Perceptions of Organizational Context and Job Attitudes:
The Mediating Effect of Organizational Identification
Hang-yue Ngo
Department of Management
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Raymond Loi
Faculty of Business Administration
University of Macau
Macau
Sharon Foley
School of Economics and Management
Tsinghua University
China
Xiaoming Zheng
School of Economics and Management
Tsinghua University
China
Lingqing Zhang
Department of Management
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Accepted by Asia Pacific Journal of Management
Please do not cite and quote without permission of the authors
1
Perceptions of Organizational Context and Job Attitudes:
The Mediating Effect of Organizational Identification
Abstract
Informed by social exchange theory and social identity theory, we developed a
conceptual model that examines the mediating role of organizational identification in
the relationship between employees’ perceptions of organizational context and their
job attitudes. In our model, the antecedents include perceived organizational support
(POS), procedural justice, and perceived job insecurity. The outcome variables consist
of affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions to leave. Our
respondents were 591 workers employed in three different firms in China. The results
of regression analyses showed that employees’ job attitudes are affected by their
perceptions of organizational context and organizational identification. Further,
organizational identification was found to mediate the effects of POS on the outcome
variables.
Keywords: organizational identification; Chinese employees; perceived
organizational support; job attitudes; job insecurity; procedural justice
2
During the last two decades, there has been increasing research on employees’
organizational identification, particularly in the areas of human resource management
and organizational behavior (e.g., Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000; Edwards, 2009;
Haslam, 2004). Mael and Ashforth (1992) defined organizational identification as “the
perceived oneness with an organization and the experience of the organization’s
success and failure as one’s own”. In general, the more the employees identify with
their working organization, the more they will be ready to devote their efforts to, and
be involved in, the organization (Baruch & Cohen, 2007). Organizational
identification has been found to be associated with a broad array of individual-level
outcomes such as job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment,
workers’ cooperation, turnover intentions, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB),
and work performance (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Riketta, 2005; Van Dick,
2004). Although our understanding of the nature and consequences of organizational
identification has been enhanced, a few research gaps still exist.
First of all, most of the previous studies on organizational identification were
conducted in a Western setting. Because of cultural differences, the results of these
studies may not be generalized to countries outside the West. For example, in Asian
countries that are characterized by collectivism, employees would be more identified
with their organization than their Western counterparts (Foley, Ngo, & Loi, 2006).
3
The influence of organizational identification on individuals’ work attitudes and
behaviors are likely to be different in these countries too. Given that insufficient
research has been conducted in a non-Western context, we attempt to fill this void by
conducting an empirical study in China.
Second, although several organization-level variables (e.g., positive
organizational attributes, organizational communication, and work-related support)
have been identified as antecedents of an employee’s organizational identification
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Chreim, 2002; Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001),
little is known about the impact of employees’ perceived job insecurity on
organizational identification. When individuals perceive more job insecurity, they
tend to re-assess their existing relationship with the employer and adjust their work
attitudes and behaviors accordingly (Wong, Ngo, & Lui, 2005). Nowadays, as more
and more employees feel insecure about the future employment due to organizational
restructuring, downsizing, outsourcing, bankruptcy, mergers, and acquisitions (Sverke,
Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002), it is important to investigate how the perception of job
insecurity among employees affects their identification with the organization. Such an
investigation will contribute to the literature on job insecurity.
Third, while most research considered organizational identification either as a
predictor or an outcome variable, this construct may also act as a mediator. To the best
4
of our knowledge, only a few studies (e.g., Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006) have
explored its possible mediating role. We argue that organizational identification may
serve as a mechanism through which several salient contextual factors in the
workplace affect the job attitudes of employees.
To fill the above research gaps, we attempt to explore the relationships among
employees’ perceptions of organizational context, organizational identification, and
job attitudes. Informed by social exchange theory and social identity theory, we
develop and test a conceptual model as summarized in Figure 1. In this model, we
consider perceived organizational support (POS), procedural justice, and perceived
job insecurity as antecedents, while employees’ affective organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, and intentions to leave are considered as outcomes. Organizational
identification is viewed as a mediator that links the above variables together. Several
hypotheses are formulated and tested with a data set collected from 591 employees
working in three different firms in China.
(Figure 1 is about here)
Literature Review
How individuals perceive their work context is critical in shaping their job attitudes
and behaviors (Johns, 2006; Rosen et al., 2009). Among the various aspects of work
context, we highlight three organizational factors that are thought to affect the level of
5
identification the employees have with their organization. These factors pertain to
what the employers offer for their employees, including job-related support, fairness
at work, and job security. Arguably, employees’ evaluation of these factors determines
their attitudinal and behavioral reactions towards their employing organization. Below
we review these factors respectively, and then discuss their impacts in light of social
exchange theory and social identity theory.
The first factor, POS, refers to “employees’ global beliefs concerning the extent
to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”
(Eisenberger et al., 1986: 501). To employees, it signifies the organization’s readiness
to reward their increased work efforts and provide assistance in order to carry out
their job duties effectively (Loi, Ngo, & Foley, 2006). There has been considerable
evidence of the effects of POS on important work outcomes such as increased
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, in-role and extra-role performance, and
reduced turnover intentions (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Rhoades
& Eisenberger, 2002).
The second factor is procedural justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of
the procedures by which outcomes are determined (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Foley, Ngo,
and Wong (2005) pointed out that procedural justice constitutes both an important
determinant of work attitudes and a predictor of employee reactions, such as how
6
individuals evaluate their workplace experiences. Previous studies have consistently
shown the substantial effects of procedural justice on job attitudes and work behaviors
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; DeWitt, Trevino, & Mollica,
1998).
