S.abirami Sundaravalli T.vijayakumar Ijaerv10n77spl - 21

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.
77 (2015)
Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm
A STUDY ON EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AND RELATIONSHIP AMONG

EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER IN AN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
1
S.Abirami Sundaravalli and 2 T.Vijayakumar
1
Research Scholor, MS University, Tirunelveli Dt, Tamilnadu, India
2
Professor & Director, SVCET, Puliangudi, Tirunelveli Dt, Tamilnadu, India.
1
phdabi@gmail.com, 2drtvk@yahoo.co.in
ABSTRACT:
Often the relationship between employees and their organizations has been described as an exchange relationship.
Though there is much evidence that individuals behave in ways that are consistent with their goals and that
information in the environment assumes meaning in part due to a persons goals. The key findings suggest that the
majority of employees has experienced contract breach. This view may also support by the managers, as
representatives of employers who further indicate that the organization, given its external pressures, is not fulfilling
its obligations to employees to the extend it could. A review of scientific literature explores how important it is to
have committed employees and describes its impact on a companys competitive advantage expressed through
customer satisfaction, productivity, low employee turnover, tolerance to changes, low absenteeism, etc. Moreover,
managing employees performance is also crucially related to the motivational theory with positive outcomes, such
as employees relations, productivity, quality of the service or product, as well as financial performance of an
organization. Besides, a number of authors have drawn attention to the need of exploring conceptually and
empirically the relationship between employee commitment and performance. Even though, research has identified
both positive and negative relationships between these two concepts, there still remain confusing points. The
attitudes, behavior and working environment affect the performance. Employers should rethink organizational
practices such as training and development to facilitate employees engaging in citizenship behavior. Employers
need to communicate to employees the reasons underlying non-fulfillment of any obligations in conjunction to
altering their delivery of others. As mentioned in the findings not only the importance of employee commitment to
the firm but also the relationship and effects it has on employees performance as a key outcome have been
identified.
Keywords: Employee commitment affective commitment, normative commitment, continuance commitment,

sustained productivity, HR practices, Employee-Employer relationship automobile Industry
Introduction
An automobile industry is a fast growing industry and enormous opportunities available for employees. The
overall performance of the organization depends on the employee commitment majority, there has been a lot of
study in the area employee commitment available but still it remains unexplored some extent and yet a general
understanding has not been developed when it comes to studies conducted at different times and in different work
environments. One of the greatest challenges face today is how to manage organizational commitment of workforce
that may be deteriorating among employees. Therefore, it has become an important area of research that how to
motivate employees which leads to job satisfaction and which ultimately improve organization's commitment.
Moreover, it has been observed many times that employees who are satisfied with their jobs are still not good
performers. This may be because of their lack of Motivation and commitment to the organization; this point of view
emphasizes the importance of the study of employee commitment and their relationship with Organization. With this
problem statement in the present study is a humble endeavor towards exploring the employee commitment by
executing an empirical survey an automobile industry.
Garbarino and Johnson (1999) offer a further refinement to the commitment-trust theory. They suggest that
commitment and trust are important in predicting future behavior of high relational (loyal and consistent)
employees, but satisfaction is a more important indicator for low relational (occasional and transactional)
employees. Thus commitment and trust are likely to be important in relationships that are characterized by mainly
186
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.77 (2015)
high relational employees. This is the case in professional service relationships, where provision of the service often
requires an in-depth knowledge of the employees. It is in this context that we explore the meaning of commitment.
There is a vast literature that considers the nature of commitment in the workplace. In particular, the organisational
behaviour literature has extensively explored commitment of employees (e.g. Kanter 1968; Porter, Steers, Mowday
and Boulian 1974; Meyer and Allen 1997). One important distinction that has been made, is between attitudinal and
behavioural commitment. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) describe these as attitudinal commitment focuses on
the processes by which people come to think about their relationship with the organisation ..Behavioural
commitment, on the other hand, relates to the process by which individuals become locked into a certain
organisation and how they deal with the problem (p26). Meyer and Allen (1991) offer a further distinction,
identifying three components of commitment: continuance, normative and affective commitment. These they
describe as have to, ought to and want to. Each component of commitment has different behavioural outcomes,
though an individual may reflect varying degrees of all three components of commitment to a particular focus
(Meyer and Allen 1997). Continuance commitment involves profit associated with continued participation and a
cost associated with leaving (Kanter 1968, p 507). A key predictor of desire to stay or leave is commitment to the
organisation (Wong, Hui and Law 1995). Normative commitment is the internalised normative pressure to act in a
way which meets organisational goals and interests (Wiener, 1982, p 421). This has been studied extensively,
especially in the psychological contract between an employer and employee (Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl and
Solley 1962; Schein 1965; Rousseau 1990). Affectivecommitment is described as the relative strength of an
individuals identification with and involvement in a particular organisation (Mowday, Porter and Steers 1982,
p27). This is probably the most beneficial component of commitment for an organisation to engender within its
employees as it is associated with productive behaviour aimed at contributingmeaningfully to the organisation
(Meyer and Allen 1997). Behaviour associated with affective commitment includes those defined as organisational
citizenship behavior (Bateman and Organ 1983). These are behaviours that are discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognised by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of
the organisation (Organ 1988, p4) Those employees with strong affective commitment appear more willing to
engage in organisational citizenship behavior than those with weak affective commitment (Meyer and Allen 1986;
Shore and Wayne 1993).
Another distinction that can be made is the focus of commitment. Foci of commitment are the individuals or groups
to whom a person is attached (Reichers 1985). Within the organisational behaviour literature, much of the
theoretical interest has been on commitment to the organisation. However, as Reichers (1985) pointed out, the
organisation comprises of a number of components, each with its own goals and values; for example owners, the
profession, managers, work groups and customers. Dual foci of commitment, when a person is attached to two
different foci, is a unique construct and has different explanatory power beyond commitment to individual foci
(Bremmels 1995, Becker and Billings 1993). This has important implications for the employee-customer
relationship. For example, if the employee is committed to the organisation but not the customer then he/she may be
bound by organisational rules (Organ and Ryan 1995), which may impact negatively on the service received by the
customer. This is supported by Hartline and Ferrell (1993), who found that employee commitment to the
organisation is negatively related to customer perceived service quality. A number of models have been suggested to
describe commitment in the workplace. For example, Randall and Cote (1991) proposed a five part model,
comprising of Protestant work ethic, career salience, job involvement, work group attachment as well as
organizational commitment. Morrow (1993) used similar constructs to Randall and Cote, but suggested that they are
concentrically layered, to reflect the permeability of outside influences that could impact these component parts. For
example, job involvement (the most vulnerable layer to outside influences) could be temporarily negatively
affected by a negative event at work, but the individual might continue to feel committed to staying with the
organisation (the most impermeable layer). Further research continues on work commitment. For example, recent
empirical research by Cohen (1999) into work commitment of Canadian nurses, gives support to Randall and Cotes
model, although more study is needed of how the elements are linked together.
Despite the huge volume of research addressing the commitment of employee to the organisation, there has been
little attention to understanding commitment in employeecustomer relationships. One stream of work that has
potential in this regard is research connected with the service profit chain (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser and
Schlesinger 1994). This model links management practice, employee attitude, customer behaviour and business
performance. Although commitment behaviour is not identified specifically in the model, Heskett et al suggest that
employee productivity and employee retention can have an important impact on external service value, which is
187
linked to customer satisfaction and customer retention. Heskett suggests that productivity is important as this
reduces costs, increasing the value perceived by customers. Retained employees know their jobs and their customers
and so are able to provide higher quality customer service and greater value. Likewise, retained, satisfied customers
provide positive feedback to employees, which also creates greater employee satisfaction. Both productivity and
retention are behaviours associated with commitment. There is only limited empirical evidence that supports the
entire service profit chain (e.g. Loveman 1998). However, specific links of the chain have been extensively
researched. For example Angle and Perry (19981) found that commitment to the organisation was associated with
positive, productive behaviour (such as reduced tardiness and absenteeism of employees), and this enhanced
organizational effectiveness. Mowday et al (1974) suggested that employees organisational commitment was
related to customer ratings of service. Also Barber, Hayday and Bevan (1999) identified that employee commitment
was a key behaviour that links employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction.
Literature Review
In every organization, human resource management is an important duty of every manager. So, the
organizations with efficient human resource management consider it as the origin of all existing sources for giving
high quality and productivity in the organization. Such organizations dont rely on just capital investments and
consider human resources as their own main investment for productivity. Since, organizational efficiency refers to a
degree to which an organization meets or approaches its goals; such an organization should assure and achieve job
satisfaction, commitment, and motivation among its employees. From the human resource perspective, for having
committed and satisfied employees, there must be some degrees of motivation at different aspects of an
organization. In todays competitive world every organization is facing new challenges regarding sustained
productivity and creating committed workforce. Now a days no organization can perform at peak levels unless each
employee is committed to the organization's objectives. Hence, it is important to understand the concept of
commitment and its feasible outcome. A large numbers of studies have been conducted to investigate the concept of
organizational commitment (OC). Still, commitment is the most challenging and researchable concepts in the fields
of management, organizational behavior. There have been several measures and definitions about OC. In the past
decade, Meyer and Allens (1991) developed a three- component model of OC which has been the dominant
framework for OC. This three-component model is based on a more comprehensive understanding of OC. The three-
component model consists of following items:
(a) Affective commitment (AC) is the emotional attachment to ones organization.

