From static to dynamic perspective of behavior: case of organizational
commitment
Setyabudi Indartono
Doctoral Candidate of Business Administration Department,
National Central University Taiwan.
Lecturer of Management Department, Yogyakarta state University
Yogyakarta Indonesia,
e-mail : 964401605@cc.ncu.edu.tw; Setyabudi_indartono@uny.ac.id
Abstract—Dynamic point of view attractively has been
proposed in few studies. Organizations and their member
actions are viewed as dynamic behaviors. They can change
anytime begin to look for advantages and better
opportunities elsewhere. Organizational at the firm level
change, expand, and blend their strategies, from more than
one pure strategic group to win the market. Workers as
individual level might change their behavior based on their
short-term opportunities i.e., manipulation action in the
workplace based on their different perceptions, attitudes,
and expectations. This paper proposed changing of workers
commitment at the dynamics working environments based
on theory of equity. Although, dynamic point of view
attractively has been proposed in few studies, scholars
argued that both workers change their behaviors anytime to
looking for better advantages and opportunities. Recent
conceptual critique of commitment model suggested for
further investigation on the consistencies of both empirical
and theoretical approach to strengthen the evidences on
worker’s commitment antecedent from a dynamic
perspectives. Thus, this study investigates organizational
commitment represent the dynamic of behavior.
Keywords- organizational commitment, dynamic behavior.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Commitment is a common and important construct in
behavioral studies. Numerous studies have investigated
factors that influence commitment both at individual and
organizational level, such as individual characteristics,
culture, and human resource policy in practice (Lok and
Crawford, 2001; Gifford et al, 2002; Rashid et al., 2003;
Eaton, 2003). However, it is difficult to generalize such
findings in different contexts (Lok and Crawford, 2001;
Meyer et al, 2002; Rashid et al., 2003). At the beginning,
Meyer et al, (1993) distinguished the constructs of
commitment antecedents into three basic major forms i.e.,
emotional attachment and belief, perceived economic
value, and ethical reasons of obligation to organization.
However, recent conceptual critique of commitment model
by Solinger at al (2008) invited further investigation on the
consistencies of both empirical and theoretical approach of
commitment phenomenon. Few studies on employee
commitment were able to explain its phenomenon clearly
(Meyer et al, 2002; Rashid et al., 2003; Lok and Crawford,
2001). However, there are no consensus has been reached
regarding consistent related factors that constitute
commitment. Accordingly, in depth investigations on the
phenomena of commitment were needed.
Previous studies on commitment assumed that
employees and their environment were static. In fact,
Desarbo et al, (2008), Schalk (1997) and Alasdair (2008)
noted that organizations and their member behaviors were
change. Thus, previous investigations on commitment
model seem to fail in analysis from both empirical and
theoretical viewpoint. They cannot explain the basic forms
of commitment consistently, and therefore the theoretical
contribution is constrained. Accordingly, researchers have
spent considerable effort attempting to develop and test the
models of commitment phenomenon assumed that
environment was always change. These behavioral
changes may explain in several studies. Perish (2008)
argued that based on short-term opportunities, workers
may change their wants, needs and ought to, and thus
influence their behavior at workplace. Although the real
phenomenon has not been explained successfully, Cicekli
(2008) proposed the opportunity for promotion and
development proposed a phenomenon of commitment.
Whereas, Desarbo (2008) proposed that at organizational
level, firm’s strategies also change, by blending their
strategies from more than one pure strategic group in order
to win the market competition. Thus, this study was a
further suggestion to reconcile conceptual approaches on
employee commitment phenomenon. . According to equity
theory, individuals modify their behavior based on their
perceptions of fair treatment, i.e., how one perceives the
ratio of his or her inputs to his or her outcomes to be
equivalent to those around him or her. It was proposed that
base on individual and environmental change, commitment
may have limitation area of change acceptance.
II.
