Assignment: The Meyer-Allen Instrument

Human Resource Development Review
2015, Vol. 14(4) 389 –414

© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484315603612

hrd.sagepub.com

Integrative Review

Affective Commitment
as a Core Essence of
Organizational Commitment:
An Integrative
Review

Zachary A. Mercurio1

Abstract
This article responds to the call for the identification of a core essence of organizational
commitment. Since this call 14 years ago, scholars studying organizational commitment
have not come to an agreement as to the nature of organizational commitment, and how
it develops. The research’s fragmentation creates a problem in a time when practitioners
are looking toward organizational commitment interventions to attract, retain, and
develop talent and enhance employee performance. With organizational commitment
research remaining confounding and fragmented, further clarification of what commitment
is and how it develops is warranted and important to guide future research and evidence-
based practice. Through a review of the competing and overlapping organizational
commitment theoretical frameworks and the empirical research on the consequences
of affective organizational commitment, this article proposes a conceptual framework
in which affective commitment, or the emotional attachment to the organization, is an
important core essence of organizational commitment.

Keywords
organizational commitment, affective commitment, employee commitment, employee
emotional commitment

On the topic of human motivation, Abraham Maslow stated, “The fact is that people are
good. Give people affection and security and they will give affection and be secure in
their feelings and their behavior” (Lowry, 1973, p. 18). Securing employees’ affection

1Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

Corresponding Author:
Zachary A. Mercurio, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 8011, Fort Collins, CO 80523-8011, USA.
Email: [email protected]

603612HRDXXX10.1177/1534484315603612Human Resource Development ReviewMercurio
research-article2015

mailto:[email protected]

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1534484315603612&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-09-08

390 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

and subsequent, demonstrated commitment is a rising concern emerging in organiza-
tion development (OD) and human resource development (HRD) practice. Increasingly,
leaders in modern organizations are tasked with attracting, cultivating, and retaining
talent with the skills and capabilities to maintain a competitive advantage in their indus-
tries (Aguirre, Post, & Hewlett, 2009; Alvino, 2014; Clifton, 2014; Dychtwald,
Erickson, & Morison, 2013; Pangarkar & Kirkwood, 2013). The modern environment
of economic uncertainty, rapid change, continued globalization, increasing competi-
tion, and the rise of the mobile millennial generation serves as the backdrop and poten-
tial driver of this increased attention and focus on employee commitment from both
practitioners and scholars (Cohen, 2007; Gibb, 2011; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &
Topolnytsky, 2002; Morrow, 2011; Fornes, Rocco & Wollard, 2008).

A poignant example of the practical call to reengage scholarly inquiry into organi-
zational commitment can be observed in one of the most prestigious U.S. government
agencies. In the 2014 Government Executive article, “The High Cost of Federal
Workforce Depression,” author Howard Risher commented on the current U.S. Secret
Service systemic failures by focusing on an endemic lack of morale and emotional
commitment to the agency over the past 7 years. Risher (2014) stated,

. . . poor morale can be a cancer that slowly spreads and vitiates the commitment of even
those who are seen as role models. The agency fell from 66th on the 2007 list of the “Best
Places to Work” to 226 out of 300 in 2013. (para. 5)

Risher observed that poor morale, an attitude or feeling, can consequently impair
employee commitment.

Other modern practitioners seem to agree. In 2014, Forbes Magazine published an
article titled “Engage Your Employees or Lose Billions.” Alvino (2014) observed that
behaviors such as working long hours and productivity are enacted first by an emo-
tional attachment, or commitment, to an organization’s mission or story. In addition,
the Association for Talent Development (ATD) released a bulletin titled “Four Ways to
Gain Employees Commitment.” Pangarkar and Kirkwood (2013) stated, “Employee
engagement is the holy grail for every business leader. It’s described in a variety of
ways but generally defined as when employees fully invest emotionally, mentally, and
physically so they focus on achieving the organization’s objectives” (para. 1). To fur-
ther underscore the need for an exploration into what commitment is and how it devel-
ops, in 2014, Gallup released a poll that found just three out of every 10 employees felt
engaged in their jobs and committed to their organizations (Clifton, 2014).

The recent attention given to engagement and commitment in the popular manage-
ment press has centered heavily on emotional well-being when describing employee
commitment to organizations. William Davies (2015), in The Atlantic article “All the
Happy Workers” further examined the modern organizational and societal need for
happy and emotionally committed employees. Davies (2015), while highlighting the
refocus of corporations on emotional commitment and well-being, stated, “ . . . this is
the monistic philosophy of the 21st-century manager: Each worker can become better,
in body, mind, and output” (para. 45).