(b) Continuance commitment (CC) is the attachment based on the accumulation of valued side bets (pension, skill
transferability, relocation, and self-investment) that co-vary with organizational membership.
(c) Normative commitment (NC) is the attachment that is based on motivation to conform to social norms
regarding attachment.
The aim of this research is to identify the impact of organizational commitment (which comprises of AC, CC and
NC) on sustained productivity in auto-component industry in Greater Noida. It is vital as suggestions may be given
to the auto-component industry in order to bring an awareness of the commitment level of employees. The
objectives of the study are given as follws:
a) To identify effect of Affective commitment (AC) on sustained productivity
b) Continuance commitment (CC) is significantly related to sustained productivity
c) To know the impact of Normative commitment (NC) on sustained productivity
d) To study the impact of Employees Commitment (EC) on sustained productivity.
The concept of organizational commitment derives from an article The organization Man written by Whyte in
1956. Commitment comes into being when a person, by making a side bet, links extraneous interests with a
consistent line of activity. Grusky (1966) relates commitment with The nature of the relationship of the member to
the system as a whole. Kanter (1968) defines commitment as The willingness of social actors to give their energy
and loyalty to social systems, the attachment of personality systems to social relations, which are seen as self
expressive.Brown (1969) categorize commitment as (1) includes something of the notion of membership; (2) it
reflects the current position of the individual; (3) it has a special predictive potential, providing predictions
concerning certain aspects of performance, motivation to work, spontaneous contribution, and other related
188
outcomes; and (4) it suggests the differential relevance of motivational factors.
According to Hall et al. (1970) The process by which the goals of the organization and those of the individual
become increasingly integrated or congruent is commitment. Salancik (1977) said commitment is that a state of
being in which an individual become bound by his action and through these action to beliefs that sustain the
activities of his own involvement .Mowday et.al in (1979) defined commitment in such a way The relative
strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particular organization . Scholl (1981)
described a stabilizing force that acts to maintain behavioural direction when expectancy/equity conditions are
not met and do not function. Allen & Mayer (1990) claim that commitment is a psychological state that bind
the individual to the organization. According to the Meyer & Allen (1997) commitment is a psychological state
that characterizes the employees relationship with the organization and has implication for the decision to continue
membership in the organization. From the above definition it is clear that commitment is different from motivation
or general attitudes it can lead individuals to behave in a way, from the prospective of neutral observer, might seem
in contrast to their own self-interest. The researchers are considering the definition given by Allen and Meyer for the
study.
Employee Commitment:
It is necessary for every organization to have full level of its employee commitment in order to have outstanding
performance on long term basisMowday, Porter, & Steers (1982). Currently, employees act like entrepreneurs
when they work in a team and every member of the team tries his level best to prove the best one amongst all
others (Mowday et al., 1982). Increase in commitment level of employees in organization ultimately increases the
performance of their employees. In the past organizations provide job security to its employees to improve their
commitment level in the organization and to improve their productivity (Abelson, 1976). Higher level of
employee commitment in the organization for individual projects or to the business is assumed as a major reason
for better employee performance that leads to organizational success. The employee performance can also be
increased when the employees are more satisfied with their job and duties as well. Their satisfaction may depend
on the rewards system, the organizational culture and employee knowledge sharing (Mowday et al., 1982).
Continuous research on employee commitment and its effect on employees efficiency and organizational
performance are being done since four decades. (Becker, 1960).In Pakistan, the enduring commitment to
organization is traditional because here many people do not choose job as a profession or more properly a life-
long profession.Meyer and Allen (1991) classify employee commitment into three groups namely: (a) Affective
Commitment; (b) Continuance Commitment; and (c) Normative Commitment.Employees who have a strong
affective commitment continue to do work with the organization because they want to do so. Employees with
continuance commitment remain with the organization because they need to do so. Employees with a high level
of normative commitment stay with the organization because they think they ought to remain it. Many studies
have proved that affective commitment is positively connected with employee commitment. (Whitener & Walz,
1993; Somers, 1995; Jaros 1997).
Where there is a high level of employee commitment, there will be low turnover and that employee will perform
better with less absenteeism (Price & Mueller, 1981).There are certain things that really affect employee
commitment like: work load, less acknowledgement and less compensation. Dorgan (1994) defines commitment
as the enhanced functional and operational performance, including quality as the main principal. Epitropaki and &
Martin (2005) has shown a positive relationship between the job related well-being and affective commitment.
Addae and Wang, (2006) have established a negative relationship between the employee commitment and stress.
Irving & Colemen (2003) has shown the positive relationship between the stress and continuance commitment.
Somers (2009) has shown an insignificant relationship between the job stress and continuance commitment.
Witting-Berman, & Lang, (1990) shows a negative relationship between physical stress and commitment.
189
Authors Concepts
Jaros Affective: the degree to which an individual is psychological attach to an
employing organization through feeling such as loyalty, affection, worth,
belongingness, pleasure and so on. Continuance: the degree to which experience a
sense of being locked in place because of the high cost of leaving. Moral: the
degree of which an individual is psychologically attached to an employing
organization through internalization of its goals, values, and mission.
Mayer& Schoorman Value: a belief in and acceptance of organizational goal and value and willingness to
exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization Continuance: the desire to
remain a member of the organization
Allen & Mayer Affective commitment: a members through to stay within and work for an
organization. Continuance commitment: cost perception for leaving an organization
leads to the commitment of a members stay in an organization. Normative
commitment: maintaining loyalty to an organization is the result of socialization,
experience, responsibility of repaying the organization can be constructed in a
members mind through organization profits.
Angle and Perry Value commitment: commitment to support the goal of the organization. Commitment
to stay: commitment to retain their organization membership
Steven Normative: an individual is willing to stay within an
organization and contribute to an organization to
correspond with a group norm.
Exchange: an individual will enhance commitment after
contrast the difference between dedication and
compensation from the viewpoint of return of investment.
Porter Value commitment: faith of accepting an organizations
targets & values.
Effort commitment: desire to thoroughly devote to an
Organization.
Retention commitment: strong aspiration to stay within an
Organization.
Kanter Continuance commitment: withdraw barrier derive from
the previous investment and sacrifice.
Cohesion commitment: cohesion from exchanges.
Control commitment: a control force from organizational
norms that affect members in an organization.
Table 1: Employee Commitment Concepts by various views
Organizational Commitment
Meyer and Allen (1984,1990, 1991) described three dimensional model of commitment: Affective, Continuance and
Normative (as discussed earlier). He said Affective Commitment is based on how much individual want to remain
in the organization. Continuance Commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving the
organization. Continuance commitment based on individual having to remain with the organization lost their
previous investment before gone. Normative Commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment.
Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization.
Affective commitment: Several studies, describe the term commitment as an affective orientation of the employees
190
toward the organization. Employees with affective commitment continue service with organization because they
want to do so. Kanter (1968) describe cohesion commitment as the attachment of an individuals found of affectivity
and emotion to the group. Affective commitment to the goal and values and to the organization for its own sake, a
part from its purely instrumental worth argues by Buchanan (1974). Porter and Mowday et al. (1979) describe
affective approach as the relative strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particular
organization. Therefore, an individual who is affectively committed or emotionally attached to the organization, (i)
believe in the goal and values of the organization ,(ii) works hard for the organization and (iii) intend to stay with
the organization (Mowday et al.,1982). Meyer & Allen (1996) correlates affective commitment with work
experiences where employees experience psychologically comfortable feelings (such as approachable managers),
increasing their sense of competence (such as feedback). The development of affective commitment involves
recognizing the organizations worth and internalising its principles and standards (Beck & Wilson 2000).
Continuance Commitment: When employees enter into the organization, they are bound to maintain a link with
the organization or committed to remain with the organization because lack of alternative opportunity or awareness
of the costs associated with leaving the organization. The cost associated with leaving includes attractive benefits,
the threat of wasting the time, effort spends acquiring, , disrupt personal relationship. This was more appropriately
defined by Allen & Meyer (1990) he proposed that continuance commitment develops on the basis of two factors:
(1) number of investment (side bets) individuals make in their current organization and (2) perceived lack of
alternatives. These investment can be anything that the individual considers valuable such as pension plans,
organization benefits, status etc that would be lost by leaving the organization, which makes them stay with their
current employers (Meyer & Allen, 1984) Similarly, lack of employment alternatives also increases the perceived
costs associated with leaving the organization and therefore increase the continuance commitment of employees to
the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Kanter (1968) defined continuance commitment as cognitive
continuance commitment as that which occurs when there is a profit associated with continued participation and a
cost associated with leaving". Somers (1993) suggest that continuance commitment can be sub-divided into high
sacrifice commitment (personal sacrifice associated with leaving) and low alternative commitment (limited
opportunities for other employment).
The approach of continuance commitment develops when an individual recognizes that he or she lose investments
