Commitment to Supervisors and
Organizations and Turnover
Christian Vandenberghe
HEC Montreal, Montreal, Qc, Canada
Kathleen Bentein
UQAM, Montreal, Qc, Canada
Introduction
• The interest of researchers and
practitioners in employee commitment
derives from its established links to
desirable work outcomes, particularly
turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Griffeth,
Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Mathieu & Zajac,
1990; Tett & Meyer, 1993).
• However, work in the multiple
commitments area has suggested that
different constituencies exist within
organizations (e.g., Becker, 1992;
Reichers, 1985; Siders, George, &
Dharwadkar, 2001; Vandenberghe,
Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004).
• Researchers have generally neglected the
fact that commitment to internal foci may
have implications for intended and actual
turnover.
• Among foci that might be of relevance for
predicting withdrawal behavior, the
supervisor appears particularly important.
• Supervisors are formally responsible for
monitoring the performance of employees
on behalf of the organization, and as such
have direct contact with employees in both
day-to-day operations and during human
resource events such as performance
appraisals and promotion decisions.
• Throughout these activities, supervisors
often come to develop specific exchanges
with employees, as is evidenced by
research in the leader-member exchange
(LMX) literature (e.g., Graen & Ulh-Bien,
1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997).
• Both employee-supervisor and employeeorganization relationships develop through
social exchange processes and may thus
have consequences for turnover
decisions. However, affective commitment
to the organization and to the supervisor
have rarely been assessed as joint
predictors of turnover.
• Based on past research that has
demonstrated a negative relationship
between affective organizational
commitment and intended and actual
turnover (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran,
2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al.,
2002; Tett & Meyer, 1993), we expect this
relationship to hold in this study while we
control for employees’ level of affective
commitment to their supervisors.
• Hypothesis 1a: Controlling for affective
commitment to the supervisor, affective
organizational commitment will be
negatively related to turnover intentions.
• Hypothesis 1b: Controlling for affective
commitment to the supervisor, affective
organizational commitment will be
negatively related to actual turnover.
• Because the supervisor is an agent of the
organization and is often the only
representative of the organization with
whom employees interact on an ongoing
basis (Levinson, 1965; Tangirala, Green, &
Ramanujam, 2007), s/he may be
perceived by employees as particularly
important.
• Hypothesis 2a: Controlling for affective
organizational commitment, affective
commitment to the supervisor will be
negatively related to turnover intentions.
• Hypothesis 2b: Controlling for affective
organizational commitment, affective
commitment to the supervisor will be
negatively related to actual turnover.
• By the very fact that they act on behalf of
the organization, supervisors may become
substitutes for it in cases where
exchanges between employees and the
organization are difficult to establish. In
these cases, it will be difficult for
employees to develop a commitment to
their organization, but they could very well
compensate for this by developing a
commitment to their supervisor.
• One can reasonably hypothesize that
when exchanges between employees and
organizations are not well established (i.e.,
affective organizational commitment is
low), affective commitment to supervisors
will be more strongly related to intended
and actual turnover.
• Hypothesis 3a: When affective
organizational commitment is low, affective
commitment to the supervisor will be more
strongly (and negatively) related to
turnover intentions.
• Hypothesis 3b: When affective
organizational commitment is low, affective
commitment to the supervisor will be more
strongly (and negatively) related to actual
turnover.
Method
• Sample 1:
– N = 172 (pharmaceutical company)
– Measures: affective organizational
commitment (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993);
turnover intentions (2 items); age, sex,
organizational tenure, and tenure with one’s
supervisor
• Sample 2:
– N = 186 (hospital nurses)
– Measures: affective organizational
commitment (Meyer et al., 1993); turnover
intentions (3 items); age, sex, and
organizational tenure
• Sample 3:
– N = 442 (university alumni)
– Measures: affective organizational
commitment (Meyer et al., 1993); actual
turnover (6 months); age, sex, organizational
tenure, tenure with one’s supervisor,
organization size
Results: Correlations for Samples 1
and 2
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables for Samples 1 and 2
Variable
M
SD

1
2
3
.11
4
SD

33.20
7.42
–
-.12
1.80
.40
–
-.17*
7.57
6.37
–
5
6
7
.72**
.13
.04
-.08
.08
.12
.05
.16*
.15
1. Age
32.34
6.39
–
2. Sex
1.51
.50
–
.11
3. Organizational tenure
5.14
3.50
–
-.12
.07
4. Tenure with supervisor
3.82
3.50
–
-.18*
.08
.41**
5. AC-ORG
3.06
.50
.81
.14
.00
.03
-.00
6. AC-SUP
3.25
.56
.87
.02
-.14
.05
.08
.22**
7. Turnover intentions
1.86
1.02
.84
-.08
.21** -.13
-.10
-.32**
M
–
.26** -.36**
3.09
.85
.84
-.38**
2.89
.72
.86
1.82
1.04
.80
-.26**
Note. For Sex, 1 = Male, 2 = Female. AC-ORG = Affective commitment to the organization; AC-SUP = Affective commitment to the
supervisor. Correlations for Sample 1 (N = 172) are reported below the diagonal while those for Sample 2 (Ns = 178-186) are reported
above the diagonal. Means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for Sample 1 are reported on the left while those for Sample 2
are reported on the right.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Results: Moderated Linear
Regressions for Samples 1 and 2
Table 3
Results of the Moderated Linear Regression Analysis for Turnover Intentions in Samples 1 and 2
Sample 1
Step
1
Variable entered
Age
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