Mercurio 391

Purpose

At the same time 21st-century managers renew a focus on and investment in employee
attitudes and organizational commitment, HRD and OD scholars have lamented that
the stream of organizational commitment literature remains confounding, fragmented,
and difficult to access (Cohen, 2007; Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002;
Morrow, 2011; Mowday, 1999; Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe, 2008; Stazyk, Pandey,
& Wright, 2011). The fragmented state of the organizational commitment research, a
renewed practitioner focus on commitment as an HRD strategy, and the increased
popular attention given to the role of emotional attachment to organizations warrants
a modern review of the organizational commitment literature with a focus on affec-
tive (or emotional and attitudinal) organizational commitment as termed by Meyer &
Allen (1984).

Thus, this article intends to serve as a modern review, analysis, and synthesis of the
affective organizational commitment scholarly literature within the broader context of
organizational commitment. The ultimate goal of this review is to provide direction for
future researchers and practitioners studying organizational commitment, and more
specifically, how affective organizational commitment is developed and managed.
Furthermore, this review responds to Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) call for the defi-
nition of a core essence of organizational commitment by arguing that affective com-
mitment is an important core essence of the organizational commitment construct.

This article is organized into the following sections: (a) method, (b) statement of
the problem, (c) an integrative literature review of the construct of affective commit-
ment within the context of the broader organizational commitment literature, (d) find-
ings and conceptual model of affective commitment as a core essence of organizational
commitment, and (e) implications for researchers and practitioners.

Method

Based on recommendations by Torraco (2005), the following outlines the strategy of
selecting and analyzing the articles and texts used in this review. The method of con-
ducting this integrative literature review is in alignment with the article’s stated pur-
pose to synthesize a very complex and confounding stream of organizational
commitment research to situate affective commitment as an important core essence of
organizational commitment. First, the seminal and high-impact articles and texts on
organizational commitment as a general construct were selected and reviewed to cap-
ture the evolution of the construct and to review the various competing and overlap-
ping theoretical frameworks. Articles and texts published from 1960 to present were
reviewed to scaffold the construct of organizational commitment’s development from
its initial appearance in scholarly journals. The time range of selected articles was
determined by selecting the first articles specifically naming employee and/or organi-
zational commitment as a distinguished construct (e.g., Becker, 1960; Buchanan,
1974; Gouldner, 1960; Kanter, 1968; Steers, 1977). The high-impact, seminal articles
that serve as the scaffolding for this review were initially identified by examining the

392 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

reference lists of the most often cited (as statistically reported by Google Scholar)
meta-analyses and existing literature reviews on organizational commitment pub-
lished within the past 15 years. The articles on organizational commitment as a general
construct were selected to serve as the context and backdrop from which to distinguish
the construct of affective commitment and describe its evolution.

Next, articles that presented both one dimensional and multidimensional concep-
tual models that included definitions of affective organizational commitment as a dis-
tinguished construct were selected and reviewed. These articles were selected to
compare and contrast the definitions of affective commitment with the early defini-
tions of the general construct of organizational commitment to determine if affective
commitment and the original, defined construct of organizational commitment dis-
played commonalities and therefore may be a theoretical core of organizational com-
mitment. Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational
commitment was selected to serve as the base from which to select and analyze articles
that investigated and theorized on the three most widely recognized and studied forms
of commitment: affective, normative, and continuance commitment.

Then, articles that focused on both the theoretical frameworks and empirical
research of the antecedents and consequences of affective commitment, specifically,
were selected and analyzed. In addition, meta-analyses that combined the study of the
antecedents and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment
were selected and reviewed to determine commonalities and incongruences among the
findings. Finally, research articles in the past 15 years that studied and linked HRD
practices as antecedents to affective commitment were selected to inform the discus-
sion of implications to practitioners and researchers.

Research databases and portals such as Google Scholar, EBSCO Academic Search
Premier, JSTOR, and ERIC served as the portals for accessing the literature. The data-
bases were queried using the keywords: affective commitment, organizational com-
mitment, employee commitment, and employee emotional commitment. A total of 75
texts and peer-reviewed articles were selected for review based on the above criteria.