The third factor is perceived job insecurity, which is generally defined as the
perceived absence of stability and continuance of one’s employment with an
organization (Probst, 2003). Job insecurity is often viewed as a job stressor leading to
some undesirable attitudinal reactions among employees (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko,
1989; Staufenbiel & König, 2009). In a meta-analysis, Sverke et al. (2002)
demonstrated that perceived job insecurity was negatively associated with
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, trust in organization, and job
involvement, and was positively associated with turnover intentions.
The impacts of the above perceptual variables on employees’ job attitudes can
be explained by social exchange theory. This theory postulates that when a person
does a favor for another, the recipient of the favor has the obligation to reciprocate,
though the details of when and in what form are not specified (Blau, 1964). In the
organizational context, employees and their working organization are two exchange
counterparts, with employees obligated to repay favorable benefits and/or valuable
treatment provided by the organization. For example, when employees receive job
7
resources and career opportunities from their organization, feelings of personal
obligation are likely to develop among them, and they will respond favorably to the
organization in the form of positive work attitudes and behaviors (Shore & Wayne,
1993). On the other hand, a possible reciprocation of employees for being neglected
and/or unfairly treated by the organization is to reduce their work efforts and
commitment, lower their in-role and extra-role performance, and even quit their jobs.
In a nutshell, a balance of contributions from the two exchange parties is critical for
the continuous social exchange between them (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005).
Social exchange theory has further suggested that resources exchanged with
another party can be collapsed into economic and socio-emotional forms (Cropanzano
& Mitchell, 2005). While economic resources (e.g., pay and bonus) tend to be
tangible, socio-emotional resources address an individual’s social and esteem needs.
When employees perceive that their working organization has provided them
socio-emotional resources such as care and support, they feel that the organization
values them and treats them with dignity (Shore et al., 2006). As a consequence, they
would engage in a long-term relationship with the organization, and psychologically
develop their readiness to care about the organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Another possible explanation for the linkage between employees’ perceptions of
8
organizational context and job attitudes is provided by social identity theory. The
theory maintains that individuals tend to classify themselves and others into various
social groups, such as organizational membership, professional affiliation, gender, and
ethnic group. Social identification refers to the perception of belongingness to a group
classification (Ashforth et al., 2008). Through it, an individual perceives himself or
herself as psychologically intertwined with the fate of the group, as sharing a common
destiny and experiencing its successes and failures (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Organizational identification is a type of social identification, where the individuals
define themselves in terms of their membership in a particular organization (Mael &
Ashforth, 1992). By identifying with their organization, individuals’ needs for
belongingness, safety, and self-enhancing can be fulfilled (Pratt, 1998).
According to social identity theory, a favorable perception of the work
environment can enhance the identification of employees with their organization
(Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994). This view is compatible with social exchange
theory, which posits that employees and their organization are engaged in exchange of
socio-emotional resources. In particular, receipt of socio-emotional resources (e.g.,
care and support) from the organization may fulfill employees’ needs for
belongingness, inclusion, safety, and recognition, which in turn generates their sense
of membership to the organization. With a higher level of organizational identification,
9
the employees are likely to express positive job attitudes. They would be more
committed to their organization, enjoy a higher level of job satisfaction, and have less
intention to leave their current employer (Riketta, 2005; Van Dick, 2004). Following
the above reasoning, organizational identification would act as an important
mechanism that links employees’ perceptions of organizational context with their job
attitudes.
We argue that social identity theory is particularly relevant in the Chinese work
setting. As pointed out by Wang et al. (2002), people who are high in collectivism like
the Chinese would have a more salient social identity defined by membership in
various social groups such as an organization. For that reason, Chinese workers tend
to identify strongly with their organization, and align their personal interests with that
of the organization. To the best of our knowledge, however, no study has examined
the antecedents and consequences of organizational identification in the Chinese
workplace.
Hypotheses Development
In our conceptual model, we include three attitudinal outcomes, namely, affective
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions to leave. These outcomes
have been studied extensively in previous OB and HRM research. Affective
10
organizational commitment refers to an individual’s emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). It
reflects the psychological bond that ties the employees to the organization. Job
satisfaction has been defined as an emotional state resulting from the evaluation or
appraisal of one’s job experiences (Locke, 1976). This construct is generally
recognized as a multi-faceted construct that includes employee feelings about a
variety of both intrinsic and extrinsic job elements (Howard & Frink, 1996).
Intentions to leave refers to an employee’s objective of voluntarily leaving his or her
organization. According to Tett and Meyer (1993), this construct can be viewed as the
last stage in a sequence of withdrawal cognitions, ranging from thinking of leaving to
intending to search for alternative employment. It is the strongest predictor of actual
turnover behavior (Rosin & Korabik, 1991).
As discussed earlier, POS reflects employee’s beliefs that their organization
values their continued membership, is committed to them, and is concerned about
their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). On the basis of the norm of reciprocity,
employees with strong perceptions of organizational support would feel obligated to
repay the organization with favorable responses and behaviors (Cohen, 2007; Loi et
al., 2006). Besides, POS can also strengthen employees’ performance-reward
expectancies leading to their positive job attitudes and behaviors (Rhoades &
11
Eisenberger, 2002). Prior studies have consistently demonstrated that POS is
associated with a variety of employee outcomes such as increased organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, career satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviors,
and reduced turnover intentions (Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009; Eisenberger et al.,
1990; Eisenberger et al., 1997). To replicate these studies, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: POS is positively related to affective organizational commitment and
job satisfaction, and negatively related to intentions to leave.
