, and investing in the
engineer’s professional development. Enhanced professional
investment may lead to greater organizational commitment as
well, as the role requirements for the two roles are brought
closer together. This would represent the best possible outcome for the organization; enhancement of both satisfaction
and performance for its engineers. There may also be other
organizational benefits of role congruency, such as reduced
turnover, greater creativity, more cooperation (particularly
across discipline specialties), more volunteerism, and more
time devoted to the productive work of the organization.
The demands of increasing competition, increasing levels
of education, and declining organizational loyalty require
consideration of multiple commitments and job problems
experienced by engineers. Organizations seeking enhanced
performance and satisfaction from engineers must take specific
actions to improve professional loyalty, to build organizational
loyalty, and to mitigate job problems.
REFERENCES
K. 0. Alexander, “Scientists, engineers, and the organization of work,”
American J. Economics and Sociology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 51-66, 1981.
N. Aranya and K. Ferris, “A re-examination of accountants’
organizational-professional conflict,” The Accounting Rev., vol. 59,
no. 1, pp. 1-15, 1984.
N. Aranya, T. Kushnir, and A. Valency, “Organizational commitment
in a male-dominated profession,” Human Relations, vol. 39, no. 5, pp.
433-448, 1986.
L. Bailyn and J. Lynch, “Engineering as a life-long career: Its meaning,
its satisfactions, its difficulties,” J. Occupational Behaviour, vol. 4, no.
2, pp. 263-283, 1983.
K. M. Bartol, “Professionalism as a predictor of organizational commitment, role stress, and turnover: A multidimensional approach,” Academy
of Manage. J., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 815-821, 1979.
S. G. Baugh and N. Aaron, “The effects of tenure as a moderator of the
organizational assimilation process,” in Sourhem Manage. Assoc. Proc.,
1992, pp. 247-250.
J. R. Comwall and A. J. Grimes, “Cosmopolitan-local: A cross-lagged
correlation analysis of the relationship between professional role orientations and behaviors in an academic profession,” Human Relations,
vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 281-298, 1987.
A. I. Goldberg, “The relevance of cosmopolitadlocal orientations to
professional values and behavior,” Sociology of Work and Occupations,
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 331-357, 1976.
L. C. Goldberg, F. Baker, and A. H. Rubenstein, “Local-cosmopolitan:
Unidimensional or multidimensional?” American J. Sociology, vol. 70,
no. 4, pp. 704-710, 1965.
A. W. Gouldner, “Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of
latent social roles-I,” Admin. Sci. Q., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 281-306, 1957.
A. W. Gouldner, “Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of
latent social roles-11,’’ Admin. Sci. Q., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 444-480, 1958.
G . B. Graen, Unwritten Rules For Your Career: I5 Secrets For FastTrack Success. New York Wiley, 1989.
G. Graen, “Role-making processes within complex organizations,” in
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, M. D. Dunnette,
ed. New York: Wiley, 1976, pp. 1201-1245.
G. Graen and J. F. Cashman, “A role-making model of leadership in
formal organizations,” in Leadership Frontiers, J. G. Hunt and L. L.
Larsen, eds. Kent, OH: Kent State Univ. Press, 143-166, 1975.
C. N. Greene, “Identification modes of professionals: Relationship with
formalization, role strain, and alienation,” Academy of Manage. J., vol.
21, no. 3, pp. 486-492, 1978.
J. H. Greenhaus, Career Management. Chicago, IL: Dryden Press,
1987.
R. H. Hall, “Professionalization and bureaucratization,” American Sociological Rev., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 92-104, 1968.
J. B. Herman and C. L. H u h , “Studying organizational attitudes
from individual and organizational frames of reference,” Organizational
Behavior and Human P e r f o m n c e , vol. 8, no. I, pp. 84-108, 1973.
J. P. Howell and P. W. Dorfman, “Leadership and substitutes for
leadership among professional and nonprofessional workers,” J. Applied
Behavioral Science, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 29-46, 1986.
L. G. Hrebiniak and J. A. Alutto, “Personal and role-related factors in
the development of organizational commitment,” Admin. Sci. Q., vol.
17, no. 4, pp. 555-572, 1972.
114
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 41, NO. 2, MAY 1994
[21] R. Katz, “The influence of job longevity on employee reactions to task
characteristics,” Human Relations, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 703-725, 1978.