The Problem: Defining a Core Essence of Organizational
Commitment

The problem is that when faced with the task of improving employees’ emotional com-
mitment to organizations, practitioners and scholars are faced with confounding and
contradictory scholarly research from which to base planned interventions and empiri-
cal studies. The popular commentary by practitioners urging a focus on organizational
commitment as a means of sustaining a high-functioning workforce incites a simulta-
neous need for scholars in HRD and OD to examine and clarify the state of organiza-
tional commitment research for future empirical investigations and practitioner use.

Practitioners and new scholars exploring organizational commitment literature will
find a stream of research that is fragmented, confounding, and contradictory. This
problem was raised by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) when they stated, “Despite the
increase in attention given to the study of workplace commitment, there still appears

Mercurio 393

to be considerable confusion and disagreement about what commitment is, where it is
directed, how it develops, and how it affects behavior” (p. 299).

Defining a “Core Essence”

In addition, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) urged the definition and conceptualization
of a core essence of organizational commitment to guide future research. A core
essence, as described by Meyer and Herscovitch, is a binding force that should drive
future theory-building and modeling of the construct of organizational commitment.
Core, as defined in the Oxford Dictionary (2015), means the most central and impor-
tant part of something. Essence is defined as the intrinsic nature or indispensable qual-
ity of something.

Therefore, for the purpose of this review, a core essence can be defined as an endur-
ing, indispensable, and central characteristic of the organizational commitment con-
struct that distinguishes it from other constructs. Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001)
attempt at defining a core essence, however, resulted in a proposed multidimensional
core, therefore not meeting the definition of a core essence and perhaps adding to the
confusion of the complex stream of research and definitions of organizational
commitment.

The State of the : 2001-Present

Since Meyer and Herscovitch’s call for the definition of a core essence of organiza-
tional commitment in 2001, there remains significant fragmentation and debate as to
what the core essence of organizational commitment is and should be (Cohen, 2007;
Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002; Morrow, 2011; Solinger et al., 2008;
Stazyk et al., 2011). It is important to acknowledge that the fragmented evolution of
the scholarship on organizational commitment can be attributed to the diverse disci-
plines (e.g., psychology, management, sociology) that have undertaken the study of
commitment. However, the combination of a renewed practical focus on organiza-
tional commitment and a confounding body of research represents a problem for both
scholars studying organizational commitment and practitioners developing and imple-
menting interventions focused on organizational commitment. By proposing a core
essence of organizational commitment through an updated review of the literature, a
narrower and more accessible definition of organizational commitment may assist
researchers and practitioners in continuing important empirical research to design
effective interventions to develop and manage commitment.

The current dilemma in the organizational commitment literature has risen out of
the abundance of healthy scholarly debate that has endured regarding the meanings,
definitions, and dimensions of organizational commitment since the early 1960s.
Much of the scholarly literature examining organizational commitment sought to clar-
ify and define the construct more narrowly and accurately to provide researchers with
a sound framework to base inquiries. However, after more than 50 years of scholarly
work on the topic, there remains rigorous debate as to the nature, types, and bases of

394 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

commitment, and whether dominant frameworks such as Meyer and Allen’s (1991)
three-component framework are valid across multiple contexts and accurately describe
the phenomenon of commitment. This debate is evidenced by the recent research ques-
tioning the efficacy of the theorizing around organizational commitment and its poten-
tial role in fragmenting future empirical research (Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Fornes,
Rocco & Wollard, 2008; Solinger et al., 2008; Stazyk et al., 2011).

Furthermore, with the significant meta-analyses of organizational commitment
research now nearing a decade old and practitioner publications citing commitment as
a key variable in workforce development, it is important and useful to conduct a review
of the literature that may clarify and focus an area of future organizational commit-
ment research and add to the modern organizational commitment literature.

Organizational Commitment Theories

To further define and distinguish affective commitment as a core essence of organiza-
tional commitment, the following will review the existing theoretical frameworks and
conceptualizations of organizational commitment and discern how affective commit-
ment remains at the core of these diverting and overlapping theories.

Behavioral Commitment Theory

The definition of the behavioral conceptualization and theory of organizational com-
mitment is perhaps best stated by Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982), when they wrote
that behavioral commitment “ . . . relates to the process by which individuals become
locked into certain organizations” (p. 26). The primary assertion of the theories of
behavioral commitment posits that an individual’s psychological state of commitment
to an organization is a consequence of the actions of the individual. Under this theo-
retical lens, an individual’s behavior also creates the conditions through which a psy-
chological state of commitment is reached. Meyer and Allen (1991), when contrasting
the behavioral perspective and the attitudinal perspective of commitment, describe the
behavioral perspective as a cycle that starts and ends with the individual’s behavior.