In the workplace, social exchange can be initiated by how fairly the
organization treats its employees. Specifically, procedural justice is considered as an
important organizational resource in social exchange (Loi et al., 2006). It affects
employees’ judgment of the quality of exchange relationship with their organization
(Masterson et al., 2000). Moreover, procedural justice that allows employees voice in
decision-making procedures can be viewed as an aspect of positive treatment that
signifies the organization’s concern and care for their employees (Fasolo, 1995).
According to the group value model, procedural justice communicates to the
employees that they are valued by the organization (Tyler, 1989). Therefore, similar to
the effect of POS, employees who perceive a higher level of procedural justice in the
workplace are likely to repay the organization with favorable work attitudes and
12
behaviors. Substantial evidence has indicated a positive effect of procedural justice on
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay (Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Kim & Mauborgne, 1998; Randall & Mueller,
1995). In line with previous research, we put forward the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Procedural justice is positively related to affective organizational
commitment and job satisfaction, and negatively related to
intentions to leave.
In current literature, job insecurity has been conceptualized as a source of stress
and anxiety (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984) that brings about several negative
impacts on employees’ well-being. According to psychological contract research, job
insecurity represents a violation of the psychological contract that employees have
with their employers (Rousseau, 1995; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). When the employees
perceive that their organization has failed to meet its reciprocal exchange obligations
(i.e., satisfactory performance in exchange for fair reward and continuous
employment), they are likely to display negative job attitudes and behaviors (Wong,
Ngo, & Wong, 2003). In previous studies, perceived job insecurity has been found to
be negatively associated with job performance, organizational commitment, trust in
organization, and job satisfaction, and positively associated with somatic complaints
13
and intentions to quit (Ashford et al., 1989; Reisel et al., 2007). Consistent with these
findings, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Perceived job insecurity is negatively related to affective
organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and positively
related to intentions to leave.
Sluss and Ashforth (2008: 811) suggested that “organizational identification is
more than just considering oneself a member of an organization; it is the extent to
which one includes the organization in his or her self-concept”. Vora and Kostova
(2007) viewed organizational identification as a cognitive state of psychological
attachment whereby individuals define themselves in terms of the organization and
personalize its successes and failures. The more individuals identify themselves with
the organization, the more the organization’s interests are incorporated in their
self-concept, and the more they think and act from an organization’s perspective
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994). Hence, they would develop a strong
feeling of belonging, engage in behaviors that are expected by the organization, and
are willing to devote more effort to the organization (Baruch & Cohen, 2007). In the
literature, organizational identification has been found to be associated with some
desirable employees’ outcomes, such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
14
intention to stay, and organizational citizenship behavior (Olkkonen & Lipponen,
2006; Riketta, 2005; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008; Van Dick, 2004). Therefore, we
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4: Organizational identification is positively related to affective
organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and negatively
related to intentions to leave.
As shown in our conceptual model, we argue that organizational identification
acts as a mediator that links employees’ perceptions of organizational context to their
job attitudes. Specifically, when individuals perceive their work context in a positive
manner, they would develop a stronger identification with their organization, which in
turn results in positive job attitudes. Below we discuss these mediating effects with
some theoretical justifications.
The linkage between POS and organizational identification can be established
on several grounds. First of all, POS represents a supportive work environment
through which employees perceive themselves as organizational insiders (Erdogan,
Kraimer, & Liden, 2004; Stamper & Masterson, 2002). When the organization is
perceived as being supportive to employees, according to social exchange theory, a
higher level of organizational identification will follow (Edwards, 2009). Second, as
15
suggested by Rousseau (1998), an important way for firms to foster employees’
organizational identification is to demonstrate care and support for them. When
employees feel that their organization values and appreciates them, it acts a sign of
organizational respect for them and of their high status within the organization. High
status will then enhance their identification with the organization (Tyler, 1999). Third,
Eisenberger and his colleagues (1986; 1990) contended that high POS would meet
employees’ socio-emotional needs for approval, affiliation, and esteem, and hence
promotes employees’ incorporation of organizational membership into their
self-identity. In a similar vein, Foley et al. (2006) pointed out that POS can fulfill
employees’ needs for social identity and affiliation, and thus enhance their feelings of
being the important members in the organization. This is particularly the case for
employees in a collectivistic culture (such as Chinese), who are emotionally
dependent on the organization and expect their organization to take care of their own
interests (Loi & Ngo, 2010). Based on the above arguments, we expect POS to be
positively associated with organizational identification. With a high level of
organizational identification, employees are likely to be committed more to their
organization, more satisfied with their current jobs, and have lower intentions to leave
their organization. We thus put forward the following hypothesis:
16
Hypothesis 5:
Organizational identification mediates the relationship between POS
and employees’ job attitudes including affective organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions to leave.
Procedural justice can be seen as one aspect of positive and discretionary
treatment by the organization (Loi et al., 2006), and thus it should have a similar
effect as POS in fostering the development of organizational identification among
employees. Moreover, based on the group engagement model, Olkkonen and
Lipponen (2006) argued that justice perceptions affect organizational identification
owing to the positive social-identity-relevant information that organizational justice
communicates to employees. Specifically, they pointed out that “justice
communicates to individuals that they are respected members within their group, and
that they can be proud of their group membership” (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006:
204). Through its link to these feelings of respect and pride, a higher level of
procedural justice in the organization is expected to increase employees’ identification
with their organization. In the literature, there has been some evidence of a positive
relationship between perceived procedural justice and organizational identification
(Lipponen, Olkkonen, & Moilanen, 2004; Tyler & Balder, 2000; Tyler, Degoey, &
Smith, 1996). Taken the above arguments together, it is plausible that the perception
17
of procedural justice enhances employees’ organizational identification, which in turn,
brings about positive attitudes towards their organization, such as increased
commitment, increased job satisfaction, and reduced intention to quit. The following
hypothesis is then proposed:
Hypothesis 6: Organizational identification mediates the relationship between
procedural justice and employees’ job attitudes including affective
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions to leave.