THE NATURE OF DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR
Dynamic point of view attractively has been proposed
in few studies. Organizations and their member actions are
viewed as dynamic behaviors (Schalk, 1997; Desarbo et al,
2008; Alasdair, 2008). They can change anytime begin to
look for advantages and better opportunities elsewhere
(Cool et al, 1987). At organizational level, firms try to
apply unique strategic postures so as to reach more market
structures (Cool et al, 1987). They change, expand, and
blend their strategies, from more than one pure strategic
group to win the market competition (Desarbo, 2008). For
example, at the beginning firms may apply defensive
system strategy; and the next stage, the firms go on to the
offensive strategy (Land, 2004). They change their
strategies, dynamically. Since Hunt, M. (1972) found the
movement of firms strategies, Porter, M. (1980) developed
the concept and applied it within his overall system of
strategic analysis. Hodgkinson G.P. (1997) originally
analyzed the intra-industry variations in a competitive
behavior and performance of firms. Switching strategy of
firm, may caused business environment pressure or the
demand of firm accelerations. Moreover, Cool et al (1987)
empirically identified switching of firm’s strategy within
different periods.
At the individual level, based on equity theory, workers
might change their behavior depending on external
offering or their own self desires. For example, Perish
(2008) argued that based on their short-term opportunities,
workers may change their wants and needs, thus
influencing their working behavior. If the situation at the
workplace plays opportunistic behaviors (Judge, 2007),
i.e., manipulation action in the workplace (Kacmar &
Carlson, 1997) workers often respond differently. Desires
of workers direct them to look for opportunities, for having
fair treatments from different viewpoints such as by
comparing their organization and its competitor’s
compensations (Milcovich, 1999, Rhoades et al, 2001).
They respond to external offering or their own desires
defensively, reactively or protectively, to avoid actions,
blaming, or changes (Judge, 2007). Thus, worker behavior
might change if political behaviors emanate or they feel
unfairly treated (Hochwarter, 2003; Valle & Perrewe,
2000). There is further feedback based on their different
perceptions (Lynch, 1999), attitudes (Martin 2006), and
expectations (Debra, 2008).
III.
COMMITMENT WITHIN DYNAMIC SITUATION
Correlation and effect between organizational and
individual levels is known to reverse each other. Porras
and Robertson (1992) indicated that behavioral change at
the individual employee level is essential to organizational
change. Otherwise Antoni (2004) suggested that one has to
change their beliefs on the organizational membership,
which thus shape their behavior, in order to support
sustainable organizational change. Elias (2009) noted that
organizations always continue to make adjustments and
modifications at amazing rate, which in turn has effects on
the workers. In order of commitment of workers, it may
change as a consequence of different patterns in the
dynamic psychological contract and thus the new deal of
acceptance has to be created (Schalk, 1997). This new
balance of new deal is created as a reflection of input and
output ratio from employee's rewards and their effort at
work. Accordingly, both change in organization and
individual may influence on the commitment of worker
within certain limits of a band of acceptance and tolerance
limit.
Empirically, commitment was influenced by individual
demographics and expectations, and working conditions,
(Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Martin,
2008). Whereas equity theory proposes that treating people
fairly causes them to be motivated. Equity theory
introduces the concept of social comparison, whereby
employees evaluate their own input/output ratio based on
comparing it with that of other employees (Carrell &
Dittrich, 1978; Judge, 2007). Employees who perceive
inequity will seek to reduce it, either by distorting inputs
and/or outcomes in their own minds, directly altering
inputs and/or outcomes, or leaving the organization. Thus,
the theory has wide-reaching implications for employee
morale, efficiency, productivity, and turnover. O’Driscall
et al (2006) indicated that employees still have
commitment to the organization as far as the band of
tolerance and acceptance is concerned. This finding was
supported by Elias’ (2009) empirical study which proposed
that attitude toward environment change create an effect
on commitment. This empirical finding showed that
workers’ commitment still existed within turbulence
conditions of technology, autonomy, and participative
decision making. Some individuals will welcome the
alteration because it provides opportunities to broaden
their professional horizons and fulfills their growth needs,
whereas others will dread change because the
implementation of such change may require extra efforts
and runs counter to their external motives for employment.