Salancik (1977), in the primary work on behavioral commitment, argued that orga-
nizational commitment arises out of (a) an attachment to the individual’s own freely
chosen actions, (b) a perceived obligation to follow through with these actions, and (c)
the perceived costs of continuing or not continuing the actions. Salancik used the term
“volition” to describe the individual’s perception that an action was made out of a free
choice. Salancik posited that when volition is high, an individual might feel more
personally responsible for that action. In addition, Salancik theorized that perceived
costs of continuing the action result in the repetition of past actions in the future.

For example, under the behavioral lens of commitment, if an employee freely
chooses to act loyally to a supervisor, then that individual will feel a heightened obli-
gation to continue to act loyally. Moreover, if the costs of not continuing to act loyally
are high, the obligation to continue acting loyally will be further heightened; thus
producing a psychological state of commitment to the supervisor.

Mercurio 395

Transactional Commitment Theory

Scholars have also theorized that commitment arises out of an individual’s investment
of resources and subsequent rewards (Becker, 1960; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). The
transactional perspective is based on the idea that commitment is the result of eco-
nomic decisions and rationale. Becker’s (1960) “side bet” theory brought this concep-
tualization of commitment into focus.

Becker (1960) argued that commitment was a result of the perceived loss of an
accumulation of specific investments if the individual did not maintain membership in
that organization. Examples of these investments could include time, effort, and
money (Meyer & Allen, 1984). In the transactional view, the potential risk of losing
these investments coupled with the lack of other employment alternatives for the indi-
vidual may result in commitment to the organization as manifested by longevity.
Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991) labeled this type of commitment as “continuance”
commitment.

Other scholars have used terms such as instrumental, compliance, or calculative
commitment, but rely on Becker’s (1960) side bet theory as their general base (Mathieu
& Zajac, 1990; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Balfour and Wechsler (1996) took a dif-
ferent approach to theorizing about transactional commitment and used the term
“exchange” commitment and theorized that commitment may be formed directly due
to rewards received from the organization.

Obligatory Commitment Theory

Other researchers (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Wiener, 1982) theorized that commitment is
partly developed by an individual’s predisposition or mind-set of obligation to an
organization. This psychological state of obligation may arise out of specific norms
that are internalized by the individual. Scholars adopting what Meyer and Allen (1984)
termed “normative” commitment argue that internalized norms of obligation can be
developed by a need or perceived expectation to reciprocate specific benefits to an
organization. Normative commitment can be seen as having significant, overlapping
principles with the ideas of continuance or behavioral-transactional theories of
commitment.

Attitudinal Commitment Theory

Theories that are based on an attitudinal definition of commitment focus on the
desire of the individual to remain in an organization (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
Kanter (1968) pioneered the theory of attitudinal commitment by hypothesizing that
feelings of cohesion or involvement with an organization likely contributed to an
individual’s commitment to that organization. Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991) termed
this attitudinal type of commitment as “affective” commitment and base their term
on Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s (1979) work in developing the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire (OQM), which measures affective commitment to

396 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

organizations by measuring values congruence with the organization, feelings of
care for the organization, pride in the organization, and willingness to put forth extra
effort into the organization.

Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), based on an extensive review of the literature, theo-
rized that affective commitment is developed primarily by an individual’s involve-
ment and identification with the organization. More specifically, they asserted that
individuals become intrinsically motivated or involved in a course of action that devel-
ops from an identification, association, and attachment with the larger organization’s
values and objectives.

Commitment as Multidimensional

Out of the previously reviewed theoretical bases, researchers have developed impor-
tant multidimensional models that conceptualize organizational commitment as
nuanced, with overlapping and multiple meanings and bases that include all of the
above definitions and theories (Angle & Perry, 1981; Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, &
Sincich, 1993; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Perhaps the
most well-known and enduring multidimensional conceptualization is Meyer and
Allen’s (1991) three-component framework. This framework presents organizational
commitment as a complementary relationship between attitudinal and behavioral defi-
nitions of commitment. They proposed that affective commitment (the desire to remain
in the organization), continuance commitment (the need to remain in the organiza-
tion), and normative commitment (the mind-set of an obligation to remain in the orga-
nization) are interrelated and may be experienced and demonstrated by individuals
simultaneously. In fact, Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed that these varying theories
of commitment should not be defined as types of commitment, but rather as compo-
nents of commitment.