According to psychological contract theory, job insecurity represents a breach of
psychological contract that employees have with their employers, that is, an effective
violation of the quid pro quo of work in exchange for pay and continued employment
(Cuyper & De Witte, 2006; Rousseau, 1995). Under such circumstances, the
employees may express negative feelings, and reduce their trust and psychological
attachment to their employing organization (Wong et al., 2003; Wong et al., 2005). As
argued by Restubog et al. (2008), the unfavorable treatment received by the
employees, such as a loss of job security, will communicate negative identity-relevant
information about their status and prospects in the organization, which subsequently
results in lower organizational identification. Moreover, the reduction in job security
is likely to jeopardize the reputation of the organization as a responsible employer,
18
which hinders employees’ identification with it. It follows that perceived job
insecurity would be negatively associated with organizational identification. Based on
the logic discussed above, we expect perceived job insecurity undermines the
identification that employees have with their organization, and subsequently
employees lower their organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and increase
their intentions to leave. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7: Organizational identification mediates the relationship between
perceived job insecurity and employees’ job attitudes including
affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions
to leave.
Data and Method
Sample
The data for this study were collected from employees of three large companies in
China in 2008. These companies are in different industries, including energy,
telecommunication, and manufacturing of multimedia electronics. With the
permission of the senior management, we asked the HR manager of each company to
select 220 employees from one of their local units as our target respondents. The staff
in the human resource department in these companies helped us to distribute a
19
self-administered questionnaire to the selected employees, the majority of whom are
technical, marketing, and administrative staff. On the cover page of the questionnaire,
we explained the purpose of the study and assured confidentiality of responses. We
further protected the respondents’ anonymity by asking them to return the completed
questionnaire directly to us in a sealed envelope. A total of 591 questionnaires were
finally returned, yielding a response rate of 89.5%.
Of the respondents, 56.1% were male and 43.9% were female. The modal age
category was 31-40 years; 85.3% of them were in the age range of 21-40. Their
average organizational tenure was 8.98 years. As regard educational attainment,
55.5% of them had a university degree. The distribution of the respondents among the
three companies were 192 (32.5%), 203 (34.3%), and 196 (33.2%), respectively.
Measures
The questionnaires were developed using well-established scales from Western
researchers, and were then translated and administered in Chinese. Back translation
was conducted where the original English version was translated into Chinese and
then translated back into English to ensure proper translation. Respondents used
six-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 6 = “strongly agree”) to respond
to the items in the following measures, except for the control variables.
20
Perceived organizational support
This variable was measured with a short version consisting of five items selected from
the original scale of Eisenberger et al. (1986). A sample item is “Help is available
from my organization when I have a problem”. In this study, the coefficient alpha for
this scale was 0.92.
Procedural justice
A seven-item scale, adopted from Moorman (1991), was used to measure procedural
justice. A sample item is “In my organization, procedures are designed to hear the
concerns of all those affected by the personnel decision”. This scale had a coefficient
alpha of 0.95 in this study.
Perceived job insecurity
Five items were selected from Kraimer et al.’s (2005) and Oldham et al.’s (1986)
scales to measure perceived job insecurity. A sample item is “I am confident that I will
be able to work for my organization as long as I wish” (reverse coded). The scale’s
coefficient alpha was 0.84 in this study.
Organizational identification
Organizational identification was assessed with Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six-item
scale. An example of an item is “I view the organization’s successes as my successes”.
This scale had a coefficient alpha of 0.78.
21
Affective organizational commitment
We measure this variable with a shorter version consisting of four items selected from
the original affective organizational commitment scale of Allen and Meyer (1990). A
sample item is “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me”. The
coefficient alpha of this scale was 0.79.
Job satisfaction
We used the three-item scale developed by Price and Mueller (1981) to measure this
variable. A sample item is “I find real enjoyment in my job”. Coefficient alpha for this
scale was 0.86.
Intentions to leave
This variable was measured with a four-item scale developed by Rosin and Korabik
(1991). A sample item is “I have thought about leaving this organization”. The scale’s
alpha coefficient was 0.88.
Control variables
Several demographic and organizational factors were included in the statistical
analysis as control variables as they may affect employee outcomes. Gender is a
dummy variable coded 1 if the respondent is female and coded 0 if the respondent is
male. Organizational tenure was measured by the number of years the respondent
employed in his or her firm. Lastly, since the respondents from different firms may
22
differ in their perceptions of work context and job attitudes, we include two dummy
variables, firm A (i.e., energy firm) and firm B (i.e., telecommunication firm), to
capture the possible effect of such differences.
As all the information was provided by the same respondents, it is possible that
our study might suffer from the problem of common method variance. To deal with
this problem, we conducted a Harman’s single-factor test to all the measures. Seven
factors are identified that explain 70.43% of the total variance, and the first factor
accounts for 38.22%. In other words, no single factor dominates among the measures.
The items load exactly on their respective scales. In view of these results, we believe
that common method variance should not pose a serious problem in our study.
Analytical Strategy
We started with descriptive statistical analysis, followed by multiple regression
analysis to test the hypotheses. Separate analyses were conducted for affective
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions to leave, the three
dependent variables in this study. To test the mediation hypotheses (i.e. Hypotheses
5-7), we follow the procedures suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). Specifically,
four conditions must be fulfilled in order to evidence a mediating effect. First, the
independent variable must predict the dependent variable. Second, the independent
23
variable must affect the mediator. Third, the mediator must affect the dependent
variable. Finally, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable
must be reduced or eliminated after the effect of the mediator has been taken into
account.