(the money they earn as a result of the time spent in the organization ), and/or perceives that there are no alternatives
or other course of action. When an individuals have awareness or consideration about expenses and threats linked
to leaving the organization, this form of commitment is considered to be calculative (Meyer & Allen 1997). Meyer
and Allen (1991) also specified that individuals whos most important connection with the organization is based on
continuance commitment stay with the organization simply because they have no choice. Whereas affective
commitment is, where individuals remain with an organization because they want to and because they are familiar
with it and they have emotional attachment with it.
Normative Commitment: Normative commitment develops on the basis of earlier experiences influenced by, for
example family-based experiences (parents that stress work loyalty) or cultural experiences (sanctions against job-
hopping) (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Normative commitment can increase through beliefs that the employees have that
employers provide more than they can give. The normative aspect develops as individuals perception of their moral
obligation to remain with a specific organization, irrespective of how much status improvement or fulfilment the
organization gives the individual over the years (March & Mannari 1977).So normative commitment/obligation seen
as a result of the receipt of benefits (which encourages a feeling that one should reciprocate), and/or acceptance of
the terms of a psychological contract.
Employers Commitment
Commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets
191
(Meyer/Herscovitch 2001:302). Binding refers to the maintenance of the relationship with the commitment object
and is seen as the most important outcome of commitment (e.g. Meyer et al. 2002). Thus, committed individuals
stick to the object(s) of their commitment. As is the case in private life, many individuals have conflicting
commitments in work life, such as those towards work, profession, career, colleagues, department, and the
organization as a whole. There are different forces that can compel an individual to a particular course of action. We
may do so because we like it (affective bonding), because we feel obliged (normative conformity) and/or because
people have good reasons for their commitment (rational choice) (Allen/Meyer 1990). So, based on what we know
about employee commitment, what does employer commitment mean? Derived from the above-cited definition,
employer commitment could be defined as follows:
We assume that employers commitment is reflected in the attitudes and behaviours of employer delegates. This
also means that employers are only as good as their representatives are: due to their pursuit of a particular goal or
lack of information, employee delegates do not necessarily act in correspondence with company policies. Thus, the
employer can be better or worse than the delegates suggest. Mowday, Porter, and Dubin (1974) suggest that high
committed employees may perform better than less committed once. Schein (1970) and Steers (1975) suggested that
commitment may represent one useful indicator of the effectiveness of an organization. Employee commitment is
important because high levels of commitment lead to several favorable organizational outcomes. It reflects the
extent to which employees identify with and organization and is committed to its goals. Biljana Dordevic (2004)
stated that the commitment of employees is an important issue because it may be used to predict employees
performance, absenteeism and other behaviors. Rajendran Muthurveloo and Raduan Che Rose (2005) opined that
the organizational commitment is the subset of employee commitment, which comprised to work commitment,
career commitment and organizational commitment and also added greater the organizational commitment can aid
higher productivity.
An impressive amount of research efforts have been conducted to understanding the concepts and to identify
implication of organizational commitment over the performance of the employees on the workplace. Aamir Ali
Chughtai & Sohail Zafar (2006) examined the influence of organizational commitment on twoturnover intentions
and on job performance. Rajendran Muthuveloo and Raduan Che Rose (2005) study explores that organizational
commitment, leads to positive organizational outcomes. Komal Khalid Bhatti, Samina Nawab (2011) said that job
satisfaction has the highest impact on high employees commitment and productivity. Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly,
Goffin, and Jackson (1989) examined facts of a positive correlation between organizational commitment and job
performance, Low commitment has also been associated with low levels of morale (DeCottis & Summers, 1987)
non-committed employees may depict the organization in negative terms to outsiders thereby inhibiting the
organizations ability to recruit high-quality employees (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982) and decreased measures
of altruism and compliance (Schappe, 1998).
Some study examines the relationship of commitment with various factors. Mathieu & Zajac, (1990), shown that
commitment has been positively related to personal characteristics such as age ,length of service in a particular
organization (Luthans, McCaul, & Dodd, 1985), and marital status (John & Taylor, 1999) and have inverse relation
to the employees level of education (Glisson & Durick, 1988). In addition, commitment has been found to be
related to such job characteristics as task autonomy (Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994), feedback (Hutichison &
Garstka, 1996) and job challenge (Meyer, Irving, & Allen, 1998) and certain work experiences such as job security
(Yousef, 1998), promotion opportunities (Gaertner & Nollen, 1989), training and mentoring opportunities
(Scandura, 1997), and supportive and considerate leadership (DeCottis & Summers, 1987).
Employees Commitment and Sustained Productivity
In the past research it has been discussed that organization commitment will lead to behavioural out comes: lower
turnover and higher performance. Highly committed employee should have a weak intention to quit. Studies by
192
Angle and Perry (1981) and Jenkins (1995) revealed a negative relationship between turnover intentions and
organizational commitment. According to Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) and Meyer and other (1998) have
uncovered a positive relationship between commitment and job performance. Employees who are committed to their
respective organization are more likely not only to remain with the organization but are also likely to exert more
efforts on behalf of the organization and work towards its success and therefore are also likely to exhibit better
performance that the uncommitted employees.
Employee commitment can benefit organization in a number of ways such as it can improve performance; reduced
absenteeism, and turnover thereby resulting in sustained productivity. Commitment to organization is positively
related to such desirable outcomes as motivation (Mowday, Steers and Porter 1979) and attendance (Mathieu &
Zajac, 1990: Steers & Rhodes,1978) and is negatively related to outcome as absenteeism and turnover(Clegg 1983:
cotton & Tuttle 1986). Horton too stated that organization commitment could result in less turnover absenteeism,
thus increasing organization productivity (Schuler & Jackson, 1996). Employees with high level of organizational
commitment provide a secure and stable workforce (Steers 1977) and thus providing competitive advantage to the
organization. The committed employee has been found to be more creative; they are less likely to leave an
organization than those who are uncommitted (Porter et.al. 1974). According to Arturo L. Tolentino (2004)
Sustained productivity improvement depends on the enterprises human capital (the skills, knowledge, competencies
and attitudes that reside in the individual employee of the enterprise) and its social capital (trust and confidence,
communication, cooperative working dynamics and interaction, partnership, shared values, teamwork, etc. among
these individuals.
A committed employee is perceived to be one who stays with the organization even in turbulent times, attends work
regularly, protects companys assets and shares companys goal (Meyer and Allen, 1997).Therefore it is evident that
for sustained productivity, employee commitment is an important factor. Auto-component industry is a booming
industry in which not many commitment based studies have been conducted so we have taken it for our research.
This industry has also faced lot of workforce challenges in the form of strikes. So, our study becomes much more
important.
Hypothesis is:
The Hypothesis selected for analysis are given below
H0: Employees Commitment (NC, CC, and AC) does not influence Sustained Productivity
H1: Employees Commitment (NC, CC, and AC) influences Sustained Productivity
Proposed Research Model and design CC
Sustained
AC Productivity NC
Fig 1. Proposed Model
193
This study adopted research design to examine the effects of employee commitment to sustained productivity in
auto-component industry in India (in Denso Greater Noida). The data were collected from both primary and
secondary sources. The quantitative data were collected through questionnaires which were tested on the sample
population of 50 line managers (auto-component employees) to recognize the effect of commitment to sustained
productivity. The questionnaire contained 12-items (AC, CC, NC and SP) (these items have been discussed under
analysis in detail) which help in identifying the impact of commitment on productivity. The purpose of this study
was descriptive. The time horizon of the study was cross-sectional and random sampling technique was used. The
secondary data was collected from books, magazines, research papers, internet, annual reports, etc. A model has
been proposed after doing the literature review and it was tested by applying regression to the study.
Purpose: The business organizations are aware of the P importance of employee commitment and its role in
motivating employees. The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of Employees Commitment on
sustained productivity in Auto-component Industry in India (Denso).
Design/ Methodology: This paper is based on a review of the academic research papers and survey. The primary
data has been collected through questionnaires. The secondary data is being used for identifying the commitment
related problems of the automobile industry. The three commitments have been taken as independent variables and
sustained productivity as the dependent variable.
Findings: The results of the study indicate that the Employees Commitment (Affective, Normative, continuous) is
significantly related to sustained productivity in Auto component industry. The research findings reveal that there
exists a positive relationship between the three commitments- affective, continuance and normative commitment
and sustained productivity of the organization. It has also been proved from the results that there exists a high
degree of correlation between the three independent variables and sustained productivity the dependent variable.
These outcomes in turn are associated with guiding the top management for working towards increasing
commitment level.
Practical Implications: We have a big pool of employees employed by the auto-component industry. Due to the
high quality consciousness and increased competitiveness the concept of sustained productivity becomes important.
From the findings it has been proved that sustained productivity is strongly related to employees commitment. So,
the sample organization has to focus towards increasing employee commitment. This shall have a great impact and
take the organization towards competitive edge.
Originality/value: This paper would be of value to researchers seeking information on how commitment and
sustained productivity is linked. This is original contribution and not published anywhere else..
Analysis and Interpretation Measurement

The organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) consists of 12 items, in which 9 items were taken from OCQ
by Allen Mayer. These questions were measured on a 5 point Likerts scale ranging from Strong agree (5), Agree(4),
Neither Agree Nor Disagree (3), Disagree (2) and Strongly Disagree (1). In this research paper AC, CC, NC, has
been taken as independent variable and SP is the dependent variable. As there is more than one independent variable
so we will use multiple regression analysis to test our proposed model.
194
For Affective Commitment sample items were: a. I enjoy discussing my organization with people
outside.
b. I dont feel emotionally attached to this organization
c. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career
with this organization.
For Continuance Commitment sample items were: a. If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I
would not feel, it was right to leave my
organization
b. Jumping from organization to organization does not
seem at all unethical to me
c. I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal
to one organization
For Normative Commitment sample items were : a. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.
b. I would not leave my organization right now because I
have a sense of obligation to the organization
c. This organization deserve my loyalty.
For Sustained productivity, sample items were: a. Employee are more productive to the organization,
when they feel more obligations towards remain with
the organization
b. If the employees have the feeling to stay in the
organization, they are more productive.
c. The more productive employees are those who are
emotionally attached to the organization.
Table 2: Employee Commitment
Analysis and Interpretation
The data collected through questionnaires was tested by SPSS. Initially we began with testing the assumptions of
regression
a. 1 The data should be a normally distributed
b. 2. Homoscedasticity
The data was plotted and we found that in maximum cases the condition of normal distribution is fulfilled. The
variance of the error is constant across observations. Therefore, we are applying multiple regression to test the
hypothesis and proposed model.
195
Fig 2. AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT/SUSTAINED PRODUCTIVITY
Fig. 3 NORMATIVE COMMITMENT AND SUSTAINED PRODUCTIVITY
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Avg(SP) 3.945556 .54693477 50