Meyer and Allen (1991) also theorized that attitudinal commitment and behavioral
commitment are not mutually exclusive theories. For example, they state that affective
commitment may result from specific, freely chosen behaviors that, over time, may
lead individuals to then feel affectively attached to the organization.

Toward Affective Commitment as the Core of Organizational
Commitment

Over the past 10 years, however, authors have challenged the three-component model
and similar models that attempt to combine the previous streams of continuance, nor-
mative, and affective commitment research (Bergman, 2006; Solinger et al., 2008;
Stazyk et al., 2011). These authors argue that the three components are “qualitatively
different concepts” (Solinger et al., 2008, p. 73). They argued that the results of empir-
ical studies measuring commitment indicate that affective, or attitudinal, commitment
repeatedly correlated more strongly with consequences such as turnover and perfor-
mance as summarized by important meta-analyses of the research (Cooper-Hakim &
Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005).

Mercurio 397

For example, Solinger et al. (2008) confirmed previous meta-analyses’ findings
(Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer et al., 2002) that found affective com-
mitment correlated more strongly with absence (affective = −.15, normative = .05,
continuance = .06), performance (affective = .16, normative = .06, continuance =
−.07), and organizational citizenship behaviors (affective = .32, normative = .24, con-
tinuance = −.01) than continuance commitment and normative commitment. In addi-
tion, affective commitment correlated with the widest range of behavioral variables
such as helping others, working extra hours, information sharing, and supervisor’s
evaluation of performance (Solinger et al., 2008).

Solinger et al. (2008), therefore, argued that, in light of the empirical research, a
singular approach to understanding commitment should be the base of future research.
More specifically, they posited that a possible return to a solely attitudinal, affective
approach is necessary due to the construct’s more conclusive empirical evidence.

In review of the theoretical frameworks that underpin the study of organizational com-
mitment, it is clear that there exists significant debate and confusion around what organiza-
tional commitment is, and how it should be conceptualized. Most of the disagreement about
the nature of commitment seems to focus on the behavioral and transactional conceptualiza-
tions of commitment in light of empirical research findings that indicate a considerably
weaker predictive relationship with behavioral and transactional conceptualizations of com-
mitment and consequences of commitment such as employee turnover and absenteeism
(Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002).

Therefore, there does seem to be a relative constant in the research: attitudinal,
affective commitment as a construct is a possible core of organizational commitment
and could prove to be an important area of focus for future research and practical
application. A review of the research of the evolution of the construct of affective com-
mitment, therefore, helps to position it further as an important core essence of organi-
zational commitment.

Research on Affective Commitment

Foundational Research

Researchers over the past 20 years have generally agreed that the construct of affective
commitment can be described as the emotional attachment to an organization as mani-
fested by an individual’s identification with, and involvement in, that organization
(Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002). The early research
that underpins the current study of affective commitment seems to have studied the mod-
ern construct of affective commitment without operationally naming it as such. When
reviewing and analyzing the modern study of affective commitment, and the practices of
managing and developing the construct, it is important to understand its origins.

Cohesion Commitment

One of the first inquiries into affective commitment as a distinct construct was Kanter’s
(1968) non-experimental, comparative study of utopian communities. Kanter first

398 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

proposed and hypothesized three major constructs that facilitate commitment to social
communities and organizations: continuance, cohesion, and control. Furthermore,
Kanter posited that these three constructs of commitment are manifested in a person
by cognition (continuance), cathexis (cohesion), and evaluative (control) mechanisms.
It is the second variable, cohesion by cathexis, that formed the notion of cohesion
commitment that serves as the basis of the modern research of affective commitment.
Kanter (1968) defined cohesion commitment as “ . . . attachment to social relation-
ships which absorb the individual’s fund of affectivity” (p. 501).

Kanter (1968) chose 91 utopian communities and used longevity as an indicator of
success. A system that existed for more than 25 years was determined successful and
one that existed for fewer than 25 years was deemed unsuccessful. Kanter found,
through a 260-question survey designed with hypothesized commitment variables,
that successful utopian communities employed strategies to intentionally design cohe-
sion commitment, whereas unsuccessful communities did not structure practices to
this effect (Kanter, 1968). Kanter found that one of the key variables of a successful
utopian community was “communion” and defined this variable as “becoming …