Results
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and the zero-order correlations
among the study variables. The respondents reported a relatively high level of
rganizational identification ( x = 4.80; s.d.= 0.92), reflecting its importance in the
Chinese work setting. As expected, this variable is positively correlated with POS (r =
0.55, p < 0.01) and procedural justice (r = 0.43, p < 0.01), and negatively correlated
with perceived job insecurity (r = -0.42, p < 0.01). Its correlations with affective
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions to leave are also
significant and in the predicted direction (r = 0.55, 0.44, and -0.38, respectively).
(Table 1 is about here)
Employees in different firms may differ in their perceptions of organizational
context and job attitudes. We conducted a series of one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to examine such differences. The results are showed in Table 2.
Specifically, respondents from different firms reported different levels of POS (F =
24
7.21, p < 0.01), perceived job insecurity (F = 20.38, p < 0.01), organizational
identification (F = 19.06, p < 0.01), affective organizational commitment (F = 7.96, p
< 0.01), job satisfaction (F = 14.05, p < 0.01), and intentions to leave (F = 11.17, p <
0.01). However, they are not different in their perceptions of procedural justice (F =
1.51, n.s.).
(Table 2 is about here)
Table 3 reports the results of regression analyses. We first evaluated the effects
of control variables, then followed by those of POS, procedural justice, and perceived
job insecurity, on the outcome variables. In Model 2, POS was found to exert a
positive effect on affective organizational commitment (β = 0.27, p < 0.001). This
variable also had a positive effect on job satisfaction (β = 0.22; p < 0.001) in Model 5,
and a negative effect on intentions to leave (β = -0.19; p < 0.001) in Model 8. In view
of these findings, hypothesis 1 was supported.
(Table 3 is about here)
The results for procedural justice were similar to those for POS. This predictor
had a positive effect on affective organizational commitment (β = 0.14; p < 0.01) and
job satisfaction (β = 0.17; p < 0.001), and a negative effect on intentions to leave (β =
-0.19; p < 0.001), as shown in Models 2, 5, and 8, respectively. Hypothesis 2 was thus
supported.
25
Turning to perceived job insecurity, we found that this predictor had a
significant negative effect on both affective organizational commitment (β = -0.33; p
< 0.001) in Model 2, and job satisfaction (β = -0.27; p < 0.001) in Model 5. However,
as showed in Model 5, its effect on intentions to leave was non-significant (β = 0.01;
n.s.). Given these findings, Hypothesis 3 was partially supported.
Hypothesis 4 stated that organizational identification is positively related to
affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and is negatively related to
intentions to leave. In support of this hypothesis, we found that organizational
identification had a positive effect on affective organizational commitment (β = 0.28;
p < 0.001) and job satisfaction (β = 0.15; p < 0.001), and a negative effect on
intentions to leave (β = -0.24; p < 0.001), as shown in Models 3, 6, and 9, respectively.
To test for the mediating effect of organizational identification, we need to show
the significant effects of POS, procedural justice, and perceived job insecurity on this
variable, and thereby fulfill the second condition of mediation. Model 11 reports the
results of this part of analysis. It was found that POS (β = 0.42, p < 0.001) and
perceived job insecurity (β = -0.18, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of
organizational identification, but not for procedural justice (β = 0.06, n.s.). In other
words, the second condition of mediation is fulfilled for POS and perceived job
insecurity only.
26
It is worth noting that the first condition of mediation has been fulfilled, as
Hypotheses 1-3 were all supported in the hypothesis testing above. The third
condition of mediation has also been fulfilled, as Hypothesis 4 was confirmed above.
Now we turn to the last condition of mediation, which can be evaluated by comparing
the coefficients of independent variables in different regression models. We start with
Hypothesis 5 which states that organizational identification mediates the effect of
POS on the outcome variables. After organizational identification had entered into
Models 3, 6, and 9, the original coefficient for POS has reduced substantially. It
changed from 0.27 (p < 0.001) to 0.16 (p < 0.01) for affective organizational
commitment, from 0.22 (p < 0.001) to 0.16 (p < 0.01) for job satisfaction, and from
-0.19 (p < 0.001) to -0.09 (n.s.) for intentions to leave, respectively. These findings
indicated the mediating effect of organizational identification in the relationships
between POS and various outcomes. In other words, Hypothesis 5 had gained
empirical support.
Hypothesis 6 proposes that organizational identification mediates the
relationship between procedural justice and employees’ job attitudes. However, the
second condition of mediation (i.e., procedural justice predicts organizational
identification) was not met, as revealed in Model 11. Besides, the coefficient for
procedural justice and its level of significance did not changed much across models.
27
The inclusion of organizational identification in Models 3, 6, and 9 also failed to
reduce the original significant effects of procedural justice on the outcome variables.
Thus, hypothesis 6 was not supported by the data.
Lastly, we evaluated the mediating effect of organizational identification in the
relationships between perceived job insecurity and various job attitudes. When
organizational identification was entered into the regression models, the original
effect of perceived job insecurity on them became weaker. Specifically, its coefficient
reduced slightly from -0.33 (p < 0.001) to -0.28 (p < 0.001) for affective
organizational commitment, and from -0.27 (p < 0.001) to -0.25 (p < 0.001) for job
satisfaction. Additionally, its coefficient remains insignificant for intentions to leave
in Models 8 and 9. In view of the above results, Hypothesis 7 was not supported.