Avg(Ac) 3.520000 .76016229 50
Avg(CC) 3.333333 .76008686 50
Avg(NC) 3.563333 .3702486 50
196
Table 4 Correlations
Avg(SP) Avg(Ac) Avg(CC) Avg(NC)

Pearson Correlation Avg(SP) 1.000 .959 .886 .764
Avg(Ac) .959 1.000 .649 .462
Avg(CC) .896 .649 1.000 .645
Avg(NC) .864 .562 .753 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Avg(SP) . .000 .000 .000
Avg(Ac) .000 . .000 .000
Avg(CC) .000 .000 . .000
Avg(NC) .000 .000 .000 .
N Avg(SP) 50 50 50 50
Avg(Ac) 50 50 50 50
Avg(CC) 50 50 50 50
Avg(NC) 50 50 50 50
There is a strong relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables. The value of Pearson
Coefficient (r)for AC and SP is 0.859, for CC and SP is 0.886 and NC and SP is 0.764 . These values are quite near
to +1 and show strong correlation. This means changes in one variable are strongly correlated with changes in the
second variable. As all the correlations are positive it shows that when one variable increases/ decreases then the
other would also increase or decrease. The significance level when seen at 95% level of significance the p value is
less than 0.05 so the null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 5: Analysis using ANOVAd
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
1 Regression 8.471 1 8.471 174.989
Residual 2.323 48 .048
Total 10.794 49
2 Regression 9.972 2 4.986 285.084
Residual .822 47 .017
Total 10.794 49
3 Regression 10.794 3 3.598
Residual .000 46 .000
Total 10.794 49
The value of R Square, the coefficient of determination comes to be 1.000, which indicates the explanatory power of
the model. This shows the 100 percent variation in the dependent variable (sustained productivity) is explained
together by the three independent variables (AC, CC, NC). The significance of the R Square can be tested by the F
value and it has been found that there is a strong significant relationship (.000) between dependent variable with
independent variables at 95% level of significance. The AC,CC, NC are positively related to SP as the coefficient
shows positive sign. The result indicate the all the three commitment has equal contribution towards sustained
197
productivity. From the table above, we can say that the P value is 000 which is less than the 95% level of the
significance (Alpha). The relative importance of the three commitment (AC,NC,CC)is obtained by the absolute
value of the BETA standardized regression coefficient given as 0.427 for CC, 0.427 for AC and 0.334 for NC. The
beta values show the impact of AC, CC and NC on SP.
Employee relationship
Employment is not the same as work. Work can be paid or unpaid, done in a market or outside one, but employment
by its nature necessitates an economic exchange between two parties and situates people within a market in which
the capacity to labour is bought and sold. According to the International Labour Organisation, the employment
relationship is usually conceived as involving full-time work, under a contract of employment for unlimited
duration with a single employer, and protected against unjustified dismissal (although there are different types of
contract, some of defined duration). The employment relationship is thus a creation of markets, but also distinct
from them for the simple reason that it is a market in people and operates very differently from the idealised markets
of economic theory. The legal structures we have built around the employment relationship concern themselves both
with ensuring labour markets operate smoothly and with the need to protect employees from unfair practices. Of
course, business leaders do not generally see staff as commodities and often invest considerable effort and
resources in avoiding that impression. Indeed, the language of a relationship is awkward: staff differ widely in
their needs and wants from work with some preferring a less involved form of work than might be implied by the
term. Use of the term employment relationship in this report follows the established understanding of research
examining the nature of the interchange between employers and employees within the labour market.
Perhaps the central fact of employment is the interdependent relationship between worker and employer. Both need
the other. Within the relationship, cooperation is required in order to secure respective goals. While employers may
provide investment in the capacity to deliver goods and services, it is employees who must deliver them. Equally,
employees can only secure a material reward for their efforts if they enable employers to meet their commercial or
organisational goals. For the employee, the relationship provides a range of benefits, including the obvious one of an
income, but also that it is the employers investment that enables employees to further develop their potential,
perhaps through the acquisition of new skills and responsibilities. Furthermore, there is an ever-present conflict
between the imperative for employers to control their employees (they are an expensive investment, after all) and
releasing innovation and creativity amongst those employees (which is why they were hired in the first place).
Although it is true that the clash of interests is less acute than it used to be and that goals are today at least to some
extent shared, it would be a mistake to think such a situation is inherent in the employment relationship. In both
theory and practice, employers and employees often want quite different things from employment however good
their working relationship. So, for example, while employers may primarily orient to the need for performance and
efficiency, employees may instead orient to a range of other goals which might include greater income, but equally
might involve the demand for equality, having ones voice heard6 or even meaning. This does not mean that the
employment relationship is founded on a stance of fundamental conflict between the two parties. Also, it does not
affect the legitimate expectation among companies for employees to be committed to the aim of delivering high
quality goods and services. But it does indicate that employers, employees and society more broadly may seek
distinct ends and that rival conceptions of ends may give rise to tensions and conflicts from time to time. The
shortcoming of models of the employment relationship based on common purpose ideologies is that they allow little
scope for people to have and fulfil their own desires, aspirations and expectations within the work that they do,
rendering them passive recipients of a companys brand messages mere resources, as opposed to people. Those
desires may, and ideally will, coincide to some extent with business objectives but equally they may not.
Reciprocity and goodwill are necessary to make the deal function in a mutually acceptable manner.
As with any relationship, questions arise as to whom the dominant party is: the employment relationship is no
different. The operation of power in modern work is often subtle and the typical worker is a very different creature
today than he or she was thirty years ago. Yet understanding the employment relationship relies on an understanding
of power. An essential tool for managing the deal is the contract of employment and making a contract presumes
freedom of choice (the roots of contract law lie in regulating risktaking amongst 19th century merchants). In
employment, however, this freedom is often limited for a number of reasons. In general, people must work to live
and must take what work is available to them, usually without much negotiation about its terms and conditions. On
198
taking up a job offer the employee agrees to assign the right to be directed and controlled towards particular ends. In
employment it is the employer who possesses residual decision-making rights meaning the employer has final
say over the actions or outcomes that were not specified at the outset of the contract. In addition, the work-wages
bargain theoretically privileges the employers interests: in a contract involving reciprocal obligations the first to
perform in this case the worker in the act of work bears the risk of the others default. For these reasons,
approaches to motivation that begin
from a position of recognising some of the fundamental realities of the employment relationship are likely, logically,
to prove more persuasive than those which assume equal parties pursuing identical
objectives.
Ethical Issues in the Employer-Employee Relationship

