Organizational commitment: Evidence of career stage effects?

J BIJSN RES 1993:26:49-61

49

Organizational Commitment: Evidence of Career Stage Effects?

Natalie J. Allen

John P. Meyer The University of Western Ontario

Research examining work attitudes from a career stage perspective addresses two issues: changes in attitudes across stages and the relations between work experiences and attitudes at different stages. Unfortunately, employee age, organizational tenure, and positional tenure are all used to define career stages, making cross-study comparisons difficult. In this study, affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization were examined as a function of all three career stage variables. Also examined were the contributions, across stages, of various work experiences to the prediction of affective commitment. Results indicate that although affective and normative commitment increase significantly with employee age, increases in continuance commitment are more closely related to increases in organizational and positional tenure. Further, the relationships between work experiences and affective commitment differ only slightly across tenure levels, and not at all across employee age groups.

Introduction

Research examining the relationships between work attitudes and career stages has focused on two related issues. One is whether there are changes in work attitudes that occur as employees proceed from one career stage to another. The other, somewhat more complex, issue involves the possibility that particular work experiences are differentially related to work attitudes at different career stages. From a practical perspective, both issues are important. Being able to anticipate the course of work attitudes over career stages would be useful for both employers and employees. Moreover, if particular work experiences are more closely linked to work attitudes in some career stages than in others, it might be possible to manage work experiences to optimize these attitudes.

Address correspondence to Natalie J. Allen, Centre for Administrative and Information Studies, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada.

This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (No. 41&89-0379) and Imperial Oil Limited. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Sue Tessier in data analysis and Wendy Bichard in preparing the tables and we thank three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of the article.

Journal of Business Research 26, 49-61 (1993) 0 1993 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.

0148-2963/93/$5.00

655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

50 J BUSN RES 1993:26:49-61

N. J. Allen and J. P. Meyer

The present research focuses specifically on the relationship between career stage and one work attitude: organizational commitment. With its demonstrated link to turnover and other outcomes (e.g., Mowday et al., 1982; Meyer et al., 1989), commitment seems particularly important to consider from a career stage perspective, especially given the existence of an aging and mobile work force.

Operationalizing the Career Stage Construct

Comparisons across the few studies in which work attitudes and career stage variables were examined are hampered by diversity in the way the career stage construct has been operationalized. As Morrow and McElroy (1987) noted, employee age, organizational tenure, and positional (job) tenure all have been used to define career stages. Variability also exists with respect to the time frames researchers have used to demarcate the stages. Further, although the term “career stage” suggests discrete time periods, some researchers have treated age and tenure as continuous variables. Given the operational inconsistencies, this latter strategy has merit; however, if researchers only conducted linear analyses, the strategy may serve to obscure curvilinear relationships between attitudinal and career stage variables. Finally, although career stage variables such as age, organizational tenure, and positional tenure are correlated, they are obviously not identical con- structs. Despite this, few attempts have been made to isolate the relative influence of each variable on work attitudes (e.g., using partial correlation or multiple regression analyses).

Organizational Commitment and Career Stage: Theoretical and Empirical Links

As others have noted (e.g., Morrow, 1983), organizational commitment has also been conceptualized and measured in various ways. The view of commitment taken here is based on a three-component model incorporating the major conceptuali- zations described in the literature (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991). Specifically, the model proposes that employees remain with an organization because of their: (1) desire to remain (affective commitment), (2) recognition that the costs associated with leaving would be high (continuance commitment), and/ or (3) feelings of obligation to remain (normative commitment). Each component is considered to develop independently and to exert different effects on work behavior. Affective commitment is expected to develop on the basis of work experiences that increase the employees’ feelings of challenge and “comfort” in the organization. Continuance commitment, on the other hand, develops as a function of the number and magnitude of investments employees make in their organizations (e.g., pension contributions) and the degree to which they feel they have employment alternatives. Finally, it is argued that the antecedents of normative commitment include early socialization experiences (e.g., parental emphasis on loyalty to an employer) as well as those that occur after organizational entry.