Discussion and Conclusions
A substantial body of research has examined the role played by organizational
identification in affecting employees’ work attitudes and behaviors (Ashforth et al.,
2008; Van Dick et al., 2004). The present study adds to this stream of research by
investigating the relationships among individuals’ perceptions of organizational
context, organizational identification, and job attitudes. We hypothesized that
organizational identification not only has a direct effect on affective organizational
28
commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions to leave, it also mediates the effects of
POS, procedural justice, and perceived job insecurity on these attitudinal outcomes.
By analyzing a data set collected from 591 employees working in three different
organizations in China, some new findings were obtained.
First of all, our respondents reported a relatively high level of organizational
identification. As influenced by the cultural value of collectivism and the communist
tradition, the Chinese employees are used to identifying strongly with their work
organizations (Wong et al., 2003). Consistent with our expectation, we found that
organizational identification is positively associated with affective organizational
commitment and job satisfaction, and negatively associated with intentions to leave.
Turning to its antecedents, we found that POS enhances organizational identification,
while perceived job insecurity reduces it. These findings support our prediction that
organizational identification is influenced by employees’ perceptions of organizational
context. When employees perceive their organization in a positive manner, their
identification with the organization becomes stronger. Perhaps the most important
finding of our study was that organizational identification mediates the effect of POS
on employees’ job attitudes. Taken the above results together, organizational
identification proves to be an important construct in understanding the organizational
life of Chinese workers.
29
Nevertheless, our regression analysis showed that procedural justice is not
related to organizational identification. One possible explanation is that procedural
justice fails to communicate positive social-identity-relevant information to our
respondents. In contrast to the argument of the group engagement model (Olkkonen &
Lipponen, 2006), the perception of procedural justice in the organization does not
arouse Chinese employees’ feelings of respect, pride, and belongingness, which then
leads to their identification with the organization. We suspect that cultural values,
communist ideology, and the bureaucratic structure of the Chinese enterprises may
have some impacts on the development of employees’ organizational identification.
Given the paucity of information, more research is required to investigate this issue.
In terms of contributions, our study is the first one to investigate the antecedents
and outcomes of organizational identification in the Chinese setting. The results can
be compared with those obtained in other countries, thus adding to the cross-cultural
literature on organizational behavior. Future research may explore how cultural values
affect individuals’ identification with their organizations in different countries (Foley
et al., 2006). Besides, our study evaluated the impacts of perceived organizational
context on some important attitudinal outcomes, in particular, the role played by
perceived job insecurity. The empirical evidence in our study supports the significant
effect of job insecurity on organizational identification, affective organizational
30
commitment, and job satisfaction. Similar to other countries, job insecurity has been a
main concern in China during the globalization era (Lee, Bobko, & Chen, 2006;
Wong et al., 2005). In future, more studies should focus on job insecurity as a
perceptual phenomenon to which Chinese employees respond. Last but not least, our
study indicated that organizational identification acts as a mediating variable through
which POS influences employees’ job attitudes. In other words, we have unraveled an
important mechanism behind this relationship, and thus make a significant
contribution to the literature.
Practical implications
There are also some practical implications of the present study. Given the linkage
between organizational identification and important work attitudes, managers should
pay attention to employees’ level of identification with their organization. This is
particularly important for employees in collectivistic cultures. To enhance employees’
organizational identification, managers should ensure that sufficient work-related
support and job security has been provided for them. Besides, human resource
policies and practices (e.g., training, communication, and employee involvement
programs) that can generate employees’ organizational identification should be
adopted. Given that organizational identification is strongly influenced by how
31
individuals perceive their work context, it is also critical for managers to monitor and
ensure that the employees develop and maintain positive perceptions of the
organization.
Limitations
Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, our data were
collected at one point of time. The cross-sectional design means that causality of the
variables is difficult to determine. Although we argue that organizational context
shapes employees’ organizational identification, it is also possible that employees who
strongly identify with their organization perceive their work context more positively.
Second, since all variables in this study were self-reported by the respondents, the
possibility of inflated relationships among these perceptual measures due to common
method variance cannot be totally ruled out. We have tried to deal with this issue by
performing the Harman’s one-factor test, and the results indicated that common
method variance is not a serious threat. Third, we include only a few job attitudes as
the dependent variables in our conceptual model, but not work performance and other
work-related behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior. Apart from POS,
organizational justice, and job insecurity that we focused, some other organizationlevel variables such as employment practices and corporate culture are likely to
32
impact employees’ identification with their organization, yet they are not included in
our conceptual model. Future studies should extend our model by including more
predictors and outcomes of organizational identification.
To recap, our study examined the antecedents and consequences of
organizational identification in the Chinese setting. It highlighted the role of
organizational identification in mediating the relationship between employees’
perceptions of organizational context and their work attitudes. Some new findings
have been obtained and advanced our understanding of the impacts of POS,
procedural justice, and perceived job insecurity on organizational identification and
job attitudes among Chinese employees. It is desirable to have more cross-cultural
studies in the future in order to assess the generalizability of our findings and to
extend our model.
33
References
Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E., & Dutton, J.E. 2000. Organizational identity and
identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of
Management Review, 25: 13-17.
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: 1-18.
Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Ursel, N.D. 2009. Perceived organizational support, career
satisfaction, and the retention of older workers. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 82: 201-220.
Ashford, S.J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. 1989. Content, causes, and consequences of job
insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management
Journal, 32: 803-829.
Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H., & Corley, K.G. 2008. Identification in organizations:
An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34:
325-374.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy
of Management Review, 14: 20-39.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1183.
Baruch, Y., & Cohen, A. 2007. The dynamics between organizational commitment
and professional identity formation at work. In A. Brown, S. Kirpal, & F. Rauner
(Eds.), Identities at Work: 241-260. Germany: Springer.