Therefore based on equity theory and commitment
phenomena on the change environment this study proposed
that: worker’s commitment is always within their tolerance
and acceptance band of equity.
IV.
CONCLUSION
A. Theoretical implication
The current study expanded previous perspective on
the investigation of commitment, has implications at least
on several points. Dynamic point of view was able to
provide new approach to commitment investigation than
the previous static perspective, with better rational
explanations. Work environment was acknowledged,
commonly changes both at organizational and individual
level. Based in equity theory explains how employees
respond to situations in which they believe they are being
under- or over-rewarded compared with a referent
individual carrying out similar tasks, workers always try to
gain better advantages than before and past experiences.
As a result, they try to change and grow, within the process
to settle towards in other comfort zone situation (Alasdair,
2008, Perish, 2008). New basic forms of commitment
phenomenon were found. They consist of tolerance and
acceptance band, opportunity and extra effort, and new
deal or balance agreements. The consistent investigation of
dynamic point of view will be able to ground the theory of
dynamic perspective in commitment dynamics, and
eliminate the previous static perspective one.
B. Limitation and future research direction
Notwithstanding these contributions, this study has
several limitations. However, it is an open question as to
whether these results can be applied on different broader
coverage such as external organizational dynamics,
specifics peers worker, leader and subordinates dynamics,
and specifics organizational level changes.
Risk taker consequence was missed in investigation.
Risk taker behavior is commonly known as a specific
worker behavior. They will take opportunities on work.
Investigation on risk taker behavior intensity prediction
was able to distinguish the different effects of
commitment. Similarly, Hofstadter’s dimensions, or
worker demographics perceptions, was out of investigation
as well as specifics offers. Different values and
characteristics of workers were strongly predicted to relate
to commitment differently. Additional longitudinal studies
are needed to compare this finding. It is also useful to
explain the prediction of commitment changes and
conclusion. The sub conditions workers on profit versus
non-profit organizations, private versus public sectors, and
home versus host country of strategic perspectives should
become future attractive investigations.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
Alasdair, Antony; Kenneth, White (2008), From Comfort Zone to
Performance Management Understanding development and
performance.
Antoni, C. H., 2004, Research note: A motivational
perspective on change processes and outcomes, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13: 197-216.
Brian K Miller; Kay McGlashan Nicols, 2008, Politics and
Justice: A Mediated Moderation Model, Journal of Managerial
Issues, 20(2), 214.
Cicekli, Elif , 2008, The Opportunity Model of Organizational
Commitment, The Business Review, 10(2).
Cool, Karel O.; Schendel, Dan, 1987, Strategic Group Formation
and Performance: The Case of the U.S. Pharmaceutical industry,
Management Science; 33, 9; pg. 1102
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. 1997,
The relationship of organizational politics and support to work
behaviors, attitudes, and stress, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 159–180.
Debra R. Comer, Gina Vega, 2008, Using the PET Assessment
Instrument to Help Students Identify Factors that Could Impede
Moral Behavior, Journal of Business Ethics 77:129–145
Desarbo, wayne, s and Rajdeep, greewal (2008), Hybrid
Strategic group, Strategic Management Journal, 29: 293–317
Eaton, S. C., 2003, If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies,
Organizational Commitment, and Perceived Performance.
Industrial Relations, 42(2), 145-167.
Elias, Steven M, 2009, Employee Commitment in Times of
Change Assessing the Importance of Attitudes toward
Organizational Change, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 1,
37-55.
Gifford, B. D., Zammuto, R. F., Goodman, E. A., and Hill, K. S.,
2002, The Relationship between Hospital Unit Culture and
Nurses’ Quality of Work Life, Journal of Healthcare
Management, 47(1), 13-26.
Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M.,
2000,Perceptions of organizational politics as a moderator of the
relationship between consciousness and job performance, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85, 472–478
Hodgkinson, G.P., 1997, The Cognitive Analysis of Competitive
Structures: A Review and Critique, Human Relations, 50 (6),
625-654.