Changes in Organizational Commitment Across Career Stages. Results of several studies (Meyer and Allen, 1987; 1988; Mowday and McDade, 1980) suggest that affective commitment declines in the first year of employment. A reasonable explanation for this is that newcomers enter organizations with unrealistically high

Organizational Commitment and Career Stage J BUSN RES 1993:26:49-61

51

expectations (Wanous, 1980). As they learn more about their work, however, many

experience “reality shock” and affective reactions alter accordingly. Many employees leave the organization during this period. For those who stay, however, the affective commitment developed during this early period may set the stage for subsequent levels of commitment (Mowday et al., 1982). There is very little evidence, however, of a continuation of the downward trend observed during the first year. Indeed, although there are exceptions, affective commitment to the organization has been shown to be positively correlated with age and tenure in several studies (e.g., Adler and Aranya, 1984; Angle and Perry, 1983; Brief and Aldag, 1980).

As Cherrington et al. (1979) noted, with respect to the relationships between age and work values, explanations for correlations involving age are equivocal. Correlations between age and commitment, for example, might exist because (1) something about aging, per se, predisposes older employees to be more committed to organizations (a “maturity explanation”), (2) older employees actually have, or perceive they have, more positive experiences in organizations than younger employees (a “better experiences explanation”), or (3) there are generational differences in organizational commitment (a “cohort explanation”). If the latter is true, we might also expect to find age effects for normative commitment; possibly the idea of the “organization man” (or woman) who is obliged to remain loyal to the organization is more firmly held by those who began working during the post-war period than by subsequent entrants to the work force.

The positive relationship between commitment and organizational tenure may reflect the fact that more experienced employees have more attractive positions in organizations. Another explanation is that, over time, less committed employees are more likely to leave their organizations. It has also been suggested (e.g., Salancik, 1977) that tenure effects are due to self-justification processes (“I have been here 20 years, I must like it”). Finally, as employee age and organizational tenure are highly correlated, these effects may simply reflect “real” age effects.

The relationship between positional tenure and commitment has received little attention. One might expect, however, that employees who remain in the same job for a long time are those who have been passed over for promotions and, thus, have little commitment to their organizations.

Evidence from Morrow and McElroy’s (1987) large cross-sectional study incorporating all three career stage variables and several work attitudes (including affective commitment) suggests that the way the career stage variable is operationalized influences the observed effects. They found that, when measured as a continuous variable, employee age explained more of the variation in affective commitment (r = .27) than did either organizational (I = .17) or positional tenure (r = .09). Moreover, when subgroup analyses were conducted, a linear relationship was observed only between affective commitment and age. Younger employees were significantly less affectively committed to their organizations than those in the middle age range, who were, in turn, less committed than the oldest employees. Comparable subgroup analyses for organizational and positional tenure, however, revealed weak curvilinear relationships, with employees in the middle tenure range (organizational or positional) expressing less organizational commitment than those with either short or long tenure. Morrow and McElroy (1987) concluded, however, that the relationships between career stage variables and work attitudes are fairly

52 J BUSN RES 1993:26:49-61 N. J. Allen and J. P. Meyer

weak and may have been overstated in the literature. More importantly, they called for attention to the ways in which career stage variables are operationalized. In our view, at least two additional issues need to be addressed. First, as indicated above, the intercorrelations among the three career stage variables must be ac- knowledged. An effect attributed to age, for example, may really be an organizational tenure effect; an apparent tenure effect actually may be due to employee age differences. Thus, analyses are needed in which the independent effects of age, organizational tenure, and positional tenure are isolated. Second, given that commitment to the organization can take multiple forms (Meyer and Allen, 1991), attempts should be made to examine age, organizational tenure, and positional tenure differences not only in affective commitment, but also in continuance and normative commitment.