34
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Chreim, S. 2002. Influencing organizational identification during major change: A
communication-based perspective. Human Relations, 55: 1117-1137.
Cohen, A. 2007. Commitment before and after: An evaluation of reconceptualization
of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17:
336-354.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P.E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A
meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86:
278-321.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H., & Ng, K.Y. 2001.
Justice at the Millennium: A meta-analytic review of 24 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-445.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.
Cuyper, N.D., & Witte, H.D. 2006. The impact of job insecurity and contract type on
attitudes, well-being and behavioral contract perspective. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 395-409.
DeWitt, R.L., Trevino, L.K., & Mollica, K.A. 1998. The influence of eligibility on
employees’ reactions to voluntary workforce reductions. Journal of Management,
24: 593-613.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M., & Harquail, C.V. 1994. Organizational image and
member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.
Edwards, M.R. 2009. HR, perceived organizational support and organizational
identification: An analysis after organizational formation. Human Resource
Management Journal, 19: 91-115.
35
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. 1997. Perceived
organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82: 812-820.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71: 51-59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M.L., & Liden, R.C. 2004. Work value congruence and
intrinsic career success: The compensatory role of leader-member exchange and
perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57: 305-332.
Fasolo, P. M. 1995. Procedural justice and perceived organizational support:
Hypothesized effects on job performance. In R.S. Cropanzano & K.M. Kacmar
(Eds.), Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing Social Climate at
Work: 185-195. Westport, CT: Quorum Press.
Foley, S., Ngo, H.Y., & Loi, R. 2006. How do cultural types affect work-related
attitudes? The mediating role of perceived organizational support. International
Journal of Employment Studies, 14: 37-62.
Foley, S., Ngo, H.Y., & Wong, A. 2005. Perceptions of discrimination and justice: Are
there gender differences in outcomes? Group and Organizational Management,
30: 421-450.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. 1984. Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity.
Academy of Management Review, 9: 438-448.
Howard, J.I., & Frink, D.D. 1996. The effects of organizational restructure on
employee satisfaction. Group and Organization Management, 21: 278-303.
36
Haslam, S. A. 2004. Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy
of Management Review, 31: 396-408.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R. 1998. Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and
the knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 323-338.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2005. The role of job
security in understanding the relationship between employees' perceptions of
temporary workers and employees' performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90: 389-398.
Lee, C., Bobko, P., & Chen, Z.X. 2006. Investigation of the multinational model of
job insecurity in China and the USA. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 55: 512-540.
Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. 1998. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New
York: Plenum.
Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M.E., & Moilanen, M. 2004. Perceived procedural justice
and employee responses to an organizational merger. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 13: 391-413.
Locke, E.A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1297-1349. Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally.
Loi, R., Ngo, H.Y., & Foley, S. 2006. Linking employees’ justice perceptions to
organizational commitment and intentions to leave: The mediating role of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 79: 101-120.
37
Loi, R., & Ngo, H.Y. 2010. Mobility norms, risk aversion, and career satisfaction of
Chinese employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27: 237-255.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13: 103-123.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, M.S. 2000. Integrating justice
and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on
work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 738-748.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research,
and Application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.
Oldham, G. R., Julik, C. T., Ambrose, M. L., Stepine, L. P., & Brand, J. F. 1986.
Relations between job facet comparisons and employee relations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38: 28-47.
Olkkonen, M., & Lipponen, J. 2006. Relationships between organizational justice,
identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100: 202-215.
Pratt, M.G. 1998. To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification.
In D.A. Whetten & P.C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identify in Organizations: Building
Theory through Conversations: 171-207. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. 1981. Professional Turnover: The Case of Nurses. New
York: Spectrum.
Probst, T.M. 2003. Development and validation of the job security index and the job
38
security satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76: 451-467.
Randall, C.S., & Mueller, C.W. 1995. Extensions of justice theory: Justice evaluations
and employee’s reactions in a natural setting. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58:
178-194.
Restubog, S.L.D., Hornsey, M.J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S.R. 2008. Effects of
psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behaviour: Insights
from the group value model. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1377-1400.
Reisel, W.D., Chia, S., Maloles, III, C.M., & Slocum, Jr., J.W. 2007. The effects of job
insecurity on satisfaction and perceived organizational performance. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14: 106-116.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698-714.
Rosen, C.C., Chang, C., Johnson, R.E., & Levy, P.E. 2009. Perceptions of the
organizational context and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing
perspectives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108:
202-217.
Rosin, H.M., & Korabik, K. 1991. Workplace variables, affective responses, and
intention to leave among women managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
64: 317-330.
Riketta, M. 2005. Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 66: 358-384.
Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding
Written and Unwritten Agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39
Rousseau, D.M. 1998. The ‘problem’ of the psychological contract considered. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 19: 665-71.
Shore, L.M., & Tetrick, T. 1994. The psychological contract as an explanatory
framework in the employment relationship. In C. Cooper & D. Rousseau (Eds.),
Trends in Organizational Behavior: 91-109. New York: Wiley.
Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. 2006. Social and economic
exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36: 836-867.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior:
comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 774–780.
Sluss, D.M., & Ashforth, B.E. 2008. How relational and organizational identification
converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19: 807-823.
Stamper, C.L., & Masterson, S.S. 2002. Insider or outsider? How employee
perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23: 875-894.
Staufenbiel, T., & König, C. 2010. A model for the effects of job insecurity on
performance, turnover intention, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83: 101-117.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. 2002. No security: A meta-analysis and
review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3: 242-264.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel
Psychology, 46: 259-293.
