Paper Title (use style: paper title)



From static to dynamic perspective of behavior: case of organizational commitmentSetyabudi IndartonoDoctoral Candidate of Business Administration Department, National Central University Taiwan. Lecturer of Management Department, Yogyakarta state UniversityYogyakarta Indonesia, e-mail : 964401605@cc.ncu.edu.tw; Setyabudi_indartono@uny.ac.id Abstract—Dynamic point of view attractively has been proposed in few studies. Organizations and their member actions are viewed as dynamic behaviors. They can change anytime begin to look for advantages and better opportunities elsewhere. Organizational at the firm level change, expand, and blend their strategies, from more than one pure strategic group to win the market. Workers as individual level might change their behavior based on their short-term opportunities i.e., manipulation action in the workplace based on their different perceptions, attitudes, and expectations. This paper proposed changing of workers commitment at the dynamics working environments based on theory of equity. Although, dynamic point of view attractively has been proposed in few studies, scholars argued that both workers change their behaviors anytime to looking for better advantages and opportunities. Recent conceptual critique of commitment model suggested for further investigation on the consistencies of both empirical and theoretical approach to strengthen the evidences on worker’s commitment antecedent from a dynamic perspectives. Thus, this study investigates organizational commitment represent the dynamic of behavior. Keywords- organizational commitment, dynamic behavior. Introduction Commitment is a common and important construct in behavioral studies. Numerous studies have investigated factors that influence commitment both at individual and organizational level, such as individual characteristics, culture, and human resource policy in practice (Lok and Crawford, 2001; Gifford et al, 2002; Rashid et al., 2003; Eaton, 2003). However, it is difficult to generalize such findings in different contexts (Lok and Crawford, 2001; Meyer et al, 2002; Rashid et al., 2003). At the beginning, Meyer et al, (1993) distinguished the constructs of commitment antecedents into three basic major forms i.e., emotional attachment and belief, perceived economic value, and ethical reasons of obligation to organization. However, recent conceptual critique of commitment model by Solinger at al (2008) invited further investigation on the consistencies of both empirical and theoretical approach of commitment phenomenon. Few studies on employee commitment were able to explain its phenomenon clearly (Meyer et al, 2002; Rashid et al., 2003; Lok and Crawford, 2001). However, there are no consensus has been reached regarding consistent related factors that constitute commitment. Accordingly, in depth investigations on the phenomena of commitment were needed.Previous studies on commitment assumed that employees and their environment were static. In fact, Desarbo et al, (2008), Schalk (1997) and Alasdair (2008) noted that organizations and their member behaviors were change. Thus, previous investigations on commitment model seem to fail in analysis from both empirical and theoretical viewpoint. They cannot explain the basic forms of commitment consistently, and therefore the theoretical contribution is constrained. Accordingly, researchers have spent considerable effort attempting to develop and test the models of commitment phenomenon assumed that environment was always change. These behavioral changes may explain in several studies. Perish (2008) argued that based on short-term opportunities, workers may change their wants, needs and ought to, and thus influence their behavior at workplace. Although the real phenomenon has not been explained successfully, Cicekli (2008) proposed the opportunity for promotion and development proposed a phenomenon of commitment. Whereas, Desarbo (2008) proposed that at organizational level, firm’s strategies also change, by blending their strategies from more than one pure strategic group in order to win the market competition. Thus, this study was a further suggestion to reconcile conceptual approaches on employee commitment phenomenon. . According to equity theory, individuals modify their behavior based on their perceptions of fair treatment, i.e., how one perceives the ratio of his or her inputs to his or her outcomes to be equivalent to those around him or her. It was proposed that base on individual and environmental change, commitment may have limitation area of change acceptance.The nature of dynamic behaviorDynamic point of view attractively has been proposed in few studies. Organizations and their member actions are viewed as dynamic behaviors (Schalk, 1997; Desarbo et al, 2008; Alasdair, 2008). They can change anytime begin to look for advantages and better opportunities elsewhere (Cool et al, 1987). At organizational level, firms try to apply unique strategic postures so as to reach more market structures (Cool et al, 1987). They change, expand, and blend their strategies, from more than one pure strategic group to win the market competition (Desarbo, 2008). For example, at the beginning firms may apply defensive system strategy; and the next stage, the firms go on to the offensive strategy (Land, 2004). They change their strategies, dynamically. Since Hunt, M. (1972) found the movement of firms strategies, Porter, M. (1980) developed the concept and applied it within his overall system of strategic analysis. Hodgkinson G.P. (1997) originally analyzed the intra-industry variations in a competitive behavior and performance of firms. Switching strategy of firm, may caused business environment pressure or the demand of firm accelerations. Moreover, Cool et al (1987) empirically identified switching of firm’s strategy within different periods.At the individual level, based on equity theory, workers might change their behavior depending on external offering or their own self desires. For example, Perish (2008) argued that based on their short-term opportunities, workers may change their wants and needs, thus influencing their working behavior. If the situation at the workplace plays opportunistic behaviors (Judge, 2007), i.e., manipulation action in the workplace (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997) workers