Work Experiences and Affective Commitment Links Across Career Stages. Much research attention has focused on the links between work experiences and the attitudes people have toward work (e.g., Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Mowday et al., 1982). In addition, it has been argued that people go through temporally ordered phases, or stages, across which work-related experiences, and their inter- pretations, vary considerably (Levinson, 1978; Super, 1957; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). These lines of research suggest that people may care more about, or be more affected by, particular work experiences at some stages in their careers than they will at others. If so, we would expect that career stage variables moderate the relationships between work experiences and individuals’ affective reaction to that work. Thus far, research examining this possibility has focused primarily on one work attitude, job satisfaction. Building on the work of Van Maanen and Schein (1979), Katz (1978, 1980) hypothesized that for those in the very early and uncertain stage in a job, “fitting in” and gaining feedback is of most importance. Later, employees become more concerned with influencing the organization; thus, challenging experiences matter more. Finally, in what Katz calls the “adaptation stage,” employees become relatively unresponsive to work characteristics.

To test this, Katz (1978) examined the relationships, at various career stages, between several job characteristics and job satisfaction. Although the effects were modest, results of moderated multiple regression analyses indicated that positional tenure moderated the relationships between each job characteristic and job satisfaction. Parallel analyses involving age, however, failed to produce moderator effects, a finding that is inconsistent with Gould’s (1979) report that the relationship between job complexity and satisfaction was stronger for younger than older employees. Finally, positional tenure did not moderate the job complexity-job satisfaction relationship in either sample examined by Kemp and Cook (1983), causing these authors to question the generalizability of Katz’s findings.

Less is known about whether career stage moderates the links between work experiences and organizational commitment, although Buchanan’s (1974) study of employees at three organizational tenure stages is instructive. He found that, for newcomers (< 1 year), affective commitment was best predicted by job challenge, while for those in the l-5 year range, feelings of acceptance and a belief that their work was important to the organization contributed the most. Finally, for those with 5 or more years’ tenure, commitment was most strongly related to perceptions that the organization had a commitment norm and the extent to which employee expectations had been met.


53

Research Overview

The purpose of this research was to examine organizational commitment in relation to three operationalizations of the career stage construct. This was accomplished in two ways. First, like Morrow and McElroy (1987), we compared the commitment levels reported by employees of differing ages and levels of organizational, and positional, tenure. To isolate which career stage variables were most influential, the relative contributions of each stage to each of the three commitment components were also examined. Second, we tested the hypothesis that some work experiences are more strongly linked to employees’ affective reaction to work at particular career stages than at others. Specifically, we examined the extent to which the three career stage variables moderated relationships between affective commitment to the organization and those work experience variables that are hypothesized to be antecedent to affective commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991).

Method

Subjects and Data Collection Procedures

Questionnaires were distributed by a member of the personnel department in each of two organizations along with a letter explaining the study and a return envelope. All participation was voluntary and responses were made anonymously. Respon- dents in Sample 1 (n = 123) were employed by a university library, their average age was 38.5 years, and females made up 82.1% of the sample. Professional li- brarians and non-professional library employees were included. Respondents in Sample 2 (n = 168) were clerical, supervisory, and managerial employees in a general hospital. Neither physicians nor nurses were included. Respondents’ average age was 39.4 years and females made up 81.5% of the sample.

Questionnaire Measures

Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment was assessed using the Affective (ACS), Continuance (CCS), and Normative Commitment (NCS) Scales, each of which is made up of 8 items (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Scale reliabilities are reported in Table 1.

Career Stage Variables. Respondents were also asked their age, how long they had worked for their organization, and how long they had been in their particular position in the organization.

Work Experiences. Several two-item work experience measures were taken. Specifically, we assessed respondents’ perceptions of the extent to which their roles were clearly defined, jobs were challenging, management was receptive to employee input, employees were treated equitably and made to feel important to the organization, the organization was dependable, employees participated in decisions regarding their work, and feedback about performance was provided. Some measures were modifications of those used by Buchanan (1974); others were developed by, and are available from, the authors. All items had 7-point response formats (strongly disagree to strongly agree) and scale scores were averaged across items. Reliabilities are reported in Table 1.