40
Tyler, T.R. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 830-838.
Tyler, T.R. 1999. Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based
perspective. In R.I. Sutton & B.M. Staw, Greenwich (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior: 201-247. CT: JAI Press.
Tyler, T.R., & Blader, S.L. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social
Identity and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia, US: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T.R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. 1996. Understanding why the justice of group
procedures matter: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 913-930.
Van Dick, R. 2004. My job is my castle: Identification in organizational contexts.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19: 171-203.
Vora, D., & Kostova, T. 2007. A model of dual organizational identification in the
context of the multinational enterprise. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28:
327-350.
Wang, L., Bishop, J.W., Chen, X., & Scott, K.D. 2002. Collectivist orientation as a
predictor of affective organizational commitment: A study conducted in China.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10: 226-239.
Wiensenfeld, B.M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. 2001. Organizational identification
among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based
social support. Journal of Management, 27: 213-229.
Wong, Y.T., Ngo, H.Y., & Wong, C.S. 2003. Antecedents and outcomes of employees’
trust in Chinese joint ventures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20: 481-499.
Wong, Y.T., Wong, C.S., Ngo, H.Y., & Lui, H.K. 2005. Different responses to job
insecurity of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises.
41
Human Relations, 58: 1391-1481.
42
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables
Variables
x
s.d.
1. Gender (female=1)
0.44
0.50
2. Organizational tenure
8.98
7.00
-0.13*
3. Firm A
0.32
0.47
-0.00
4. Firm B
0.34
0.48
0.01
5. POS
3.65
1.21
-0.06
-0.03
0.11*
-0.15*
6. Procedural justice
3.67
1.22
-0.04
-0.01
0.07
-0.04
7. Perceived job insecurity
2.07
1.23
0.04
0.05
-0.19*
0.24*
-0.41*
-0.35*
8. Organizational identification
4.80
0.92
0.01
-0.05
0.15*
-0.25*
0.55*
0.43*
-0.42*
9. Affective organizational
commitment
4.38
1.05
-0.02
0.05
0.13*
-0.15*
0.51*
0.45*
-0.52*
0.55*
10. Job satisfaction
4.42
1.15
-0.12*
0.01
0.14*
-0.21*
0.49*
0.44*
-0.47*
0.44*
0.61*
11. Intentions to leave
2.04
1.18
-0.05
0.02
-0.12*
0.19*
-0.35*
-0.31*
0.19*
-0.38*
-0.39*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-0.03
0.49*
-0.50*
Notes:
1. *p < 0.01;
2. N ranges from 548 to 591:
3. Firm A refers to the energy firm, and Firm B refers to the telecommunication firm.
43
0.72*
-0.39*
Table 2 Results of ANOVA
Variables
Firm A
Firm B
Firm C
F ratio
POS
3.85
(1.23)
3.40
(1.26)
3.72
(1.11)
7.21*
Procedural justice
3.79
(1.23)
3.60
(1.28)
3.62
(1.13)
1.51
Perceived job
insecurity
1.73
(1.18)
2.48
(1.30)
1.98
(1.09)
20.38*
Organizational
5.00
4.49
4.93
19.06*
identification
(0.80)
(1.08)
(0.76)
4.58
4.16
4.42
(1.04)
(1.14)
(0.91)
4.66
4.09
4.54
(1.21)
(1.22)
(0.92)
1.84
2.35
1.91
(1.12)
(1.32)
(1.02)
Affective
organizational
commitment
Job satisfaction
Intentions to leave
7.96*
14.05*
11.17*
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
* p < 0.001.
Numbers in table are mean values with standard deviations in parentheses
Firm A: the energy firm; Firm B: the telecommunication firm; Firm C: the
electronics firm
44
Table 3 Results of regression analyses
Affective organizational commitment
Job satisfaction
Intentions to leave
Organizational identification
Variables
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Model 8
Model 9
Model 10
Model 11
0.01
0.04
0.02
-0.10*
-0.08*
-0.09**
-0.08*
-0.10*
-0.09*
0.02
0.05
0.15**
0.12**
0.10**
0.12*
0.11*
0.10*
-0.10*
-0.11*
-0.09
0.08
0.06
Firm A
0.04
-0.01
-0.00
0.03
-0.02
-0.01
-0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
-0.02
Firm B
-0.19*
-0.09
-0.04
-0.25***
-0.17***
-0.15**
0.23**
0.21***
0.17***
-0.25***
-0.16**
POS
0.27***
0.16**
0.22***
0.16**
-0.19***
-0.09
0.42***
Procedural justice
0.14**
0.13**
0.17***
0.16***
-0.19***
-0.17**
0.06
-0.33***
-0.28***
-0.27***
-0.25***
0.01
0.05
-0.18***
0.28***
-
0.15***
-
-0.24***
-
Gender
(female = 1)
Organizational tenure
Perceived job insecurity
Organizational
identification
Adjusted R2
F statistic
N
0.03
0.37
0.42
0.06
0.34
0.35
0.04
0.16
0.19
0.05
0.34
5.25***
46.86***
50.54***
10.03***
40.31***
37.41**
6.86***
15.27***
16.98***
7.70***
41.81***
547
547
547
546
546
546
547
547
547
553
553
Notes:
1. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Standardized coefficients are reported.
2. Firm A refers to the energy firm, and Firm B refers to the telecommunication firm.
45
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework
Antecedents
Mediator
Outcomes
Perceived
Organizational
Support
Procedural
Justice
Affective
Organizational
Commitment
Organizational
Identification
Perceived
Job
Insecurity
Job
Satisfaction
Intentions
to Leave
46