often respond differently. Desires of workers direct them to look for opportunities, for having fair treatments from different viewpoints such as by comparing their organization and its competitor’s compensations (Milcovich, 1999, Rhoades et al, 2001). They respond to external offering or their own desires defensively, reactively or protectively, to avoid actions, blaming, or changes (Judge, 2007). Thus, worker behavior might change if political behaviors emanate or they feel unfairly treated (Hochwarter, 2003; Valle & Perrewe, 2000). There is further feedback based on their different perceptions (Lynch, 1999), attitudes (Martin 2006), and expectations (Debra, 2008).Commitment within dynamic situationCorrelation and effect between organizational and individual levels is known to reverse each other. Porras and Robertson (1992) indicated that behavioral change at the individual employee level is essential to organizational change. Otherwise Antoni (2004) suggested that one has to change their beliefs on the organizational membership, which thus shape their behavior, in order to support sustainable organizational change. Elias (2009) noted that organizations always continue to make adjustments and modifications at amazing rate, which in turn has effects on the workers. In order of commitment of workers, it may change as a consequence of different patterns in the dynamic psychological contract and thus the new deal of acceptance has to be created (Schalk, 1997). This new balance of new deal is created as a reflection of input and output ratio from employee's rewards and their effort at work. Accordingly, both change in organization and individual may influence on the commitment of worker within certain limits of a band of acceptance and tolerance limit.Empirically, commitment was influenced by individual demographics and expectations, and working conditions, (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Martin, 2008). Whereas equity theory proposes that treating people fairly causes them to be motivated. Equity theory introduces the concept of social comparison, whereby employees evaluate their own input/output ratio based on comparing it with that of other employees (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978; Judge, 2007). Employees who perceive inequity will seek to reduce it, either by distorting inputs and/or outcomes in their own minds, directly altering inputs and/or outcomes, or leaving the organization. Thus, the theory has wide-reaching implications for employee morale, efficiency, productivity, and turnover. O’Driscall et al (2006) indicated that employees still have commitment to the organization as far as the band of tolerance and acceptance is concerned. This finding was supported by Elias’ (2009) empirical study which proposed that attitude toward environment change create an effect on commitment. This empirical finding showed that workers’ commitment still existed within turbulence conditions of technology, autonomy, and participative decision making. Some individuals will welcome the alteration because it provides opportunities to broaden their professional horizons and fulfills their growth needs, whereas others will dread change because the implementation of such change may require extra efforts and runs counter to their external motives for employment. Therefore based on equity theory and commitment phenomena on the change environment this study proposed that: worker’s commitment is always within their tolerance and acceptance band of equity.ConclusionTheoretical implicationThe current study expanded previous perspective on the investigation of commitment, has implications at least on several points. Dynamic point of view was able to provide new approach to commitment investigation than the previous static perspective, with better rational explanations. Work environment was acknowledged, commonly changes both at organizational and individual level. Based in equity theory explains how employees respond to situations in which they believe they are being under- or over-rewarded compared with a referent individual carrying out similar tasks, workers always try to gain better advantages than before and past experiences. As a result, they try to change and grow, within the process to settle towards in other comfort zone situation (Alasdair, 2008, Perish, 2008). New basic forms of commitment phenomenon were found. They consist of tolerance and acceptance band, opportunity and extra effort, and new deal or balance agreements. The consistent investigation of dynamic point of view will be able to ground the theory of dynamic perspective in commitment dynamics, and eliminate the previous static perspective one.Limitation and future research directionNotwithstanding these contributions, this study has several limitations. However, it is an open question as to whether these results can be applied on different broader coverage such as external organizational dynamics, specifics peers worker, leader and subordinates dynamics, and specifics organizational level changes.Risk taker consequence was missed in investigation. Risk taker behavior is commonly known as a specific worker behavior. They will take opportunities on work. Investigation on risk taker behavior intensity prediction was able to distinguish the different effects of commitment. Similarly, Hofstadter’s dimensions, or worker demographics perceptions, was out of investigation as well as specifics offers. Different values and characteristics of workers were strongly predicted to relate to commitment differently. Additional longitudinal studies are needed to compare this finding. It is also useful to explain the prediction of commitment changes and conclusion. The sub conditions workers on profit versus non-profit organizations, private versus public sectors, and home versus host country of strategic perspectives should become future attractive investigations.ReferencesAlasdair, Antony; Kenneth, White (2008), From Comfort Zone to Performance Management Understanding development and performance.Antoni, C. H., 2004, Research note: A motivational perspective on change processes and outcomes, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13: 197-216.Brian K Miller; Kay McGlashan Nicols, 2008, Politics and Justice: A Mediated Moderation Model, Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(2), 214.Cicekli, Elif , 2008, The Opportunity Model of Organizational Commitment, The Business Review, 10(2).Cool, Karel O.; Schendel, Dan, 1987, Strategic Group Formation and Performance: The Case of the U.S. Pharmaceutical industry, Management Science; 33, 9; pg. 1102Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. 