Tab

le

1. M

eans

, St

anda

rd

Dev

iatio

ns,

Rel

iabi

litie

s an

d C

orre

latio

ns

of M

easu

res.

Mea

sure

s 12

34

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14

M

SD

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Aff

ectiv

e co

mm

itmen

t C

ontin

uanc

e co

mm

itmen

t N

orm

ativ

e co

mm

itmen

t R

ole

clar

ity

Cha

lleng

e M

anag

emen

t re

cept

iven

ess

Equ

ity

Impo

rtan

ce

Org

aniz

atio

nal

depe

ndab

ility

Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

Feed

back

Age

O

rgan

izat

iona

l te

nure

Po

sitio

nal

tenu

re

(86)

05

51

35

61

49

51

69

62

48

35

36

24

15

(81)

19

-0

4 -1

3 -

14

-06

- 14

-0

3 -

10

- 12

12

22

23

(76)

30

25

24

22

34

39

25

15

35

21

25

(70)

31

(8

7)

41

43

37

37

40

62

48

45

36

52

32

34

19

25

08

11

05

04

(75)

52

66

53

61

40

16

07

-0

1

(61)

52

(7

5)

56

56

44

58

25

44

25

29

14

10

-01

04

4.37

1.

39

4.55

1.

35

3.81

1.

14

4.96

1.

56

4.72

1.

89

3.89

1.

76

3.67

1.

53

4.52

1.

80

(72)

4.

54

1.75

49

(6

3)

4.39

1.

65

31

43

(77)

3.

88

1.87

29

16

08

-

39.0

2 11

.10

09

08

-01

59

- 8.

68

6.42

01

-0

2 -0

6 52

73

-

5.63

5.

21

Now

: D

ue t

o m

issi

ng

data

, an

alys

es

repa

ted

here

are

bas

ed

on N

’s t

hat

vary

fr

om

263

to 2

91.

Dec

imal

pa

ints

ha

ve

been

om

itted

in

the

cor

rela

tion

mat

rix.

A

ll co

rrel

atio

ns

> .1

2 are

si

gnif

ican

t @

<

.05)

. R

elia

bilit

y es

timat

es

(coe

flic

ent

alph

a)

are

show

n in

the

dia

gona

l. A

ll co

mm

itmen

t an

d w

ork

expe

rien

ce

vari

able

s ar

e on

a 7

-poi

nt

scal

e.

Age

an

d te

nure

ar

e re

port

ed

in y

ears

. S

epar

ate

corr

elat

ion

mat

rice

s fo

r th

e tw

o sa

mpl

es

are

avai

labl

e fr

om

the

auth

ors.


Table 2. Organizational Commitment Components at Three Age, Organizational Tenure,

and Positional Tenure Levels

55

Sample and Levels of the Career Stage Variables

Commitment

Component AGl AG2 AG3 OTl 0T2 0T3 FTl pT2 PT3

Sample 1

Affective 3.42” 4.17b 5.06 3.01” 3.91* 4.68 3.76” 4.1Tb 4.82b

Continuance 4.64 4.74 5.17 4.85 4.65 5.08 4.47 4.95 5.19 Normative 3.41” 3.32 4.40b 3.6eb 3.39” 3.98’ 3.43” 3.57” 4.34b

n 36 41 35 10 57 56 33 66 24

Sample 2

Affective 4.05” 4.47” 5.1ob 4.14” 4.4ad 4.91b 4.31 4.60 4.91

Continuance 4.29 4.16 4.56 3.64” 4.39b 4.68’ 3.85” 4.67b 4.67b Normative 3.49” 3.78” 4.46b 3.55” 3.81” 4.32’ 3.60 3.94 4.57b n 44 67 52 37 80 51 72 67 29

bite: Within each commitment componentkareer stage grouping (e.g., Affective commitment/Age), those means with different supe~cripts differ significantly (p < .05). Those that share a superscript, or for which no superscripts appear, are not significantly different from each other (p > .05). For employee age: AGl = < 31 yrs., AG2 = 31-44 yrs., AG3 = > 44 yrs. For organizational and positional tenure: OTlPTl = -C 2 yrs., OT2/FT2 = 2-10 yrs., OT31PT3 = > lo yrs.