A survey to access the relationship was conducted among 5000 employees and results were analyzed.
Respondents were statistically representative. They were workers at all job levels and from a cross-section of the
full-time working population. They represented organizations in various departments, such as financial services,
healthcare, manufacturing, production, supply, stores.
The objectives of the survey were to assess the attitudes of US workers towards their workplace and their
employers, to identify key factors affecting employee commitment, and find out the relationship between
employee commitment and the bottom line.
Study Results
Departments with highly committed employees had a 44% and 56% return for companies with low employee
commitment.
Slightly more than half (65%) of workers are committed to their employer,while 16% are not committed at all.
The remaining 15% were neutral.
Even fewer employees have trust in top management (approximately 50%).
The main factors were found to drive employee commitment (and the relative impact of each factor is given in
percentage terms below):
Employee Commitment Factors

Factor Percentage
Trust in senior leadership 14%
Chance to use skills on the job 14%
11%
Job security
11%
Competitiveness of rewards
Quality of companys products/services 10%
7%
Absence of work-related stress
Honesty and integrity of companys business conduct 7%
All other factors 56%
Table 6: Employee Commitment Factors
Departments work in to manage the change effectively have higher employee commitment and better shareholder
value.
199
Table 7: Analysis
Items Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6
My employer really cares about any well being .88 .17 -.02 -.04 .07 .00
My employer cares about my opinions .86 .15 -.02 -.01 .10 -.02
My employer values my contribution to its well being .86 .17 .00 -.04 -.08 -.02
My employer strongly considers my goals and values .85 .19 -.04 -.02 .09 .01
My employer cares about my general satisfication at work .85 .19 -.02 -.02 .01 -.02
My employer shows very little concern for me .81 .17 -.05 -.03 .00 -.04
My employer is willing to help me when I need a special favour .79 .09 -.05 .04 .01 .02
Even if I did the best possible job, my employer would fail to notice .78 .13 -.01 .02 .08 .00
I feel a strong sense of belonging to- .21 .06 -.07 .03 .15 .04
I feel myself to be part of- .16 .82 -.04 -.03 .01 .03
In my work, I like to feel that I am making some effort not just for myself but .23 .79 -.03 .01 .09 .00
for-as well
I am willing to put myself out to help .00 .78 -.04 -.05 .03 .02
I am quite proud to tell people I work for- .04 .78 -.02 .22 .03 .05
To know that I had make a contribution to the good of-would please me .25 .75 -.03 .11 .03 .08
Fair pay for the responsibilities I have in my job -.01 .73 -.02 .35 .04 .00
Pay increase to maintain my standard of living -.30 .71 .00 .13 .01 .29
The necessary training to do my job well -.03 .68 .00 .83 .05 .01
Up to date training and development -.04 -.06 .81 .78 .10 .23
Support when I want to learn new skills -.05 -0.5 .79 .73 .06 .06
I frequently make suggestions to improve the work of my department -.07 -.04 .05 .03 .55 .06
Part of my job its to think of better ways of doing y job -.01 .00 .05 .05 .65 -.03
I participate in activities that are not required but that help that image of -.03 -.04 .00 -.03 .73 .09
any organization
I keep up with developments that are happening in my organization .00 -.01 -.01 .17 .55 -.03
Long term job security -.03 .22 .22 .04 .00 .86
Good carrer propects .13 4.12 .16 .38 .01 .68
3
Eigenvalues 7.6 3.38 1.69 1.1 1.07
0
The percentage of variance explained 26.2 14.2 11.7 5.8 3.8 3.7
200
Table 8: Descriptive statistics and inter-correlation of main study variables
Mea S.D Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Trade union 0.14 0.49 ..
membership
(1=Y 0=N)
2. Work status 1.48 0.50 .. .36
(2=f/t l=p/t)
3. Job tenure 6.05 5.71 .. .19 .08
4. Careerism 3.44 1.37 .52 .00 .09 .24
5. Organizational 7.70 7.57 .. .23 .09 .69 .24
tenure
6. Job 4.66 0.98 .88 .11 .10 .06 .14 .05
satisfaction
7. Organizational 4.93 0.92 .63 .13 .13 .02 .01 .01 .22
citizenship
behaviour
8. Organizational 4.06 1.14 .90 .14 .07 .00 .16 .00 .30 .19
commitment
9. Perceived 4.10 1.42 .9 .14 .13 .11 .06 .11 .56 .23 .36
organizational
support
10. Explicit 2.64 0.85 .88 .04 .06 .02 .07 .00 .38 .02 .30 .29
transactional
contract
fulfilment
11. Explicit 3.20 0.92 .91 .06 .07 .11 .09 .10 .46 .22 .27 .41 .28
relational
contract
fulfilment
12. Explicit 2.87 0.86 .62 .04 .13 .02 .06 .01 .46 .16 .23 .33 .38 0.02
relational
contract
fulfilment
13. Transactional 4.25 0.78 .82 .12 .06 .03 .07 .01 .09 .06 .09 .11 .12 .03 0.5
obligations
14. Training 4.33 0.72 .80 .15 .07 .06 .09 .01 .05 .16 .06 .05 .04 .02 .54 0.2
obligations
15. Relational 3.65 0.92 .62 .11 .00 .06 .05 .04 .11 .07 .02 .08 .11 .02 .33 .028 0.3
obligations
16. Transactional 2.53 0.92 .85 .00 .12 .01 .04 .00 .36 .05 .26 .27 .85 .34 .08 .00 0.30
provided
17. Training 3.24 0.89 .81 .03 .14 .04 .06 .00 .59 .33 .27 .46 .26 .39 .02 .10 .28 .04
provided
18. Relational 2.49 0.95 .53 .11 .11 .06 .00 .02 .38 .20 .16 .28 .26 .72 .03 .05 .04 .38 .38
provided
201
Table 9: Results of independent sample t-tests
Variables Manager (n=155) Employees (n=484)