1997, The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159–180.Debra R. Comer, Gina Vega, 2008, Using the PET Assessment Instrument to Help Students Identify Factors that Could Impede Moral Behavior, Journal of Business Ethics 77:129–145Desarbo, wayne, s and Rajdeep, greewal (2008), Hybrid Strategic group, Strategic Management Journal, 29: 293–317Eaton, S. C., 2003, If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies, Organizational Commitment, and Perceived Performance. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 145-167.Elias, Steven M, 2009, Employee Commitment in Times of Change Assessing the Importance of Attitudes toward Organizational Change, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, 37-55.Gifford, B. D., Zammuto, R. F., Goodman, E. A., and Hill, K. S., 2002, The Relationship between Hospital Unit Culture and Nurses’ Quality of Work Life, Journal of Healthcare Management, 47(1), 13-26.Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M., 2000,Perceptions of organizational politics as a moderator of the relationship between consciousness and job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 472–478Hodgkinson, G.P., 1997, The Cognitive Analysis of Competitive Structures: A Review and Critique, Human Relations, 50 (6), 625-654. Hopkins, Sharon M, Weathington, Bart L, 2006, The Relationships Between Justice Perceptions, Trust, and Employee Attitudes in a Downsized Organization, The Journal of Psychology, 140(5), 22: 477.Hunt, M., 1972, Competition in the Major Home Appliance Industry, doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Judge, 2007, Organizational Behavior, Prantice hall.Kacmar, K Michele, Carlson, Dawn S, 1997, Perceptions of ethics across situations: A view through three different lenses, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 16, Iss 2; p 147.Kacmar, K. M. and R. A. Baron: 1999, ‘Organizational Politics, The State of the Field, Links to Related Processes, and an Agenda for Future Research’, in G. R. Ferris (ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 17 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 1–39.Land, Thomas T., 2004, Offense And Defense, Quality Progress; 37, 1; pg. 50.Lemons, Mary A , Jones, Coy A, 2001, Procedural justice in promotion decisions: Using perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(4), 13: 268.Lok, P. and Crawford, J., 2001, Antecedents of Organizational Commitment and the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594-613.Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L., 2002, Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.Meyer, J.P. Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A, 1993, Commitment to organizations and occupation: extension and test of a three component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4),538-551.Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J.M. 1999, Compensation, 6th Ed. McGraw- Hill.N'Goala, Gilles 2007, Customer switching resistance (CSR); The effects of perceived equity, trust and relationship commitment, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5); 510Nye, L.G., Witt, L.A., 1993, Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS), Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 821–829.O'Driscoll, Michael P, Pierce, Jon L., Coghlan, Ann-Marie, 2006, The Psychology of Ownership: work environment structure, organizational commitment and citizenship behavior, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31, Iss. 3; pg. 388, 29 pgs.Parish, Janet Turner, Cadwallader, Susan, Busch, Paul, 2008, Want to, need to, ought to: employee commitment to organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1); 32.Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. 1992. Organizational development: Theory, practice, and research. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.): 3. 719-822. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Porter, M., 1980, Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New YorkPowell, Anne, Galvin, John, Piccoli, Gabriele, 2006 Antecedents to team member commitment from near and far; A comparison between collocated and virtual teams, Information Technology & People,19(4); 299Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M., and Johari, J., 2003 The Influence of Corporate Culture and Organizational Commitment on Performance, Journal of Management Development, 22(8), 708-728.Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S., 2001, Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825–836.Roberts, James A, Coulson, Kevin R, Chonko, Lawrence B, 1999, Salesperson perceptions of equity and justice and their impact on organizational commitment and intent to turnover, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(1); 16: 1.Schalk, Rene; Freese, Charissa, 1997, New Facets of Commitment in Response to Organizational Change: Research Trend and the Dutch experience, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1997; pg. 107.Solinger, Omar N, olffen, Wodd van, Roe, Robert A., 2008, Beyond the Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 93, No. 1, 70-83.Tansky, Judith W, Gallagher, Daniel G, Wetzel, Kurt W 1997, The effect of demographics, work status, and relative equity on organizational commitment: Looking among part-time workers, Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 14(3);12:315.Valle, M. and P.L. Perewe, 2000, Do politics perception related to political behavior?, Human relation, 53, 359-386Vigoda, E., 2000b, Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: exploration and implications for the public sector, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 326-47.Vigoda, E.,2000a, Internal politics in public administration systems, Public Personnel Management, 29,185-210.Vigoda-Gadot, E., Vinarski-Peretz, H., & Ben-Zion, E. 2003, Politics and image in the organizational landscape, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 764–787. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download