-.13
-.09
-.14
-.08
-.13
-.12
Sex
.21**
.24***
.25***
-.06
-.04
-.06
Organizational tenure
-.12
-.11
-.13
-.18
-.22*
-.26*
Tenure with supervisor
-.07
-.08
-.09
AC-ORG
AC-SUP
R
2
2
AC-ORG
-.31***
R2
ACORG x ACSUP
R2
-.34***
-.21**
-.33***
.13***
.18***
-.27***
AC-SUP
3
Sample 2
-.27***
-.15*
.07***
.09**
.15***
-.28***
-.15*
.02*
.11***
.21**
.04**
.16***
-.28***
-.27***
.07***
.04
.07***
-.27***
.18***
.17*
.03*
Note. For Sex, 1 = Male, 2 = Female. AC-ORG = Affective commitment to the organization; AC-SUP = Affective commitment to the
supervisor. Except for R2 rows, entries are standardized regression coefficients. Full-model statistics (Model 3): Study 1: F (7, 161)
= 7.43, R2 = .24, p < .001; Study 2: F (6, 163) = 9.01, R2 = .25, p < .001.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Results: Interaction for Sample 1
Turnover intentions
5
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
Commitment to the supervisor
High organizational commitment
Low organizational commitment
Results: Interaction for Sample 2
Turnover intentions
5
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
Commitment to the supervisor
High organizational commitment
Low organizational commitment
Results: Correlations for Sample 3
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables for Sample 3
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Age
30.68
4.28
–
2. Sex
1.28
.45
.04
3. Organizational tenure
3.68
3.19
.66**
-.02
–
4. Tenure with supervisor
2.17
2.19
.43**
.05
.58**
5. Organizational size
3.34
1.55 -.05
.02
.06
6. AC-ORG
3.14
.84
.08
.06
.11** .02
-.09*
(.81)
7. AC-SUP
3.09
.95 -.05
-.03
-.06
-.01
-.03
.39**
8. Turnover
1.08
.28 -.13**
.01
-.12* -.07
-.03
7
8
–
–
-.20**
–
-.01
(.87)
-.11*
–
Note. Ns = 423-567. For Sex, 1 = Male, 2 = Female. For Organizational size: 1 = 1-50 employees, 2 = 51-100 employees, 3 = 101-500
employees, 4 = 501-1000 employees, 5 = more than 1000 employees. For Turnover: 1 = Stayers, 2 = Voluntary leavers. AC-ORG =
Affective commitment to the organization; AC-SUP = Affective commitment to the supervisor. Reliability coefficients are reported in
parentheses on the diagonal.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Results: Moderated Logistic
Regression for Sample 3
Table 4
Results of the Moderated Logistic Regression Analysis for Turnover in Sample 3
Model 1
Step
1
Variable(s) entered
B
Model 2
Exp (B)
B
Exp (B)
-.11
.89
-.11
.89
-.11
.89
Sex
.01
1.01
.06
1.07
.06
1.06
Organizational tenure
-.15
.86
-.13
.88
-.13
.88
Tenure with supervisor
.04
1.04
.02
1.02
.03
1.03
Organizational size
-.02
.98
-.02
.98
-.02
.98
-.07
.93
AC-SUP
-.46*
NagelkerkeR
2
AC-ORG
.63
.09*
.15
.06
.15
-.51**
NagelkerkeR
2
AC-ORG x AC-SUP
NagelkerkeR
2
.06
1.16
AC-SUP
3
Exp (B)
Age
AC-ORG
2
B
Model 3
.00
.03**
.60
1.16
-.51**
.60
.04*
.38*
1.46
.02*
Note. For Sex, 1 = Male, 2 = Female. For Organizational size: 1 = 1-50 employees, 2 = 51-100 employees, 3 = 101-500 employees, 4
= 501-1000 employees, 5 = more than 1000 employees. AC-ORG = Affective commitment to the organization; AC-SUP = Affective
commitment to the supervisor. Full-model statistics (Model 3): ² (8) = 20.90, p < .01, -2LL = 220.04, Constant = 1.05; Nagelkerke R2
= .11.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Predicted odds turnover
Results: Interaction for Sample 3
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
1
2
3
4
Commitment to the supervisor
High organizational commitment
Low organizational commitment
5
Hypothesis testing results
• H1a: Controlling for affective commitment
to the supervisor, affective organizational
commitment will be negatively related to
turnover intentions: SUPPORTED
• H1b: Controlling for affective commitment
to the supervisor, affective organizational
commitment will be negatively related to
actual turnover: REJECTED
• H2a: Controlling for affective
organizational commitment, affective
commitment to the supervisor will be
negatively related to turnover intentions:
SUPPORTED
• H2b: Controlling for affective
organizational commitment, affective
commitment to the supervisor will be
negatively related to actual turnover:
SUPPORTED
• H3a: When affective organizational
commitment is low, affective commitment
to the supervisor will be more strongly
(and negatively) related to turnover
intentions: SUPPORTED
• H3b: When affective organizational
commitment is low, affective commitment
to the supervisor will be more strongly
(and negatively) related to actual turnover:
SUPPORTED
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment
to the organization: An examination of the construct validity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 49, 252-276.
Becker, T.E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth
making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244.
Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment:
Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259.
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX)
theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and
correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications
for the millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., & Wayne, S.J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory:
The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 15, 47-119.
Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,
108, 171-194.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 2052.
Reichers, A.E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476.
Siders, M.A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The relationship of internal and
external commitment foci to objective job performance measures. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 580-590.
Tangirala, S., Green, S.G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss’s
boss: Effects of supervisors’ upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 309-320.
Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intentions, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 259-293.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to
the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 64, 47-71.