Results and Discussion

Two related issues were addressed in this study. The first involved the relationships between the three components of commitment and the career stage variables; the second, the relationships between work experiences and affective commitment at different career stages. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all study variables are reported in Table 1. Analyses dealing with the two issues are presented and discussed separately.

Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment Across Career Stages

Following Morrow and McElroy (1987), employees were divided into career stage groups on the basis of age (< 31 years, 31-44 years, > 44 years), organizational tenure, and positional tenure (< 2 years, 2-10 years, > 10 years). Shown in Table 2 are the means, from both samples, for the ACS, CCS, and NCS scores of employees within each career stage, as well as a summary of the results of analyses of variance comparing each commitment component across each career stage.

The patterns of means in the two samples differed only slightly. In both samples, affective and normative commitment were significantly higher in older than younger employees and in employees with longer, rather than shorter, tenure in the organization. Although normative commitment also increased significantly across positional tenure levels in both samples, affective commitment did so only in Sample 1. Continuance commitment did not differ across age groups in either sample, although it did increase across organizational tenure and positional tenure groups, in Sample 2. Unlike Morrow and McElroy (1987), we found no evidence of a curvilinear relationship between affective commitment and either tenure variable.

Similar information is presented in Table 3 in the form of correlations between each commitment component and each career stage variable. Also shown are the correlations between the components of commitment and each career variable with


Table 3. Correlations and Partial Correlations between Career Stage Variables and Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment

Sample

Career Stage Variable(s)

Sample 1 Sample 2

ACS ccs NCS ACS ccs NCS

Age .43*** .20’ .30” .31*** .09 .39”’ Age (OT) .28” .12 .24’* .24” - .Ol .31”’ Age (PT) .36”* .13 .24” .29”‘ - .Ol .28”’ Age (OTK’T) .28**’ .lI .24” .25” - .03 .28”’

OT .37”’ .17* .18* .20** .17’ .24” OT (Age) .16 .06 - .03 .03 .lS .02 OT (W .28” .06 - .07 .18’ .07 .05 OT (Age/I?) .I3 .OO - .06 .08 .07 - .06

PT .26” .18’ .17’ .lI .18’ .30”’ PT (Age) .09 .I1 .03 -.06 .16* .ll FI- (OT) .OO .09 .07 - .05 .08 .18’ PT (AgelOT) - .Ol .09 .06 -.lO .09 .12

Now: Variables in parentheses have been partialled out. OT = organizational tenure; PT = positional tenure; ACS = Affective Commitment Scale; CCS = Continuance Commitment Scale; NCS = Normative Commitment Scale.

’ p < .05. ** p < .Ol. “‘p < ,001.

the other two career stage variables partialled out. This allowed us to evaluate the link between each career stage variable independent of the other two. Although analysis of covariance would provide comparable information, it requires the use of subgroups. Given that relationships between the commitment components and career stage variables do not appear to be curvilinear, partial correlation analyses are preferable.

Affective and normative commitment are most strongly related to employee age. In both samples, when age was partialled out, the correlations between both ACS and NCS scores and either organizational or positional tenure were reduced considerably. When either organizational or positional tenure were partialled out, however, the correlations between age and both the ACS and the NCS were reduced only slightly. Although the effects were relatively weak, continuance commitment appeared to share more variance with organizational and positional tenure than with employee age. In both samples, CCS scores and organizational tenure were positively correlated and, when positional tenure was partialled out, this relationship became negligible. The same pattern was observed between the CCS and positional tenure; when organizational tenure was partialled out, the correlation was reduced. In Sample 2, when age was partialled out, relationships between the CCS and either organizational or positional tenure diminished very little. When either tenure variable was controlled, however, the CCS/age relationship (albeit never strong) was reduced.