[22] N. J. Kemp and J. D. Cook, “Job longevity and growth need strength as
joint moderators of the task design-job satisfaction relationship.” Human
Relations, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 883-898, 1983.
[23] S. Kerr and J. M. Jermier, “Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning
and measurement,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 375-403, 1978.
[24] S. Kerr, M. A. Von Glinow and J. Schriesheim, “Issues in the study of
‘professionals’ in organizations: The case of engineers and scientists,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 18, no. 2, pp.
329-345, 1977.
[25] S. W. J. Kozlowski and B. M. Hults, “Joint moderation of the relation
between task complexity and job performance for engineers,” J. Appl.
Psychology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 196202, 1986.
[26] T. R. La Porte, “Conditions of strain and accommodation in industrial
research organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 10, no.
1, pp. 19-38, 1965.
[27] S. M. Lee, “Organizational identification of scientists,” Academy of
Manage. J., vol. 12, pp. 327-337, 1969.
[28] S. M. Lee, “An empirical analysis of organizational identification,”
Academy of Manage. J., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 213-226, 1971.
[29] G. A. Miller, “Professionals in bureaucracy: Alienation among industrial
scientists and engineers,” American Sociological Rev., vol. 32, pp.
755-768, 1967.
[30] P. C. Morrow and R. E. Wirth, “Work commitment among salaried
professionals,” J. Vocational Behavior, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 40-56, 1989.
[31] R. Mowday, R. Steers, and L. Porter, Employee-Organization Linkages:
The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New
York Academic Press, 1982.
[32] D. W. Organ and C. N. Greene, “The effects of formalization on
professional involvement: A compensatory process approach,” Admin.
Sci. Q., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 237-252, 1981.
[33] L. H. Peters and E. J. O’Connor, “Situational constraints and work
outcomes: The influence of a frequently overlooked construct,” Academy
ofManage. Rev., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 391-397, 1980.
[34] P. M. Podsakoff, L. J. Williams, and W. D. Todor, “Effects of organizational formalization on alienation among professionals and nonprofessionals,” Academy of Manage. J., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 820-831,
1986.
[35] J. A. Raelin, “The basis for the professional’s resistance to managerial
control,” Human Resounre Manage., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 147-175, 1985.
[36] T. Rotundi, Jr., “Organizational identification: Issues and implications,”
Orgnnizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.
95-109, 1975.
[37] P. C. Smith, L. N. Kendall and C. L. Hulin, The Measurement of
Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago, I L Rand McNally,
1969.
[38] J. E. Sorenson and T. L. Sorenson, “The conflict of professionals in
bureaucratic organizations,” Admin. Sci. Q., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 98-106,
1974.
[39] B. M. Staw, “Escalation of commitment to a course of action,” Academy
of Manage. Rev., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 577-587, 1981.
[40] D. J. Weiss, R. V. Dawis, G. W. England, and L. H. Lofquist, Manualfor
the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. of
Minnesota. 1967.
S. Gayle Baugh received the M. B. A. and Ph.
D. degrees in management from the University of
Cincinnati.
She is currently an Assistant Professor of management at the University of West Florida, where
she teaches in the areas of organizational behavior
and operations management. She has done research
and consulting with the New York State govenment and with local organizations in Pensacola, FL.
Her current research interests are in the areas of
organizational commitment and team development
processes. She has published and presented research in these areas at the
Academy of Management and the Southern Management Association.
Dr. Baugh is a member of the Academy of Management and the American
Psychological Association.
Ralph M. Roberts received the B. M. E. degree
from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the
M. B. A. and Ph. D degrees in business administration from the University of Alabama.
His
work experience includes NASA, U.S. Gypsum
Company, and Professor and Chair, Department of
Management, University of West Florida. He has
consulted frequently and served in several organizations including the Association for Busin ess
Simulation and Experimental Learning, the Southem Management Association, and the Decision Sciences Institute. He is an editorial board member for Information Resources
Management Journal. His current research interests are management of
engineers, subordinate perception of leadership style, and organizational
simulations as teaching devices.
Dr. Roberts is a member of the Southem Management Association, the
Association for Business Simulation and Experimental Learning, and the
Society for Business Ethics.