Employer
Mean (S.D) 95% CI for Mean (S.D) 95% CI for
mean mean
Employer transactional obligations 4.23 0.64 4.13-4.33 4.22 0.75 4.15-4.29
Fulfilment- transactional obligations 2.86 0.85 2.73-3.00 2.55 0.86 2.48-2.63
Discrepancy (obligations-provided) 1.36 1.07 1.119-1.53 1.66 1.15 1.56-1.77

Transactional-could fulfil 3.33 0.81
Employer relational obligations 3.72 0.61 3.63-3.82 3.31 0.81 3.24-3.38
Fulfilment-relational obligations 2.93 0.64 2.82-3.03 2.63 0.86 3.24-3.38
Relational-could fulfil 3.13 0.68
Employer training obligations 4.44 0.51 4.35-4.51 4.32 0.62 4.26-4.37
Fulfilment-training obligations 3.27 0.59 3.17-3.36 4.32 0.62 4.26-4.37
Training-could fulfil 3.81 0.58
Conclusion
This study identified the impact of organizational commitment on sustained productivity in auto-mobile industry in
Chennai (India). Companies and organizations face a significant challenge in developing a committed, engaged
workforce. Employee commitment and increased trust in leadership can give better results in terms of the bottom
line. A committed workforce is also the most basic element to being an employer of choice. For being familiar with
a wide range of techniques and skills, including mediation and communications, but, ultimately, it may also mean
asserting more strongly the employee interest and agenda. This may not fit well with a management command and
control culture. But without some significant progress in this direction, both high-performance working and
strategic business partnering are unlikely to succeed. The research suggests that as commitment has been identified
as an important component of successful market relationships, it is critical that there is clarity about what is meant
by commitment. It has indicated that there is an urgent need for additional research to explore the meaning of this
concept within the context of exchange relationships.It is also found that the auto-mobile industry employees are
enthusiastic in reflecting their continuance commitment in their work environment to render maximum productivity
to their organization. The commitment of the automobile industry employees is also emphasized through their
affective commitment to their organizational goals. The industry has to take necessary to rise employee the
commitment level of employees and necessary continuous action to increase and maintain the productivity level of
the employees should be ensured. It has been assumed by research that individuals who were highly committed
towards their jobs are likely to be more productive, have higher satisfaction level and have less likely to leave than
employees with low commitment. Increase in employee commitment will also help the company to retain employees
and move ahead to experience global competition.
202
References
Angle, H., & Perry, J.(1981) An empirical assessment of organizational commitment, role stress and turnover: A
multidimensional approach, Academy of Management Journal,22,815-821. Becker.H., S.(1960) Notes on the
concepts of commitment, American Journal of Sociology,66,32-40
Biljana Dordevic,(2004).Employee Commitment in Times of Radical Organisational Changes.

Economics and Organisation, 2, 2, 111-117.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brickman, P.,(1987)commitment In:B.wortman & R. Sorrention (Eds), commitment conflict and caring (p.1-18),
Englewood cliffs,NJ: Prentic -Hall
Brow,S. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement, Psychology Bulletin,
120, 235-255.
Brown. M.E.,(1969), Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement,