Like Morrow and McElroy (1987)) we found that affective commitment increased with employee age and was more strongly linked to age than to the two other career stage variables. As indicated earlier, “better experiences,” “maturity,” or


57

“cohort” explanations could all be offered for this finding. To test the possibility that older employees actually have, or perceive that they have, better work experiences than younger employees, we conducted three multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) comparing the means for each work experience variable across each career stage variable. Although neither the MANOVA by organizational tenure (F(16,530) = 1.44, n.s.), nor by positional tenure (F(16,530) = 1.06, n.s.), revealed significant differences in work experience variables across tenure groups, the MANOVA by age showed differences across age groups (F(16,498) = 3.16, p < .OOl). Although not shown here, results of the eight separate univariate analyses of variance conducted across age groups revealed that, on all but one of the variables (feedback), the oldest employees rated their experiences significantly more positively than the youngest employees, thus providing evidence consistent with a “better experiences” explanation.

It may be, then, that work experiences are the “real cause” of the stronger commitment expressed by older workers and that employee age, per se, is only spuriously involved. To examine this, we conducted a series of multiple regression analyses in which employee age and one of each of the work experience variables were entered as predictors of affective commitment. Although not reported here in order to conserve space, the data formed a consistent pattern. In each of the eight analyses, both the work experience variable and age made unique contributions to the prediction of affective commitment. Moreover, in a ninth analysis, age contributed significantly to the prediction of commitment, even after all eight work experiences were entered as predictors. These results suggest that the observed age effects are not due entirely to the fact that older workers experience “better” work and that other explanations (e.g., maturity, cohort) may be tenable.

It is noteworthy, and consistent with a cohort explanation, that older employees expressed significantly stronger feelings of obligation to the organization (normative commitment) (Table 2). Of course, this finding provides no definitive evidence of cohort effects, nor does it allow us to rule out a maturity explanation. Indeed, without longitudinal data, it is impossible to determine whether there is something about aging, per se, that contributes to increased affective and normative commitment (maturity explanation) or whether those born before 1940 (our oldest age group) were socialized to value organizational attachment more (cohort explanation).

Attention should also be given to the correlations between organizational tenure and ACS scores (r = .37, and .20, in Samples 1 and 2, respectively). As noted earlier, multiple explanations for this relationship have been suggested (e.g., senior employees have better jobs; self-justification processes). In the present data, however, the fact that the correlation became negligible when employee age was partialled out suggests that it is more tenable to attribute the relationship to age (which is often correlated with tenure), rather than to the effects of tenure.

The partial correlation results involving CCS scores, at least for Sample 2, suggest that continuance commitment, unlike affective commitment, is linked to both organizational and positional tenure. The organizational tenure finding is consistent with the conceptualization of continuance commitment as cost-based commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991). The longer one’s organizational tenure, the more organization-based investments one is likely to have made (Farrell and Rusbult, 1981))


Table 4. Partial Correlations: Work Experience Variables and Affective Commitment”

Work

Experience

Variables AGl AG2 AG3

Levels of Career Stage Variables

OTl OT2 0T3 PTl m-2 PT3

Role clarity

Challenge

Management

receptiveness

Equity

Importance

Organizational

.45 .28 .21 .51 .26 .I7 .44 .24 .29

.64 .53 .54 .I3 .54 .43 .64 .59 .28

.52 .40 .46 .69 .40 .39 .55 .41 .40

.56 .49 .39 .63 .45 .39 .55 .43 .44

.69 .64 .64 .I9 .64 .55 .68 .64 .65

.51 .62 .56 .59 .58 .55 .59 .56 .56

Participation .48 .46 .43 .59 .47 .34 .50 .44 .46 Feedback .34 .33 .31 .43 .34 .19 .39 .31 .23 n 80 108 87 47 137 107 105 133 53

“Each enby represents the correlation between a work experience variable and affective commitment at one level of a particular career stage, with the other two career stage variables partialled out. All partial correlations > .17 are significant (p < .05).

and consequently, the greater the costs associated with leaving the organization. The almost parallel positional tenure results probably reflect the fact that organizational and positional tenure were highly correlated (r = .73, p < .Ol), and thus, may hold very similar psychological meaning for respondents in this study.