Hopkins, Sharon M, Weathington, Bart L, 2006, The
Relationships Between Justice Perceptions, Trust, and Employee
Attitudes in a Downsized Organization, The Journal of
Psychology, 140(5), 22: 477.
Hunt, M., 1972, Competition in the Major Home Appliance
Industry, doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Judge, 2007, Organizational Behavior, Prantice hall.
Kacmar, K Michele, Carlson, Dawn S, 1997, Perceptions of
ethics across situations: A view through three different lenses,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 16, Iss 2; p 147.
Kacmar, K. M. and R. A. Baron: 1999, ‘Organizational Politics,
The State of the Field, Links to Related Processes, and an Agenda
for Future Research’, in G. R. Ferris (ed.), Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, Vol. 17 (JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT), pp. 1–39.
Land, Thomas T., 2004, Offense And Defense, Quality Progress;
37, 1; pg. 50.
Lemons, Mary A , Jones, Coy A, 2001, Procedural justice in
promotion decisions: Using perceptions of fairness to build
employee commitment, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(4),
13: 268.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J., 2001, Antecedents of Organizational
Commitment and the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594-613.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L.,
2002, Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and
Consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Meyer, J.P. Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A, 1993, Commitment to
organizations and occupation: extension and test of a three
component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4),538-551.
Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J.M. 1999, Compensation, 6th Ed.
McGraw- Hill.
N'Goala, Gilles 2007, Customer switching resistance (CSR); The
effects of perceived equity, trust and relationship commitment,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5); 510
Nye, L.G., Witt, L.A., 1993, Dimensionality and construct
validity of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS),
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 821–829.
O'Driscoll, Michael P, Pierce, Jon L., Coghlan, Ann-Marie, 2006,
The Psychology of Ownership: work environment structure,
organizational commitment and citizenship behavior, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 31, Iss. 3; pg. 388, 29 pgs.
Parish, Janet Turner, Cadwallader, Susan, Busch, Paul, 2008,
Want to, need to, ought to: employee commitment to
organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 21(1); 32.
Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. 1992. Organizational
development: Theory, practice, and research. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd ed.): 3. 719-822. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologist Press.
Porter, M., 1980, Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York
Powell, Anne, Galvin, John, Piccoli, Gabriele, 2006 Antecedents
to team member commitment from near and far; A comparison
between collocated and virtual teams, Information Technology &
People,19(4); 299
Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M., and Johari, J., 2003 The
Influence of Corporate Culture and Organizational Commitment
on Performance, Journal of Management Development, 22(8),
708-728.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S., 2001, Affective
commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived
organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5),
825–836.
Roberts, James A, Coulson, Kevin R, Chonko, Lawrence B, 1999,
Salesperson perceptions of equity and justice and their impact on
organizational commitment and intent to turnover, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(1); 16: 1.
Schalk, Rene; Freese, Charissa, 1997, New Facets of
Commitment in Response to Organizational Change: Research
Trend and the Dutch experience, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 1997; pg. 107.
Solinger, Omar N, olffen, Wodd van, Roe, Robert A., 2008,
Beyond the Three-Component Model of Organizational
Commitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 93, No. 1, 7083.
Tansky, Judith W, Gallagher, Daniel G, Wetzel, Kurt W 1997,
The effect of demographics, work status, and relative equity on
organizational commitment: Looking among part-time workers,
Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration,
14(3);12:315.
Valle, M. and P.L. Perewe, 2000, Do politics perception related to
political behavior?, Human relation, 53, 359-386
Vigoda, E., 2000b, Organizational politics, job attitudes, and
work outcomes: exploration and implications for the public
sector, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 326-47.
Vigoda, E.,2000a, Internal politics in public administration
systems, Public Personnel Management, 29,185-210.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Vinarski-Peretz, H., & Ben-Zion, E. 2003,
Politics and image in the organizational landscape, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 18, 764–787.