Administrative Science Quarterly, 14,346-355.
Buchanan, B. (1974) Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in the organization.
DeCotii, T.A., & Summers, T.P.(1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of
organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40(7), 445-470.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V.(2000) .Perceived organizational support and employee
diligence, commitment and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology,75,51-59. Grusky (1966), Career mobility
and organizational commitment, Administrative Science Quarterly,10,488-503.
Glisson, C.,& Durick, M.(1988).Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human service
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,33 (1), 61-81.
Hall, D.T., Schneider, B.,& Nygren, H.T.(1970) Personal factors in organizational identification,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-189.
Herscovitch,L. & Meyer, J. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,3,474-487.
Jaros, S.T., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J.W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance , affective an moral
commitment on the withdrawal process: an evaluation of eight structural equation models, Academy of Management
Journal, 36,951-995.
Johan P., Meyer Natalie J. Allen and Catherine A., Smith (1993). Commitment to Organizations and Occupations
Extension and Test of a Three Component Conceptualization .Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 4, 538-551.
John P. Meyer, Lynne Herscovitch,(2001). Commitment in the Workplace Towards a general modal. Human
resource Management Review,11,299-326.
Kanter, R. (2001). Evolve. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Luthans, F., McCaul, H.S.,& Dodd, N.G. (1985). Organisational commitment :A comparison of American, Japanese
and Korean employees. The Academy of Management Journal, 28 (1), 213-219.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences
203
of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108 ,2, 171-194.
Mayer, J.P., Allen, N.J.,&Smith,C.A.(1993).Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of
three-component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,538-551.
Mayer, R.C.,& Schoorman, F.D.(1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-
dimensional model of organization commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35,671-684.
McElroy. J. C.(2001). Managing workplace commitment by putting people first. Human Resource Management
Review,11,327-335
Meyer & Allen (1997). Commitment in the workplace, Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Miller, D. Lee (2001): The people make the process: commitment to employees, decision making, and performance
In: Journal of Management,11::163-189
Mowday, Richard T., Lyman W. Porter, and Robert Dubin (1974) "Unit performance, situational factors, and
employee attitudes in spatially sepa-rated work units." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12: 231-
248.
Mowday, Richard.R.T., Porter, L.W.& Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee organizational
Mowday, Richard. R.T., Steers, R.M. & Porter, L.W. (1979), The measurement of organizational N.,J., Allen and J.
Meyer (1996).Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: An Examination of
Construct Validity, Journal of vocational behavior, 49, 252276
Ogilvie ,J. R.(1986).The role of human resource management practices in predicting organizational commitment,
Group and Organization Studies,11,4,335-359.
Oliver, N.(1990).Rewards investment alternatives and organizational commitment: Empirical evidence and
theoretical development. Journal of occupational Psychology,63,19-31
OReilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986).Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effect of
compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial-behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.Of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 257-266.
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover
among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology,59, 603-609.Quarterly, 10, 488-503.
Rajendran Muthuveloo and Raduan Che Rose(2005). Typology of Organizational Commitment.
American Journal of Applied Science, 2,6,1071078-1081.
Richard M. Steers (1977) .Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational , Johnson Graduate School of Management,
Cornell University. 22, 1, 46-56.
Robert R. Sinclair, Jennifer S. Tucker and Jennifer C. Cullen and Chris Wright (2005). Performance Difference
Among Four Organisational Commitment Profiles. Journal of Applied Psychology,90,6,1280-1287.
Rhoades, L. Eisenberger, R. (2002): Perceived organisational support: a review of the literature In: Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87:698-714
Salancik, G.R. (19977), Commitment and the control of organisational behaviour and belief, New direction for
organisational behaviour, 1-54,Chicogo:St.Clair
Scandura, T. A.(1997). Mentoring and organizational justice. An empirical investigation. Journal
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: replication and
extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,3, 423-433.
204
Scholl, R.W., (1981),Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivating force, Academy of management
Review,6 , 589-599.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. Human resource Management: Positioning for the 21st century, sixth ed., New
York: West Publication Company.
Schein, E. (1970). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sheldon. M.E.,(1971), Investment and involvements as mechanism production commitment to the organisation,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 142-150.
Somers, M.J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of Work
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Steers, R. & Porter, L. (1987). Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A. S. (1977) Commitment: A behavioral approach to job involvement,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 47-52.
Yousef, D.A.(1998). Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment and job performance
in a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower, 19(3), 184
205

S.abirami Sundaravalli T.vijayakumar Ijaerv10n77spl - 21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S.abirami Sundaravalli T.vijayakumar Ijaerv10n77spl - 21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.

A STUDY ON EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AND RELATIONSHIP AMONG

Keywords: Employee commitment affective commitment, normative commitment, continuance commitment,

(a) Affective commitment (AC) is the emotional attachment to ones organization.

outcomes; and (4) it suggests the differential relevance of motivational factors.

Table 1: Employee Commitment Concepts by various views

Employees Commitment and Sustained Productivity

The Hypothesis selected for analysis are given below

Proposed Research Model and design CC

Fig 1. Proposed Model

Analysis and Interpretation Measurement

Table 2: Employee Commitment

Analysis and Interpretation

a. 1 The data should be a normally distributed

Fig 2. AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT/SUSTAINED PRODUCTIVITY

Fig. 3 NORMATIVE COMMITMENT AND SUSTAINED PRODUCTIVITY

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Avg(SP) 3.945556 .54693477 50

Avg(SP) Avg(Ac) Avg(CC) Avg(NC)

Table 5: Analysis using ANOVAd

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F

1 Regression 8.471 1 8.471 174.989

Residual 2.323 48 .048

2 Regression 9.972 2 4.986 285.084

Residual .822 47 .017

3 Regression 10.794 3 3.598

Residual .000 46 .000

Ethical Issues in the Employer-Employee Relationship

Employee Commitment Factors

Quality of companys products/services 10%

All other factors 56%

Table 6: Employee Commitment Factors

Table 8: Descriptive statistics and inter-correlation of main study variables

Mea S.D Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Table 9: Results of independent sample t-tests

Variables Manager (n=155) Employees (n=484)

Fulfilment- transactional obligations 2.86 0.85 2.73-3.00 2.55 0.86 2.48-2.63

Discrepancy (obligations-provided) 1.36 1.07 1.119-1.53 1.66 1.15 1.56-1.77

Employer relational obligations 3.72 0.61 3.63-3.82 3.31 0.81 3.24-3.38

Fulfilment-relational obligations 2.93 0.64 2.82-3.03 2.63 0.86 3.24-3.38

Discrepancy (obligations-provided) 0.80 0.77 0.68-0.92 0.70 1.04 0.59-0.78

Relational-could fulfil 3.13 0.68

Employer training obligations 4.44 0.51 4.35-4.51 4.32 0.62 4.26-4.37

Fulfilment-training obligations 3.27 0.59 3.17-3.36 4.32 0.62 4.26-4.37

Discrepancy (obligations-provided) 1.17 0.09 1.05-1.27 1.03 1.15 0.94-1.11

Training-could fulfil 3.81 0.58

Biljana Dordevic,(2004).Employee Commitment in Times of Radical Organisational Changes.

Brown. M.E.,(1969), Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement,

Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-189.

Kanter, R. (2001). Evolve. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108 ,2, 171-194.

American Journal of Applied Science, 2,6,1071078-1081.

Scandura, T. A.(1997). Mentoring and organizational justice. An empirical investigation. Journal

Schein, E. (1970). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

You might also like