Links Between Work Experiences and Affective Commitment Across Career Stages

Within each career stage grouping, partial correlations were calculated between each of the eight work experience variables and ACS scores. In each case, the two irrelevant career stage variables were partialled out. Thus, for example, correlations were calculated between each work experience variable and ACS scores for employees in the youngest age group, with both organizational and positional tenure partialled out. Because the patterns of partial correlations differed very little across the two samples, the data for these samples were combined. The partial correlations are shown in Table 4. As can be seen, although the magnitude of the correlations varied across career stage, all but one were significant and positive. To determine the extent to which work experiences were differentially related to affective commitment across career stages, we conducted moderated multiple regression analyses. A separate analysis was conducted for each of the 24 work experience variable/ career stage variable combinations, following a procedure similar to that used by Katz (1978) and Kemp and Cook (1983). Predictors of affective commitment were entered as follows: (1) the three career stage variables (entered as a block), (2) the particular work experience variable, and (3) the interaction of the work experience variable and the particular career stage variable whose effects were being assessed. Results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. In only 4 of the 24 analyses was the prediction of ACS scores incremented significantly by the work experience/career stage interaction term. Three of these terms involved organizational tenure and one, positional tenure; all increased ACS prediction only very modestly. Inspection of the relevant partial correlations, shown in Table 4, suggests

Organizational Commitment and Career Stage J BUSN RES 1993:26:49-61 59

Table 5. Multiple Correlations: Affective Commitment Regressed on Career Stage Variables, Work Experience Variables and Their Products.

Work Experience

Variables

Role clarity

Challenge

Management

receptiveness

Equity

Importance

Organizational

dependability

Participation

Feedback

Career Work

Stage Exp

.31”’ .48”’

.31”’ 64”’

.36”* .56”’

.36”’ .56”*

.36*** .70”’

.36”* .65***

.36”* .56”’

.36”* .41”’

Age X

Work Exp

.48

.65

.56

.51

.70

.65

.56

.48

Org Ten X

Work Exp

.50”

.65’

.51

.51

.71’

.65

.56

.49

Pos Ten X

Work Exp

.48

.65’

.56

.51

.70

.65

.56

.48

Note: Probability levels refer to the significance of the increment in the multiple correlation attributable to each additional predictor. * p < .05. t* p i .Ol. “‘p < ,001.

that the variables involved (role clarity, challenge, importance) were less strongly related to affective commitment as tenure increased. (It should be noted here that analyses paralleling those reported in Tables 4 and 5 were not conducted with CCS or NCS scores. Because none of the work experiences are considered antecedents of either continuance or normative commitment, such analyses would not be the- oretically meaningful.)

Clearly, these results are inconsistent with the view that older workers have affective responses to particular work experiences that differ from those of younger workers. (Note that this is different from the finding, referred to earlier, that older workers believe they have better work experiences than do younger workers.) Employee age did not interact with any of the work experience variables in the prediction of affective commitment. Thus, we would not expect organizations to be at all successful in optimizing affective commitment by tailoring experiences to

employees’ ages. There is some evidence, however, that employees are more affectively responsive

to particular experiences early in their organizational careers. Thus, organizations interested in optimizing affective commitment may wish to pay particular attention to ensuring, for example, that newcomers are given clearly-defined and challenging jobs. In general, however, the interactive effects involving tenure, found in this study, are modest enough that only very minimal advantages would accrue from such tailoring. Organizations would be better advised, therefore, to examine the overall pattern of correlates of affective commitment reported here and in other studies (for reviews, see Meyer and Allen, 1991; Mowday et al., 1982) and to provide work experiences that are consistent with that more general pattern. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that there are other work experiences not assessed in this study that interact more strongly with career stage in the prediction of affective commitment. The work experiences examined here, however, appear to have links with affective commitment that are relatively independent of career stage.


Conclusions

Two issues were addressed here: (1) differences in organizational commitment across career stages, and (2) the relationships between work experiences and affective commitment at different career stages. Regarding the first issue, the data suggest that the way career stage is operationalized influences its relationships with the three components of organizational commitment. Affective and normative commitment increase across employee age, while continuance commitment increases as organizational and positional tenure increase. Thus, the data are fairly consistent with, and extend those reported by Morrow and McElroy (1987). It should be noted, however, that these effects are all relatively modest, leading us to echo Morrow and McElroy’s (1987) comment that “the importance of career stage as a concept may be overstated” (p. 344). Turning to the second issue, there appears little evidence that work experiences correlate differently with affective commitment at different career stages, regardless of how career stage is operationalized. Thus, together with earlier research, these data suggest that the search for interactive effects of career stage variables and work experiences on work attitudes will yield few theoretical or practical insights.

References

Adler, S., and Aranya, N. A., A Comparison of the Work Needs, Attitudes and Preferences of Professional Accountants at Different Career Stages. Journal of VocationaZ Behavior 22 (1984): 45-57.

Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P., The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Contin- uance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational Psy- chology 63 (1990): l-18.

Angle, H. L., and Perry, J. L., Organizational Commitment: Individual and Organizational Influences. Work and Occupations 10 (1983): 123-146.

Brief, A. P., and Aldag, R. J., Antecedents of Organizational Commitment Among Hospital Nurses. Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (1980): 210-221.

Buchanan, B., Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 19 (1974): 533-546.

Cherrington, D. J., Condie, S. J., and England, J. L., Age and Work Values. Academy of Management Journal 22 (1979): 617-623.

Farrell, D., and Rusbult, C. E., Exchange Variables as Predictors of Job Satisfaction, Job Commitment, and Turnover: The Impact of Rewards, Costs, Alternatives, and Invest- ments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 27 (1981): 78-95.

Gould, S., Age, Job Complexity, Satisfaction, and Performance. Journal of Occupational Psychology 14 (1979): 209-223.

Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R., Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 159-170.

Katz, R., Job Longevity as a Situational Factor in Job Satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (1978): 204-223.

Katz, R., Time and Work: Toward an Integrative Perspective, in Research in Organizational Behavior. B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, eds., Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. 1980.

Kemp, N. J., and Cook, J. D., Job Longevity and Growth Need Strength as Joint Moderators of the Task Design-Job Satisfaction Relationship. Human Relations 36 (1983): 883-898.

Levinson, D. J., The Seasons of a Man’s Life, Knopf, New York. 1978.


61

Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J., A Longitudinal Analysis of the Early Development and Consequences of Organizational Commitment. CanadianJournal ofBehavioural Science 19 (1987): 199-215.

Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J., Links Between Work Experiences and Organizational Commitment During the First Year of Employment. Journal of Occupational Psychology 61 (1988): 195-209.

Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J., A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1 (1991): 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., and Jackson, D. N., Orga- nizational Commitment and Job Performance: It’s the Nature of the Commitment That Counts. Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1989): 152-156.

Morrow, P. C., Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Com- mitment. Academy of Management Review 8 (1983): 486-500.

Morrow, P. C., and McElroy, J. C., Work Commitment and Job Satisfaction Over Three Career Stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior 30 (1987): 330-346.

Mowday, R. T., and McDade, T. W., The Development of Job Attitudes, Job Perceptions, and Withdraw1 Propensities During the Early Employment Period, paper presented at 40th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Detroit, MI 1980.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., and Steers, R. M., Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York. 1982.

Salancik, G. R., Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief, in New Directions in Organizational Behavior. B. M. Staw and G. R. Salancik, eds., St. Clair Press, Chicago. 1977.

Super, D. E., The Psychology of Careers, Harper and Row, New York. 1957.

Van Maanen, J., and Schein, E. H., Towards a Theory of Organizational Socialization, in Research in Organizational Behavior. B. M. Staw, ed., Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. 1979.

Wanous, J. P., Organizational Entry, Addison-Wesley, Reading. 1980.

Organizational commitment: Evidence of career stage effects?

Documents