h~",,"1
"r
,\l :"" ,g~"" '"
2(KIj I. '1,,1 !t>, N,; I" 1111 111:
Support, Commitment, and Employee
Outcomes in a Team Environment
J umc, W, Bi-;hop
NI' ''' I'dnin ' S IIIII' U" i l'{: rs;tl'
K. Dow Scott
{..()Wllu U n;I"",II{\' Chif'tlJ.!"
Susan M,
Burmugh~
RIH" ", 'I'/r UII II'I'r,l'ily
Tlti,I' field ~'II/(Iy ;lIl'f',ttiRlilf' r/
II'lIetlll'l' pl' rn' ''' 'nl
11'0111 ,1'tlI'/ml'( (Iliff
1('(11/1 ('(lIIlmi/1II1!11I r(' flltf.' to 1'111(1/(1."('; ' (I/ftf'OIllI~,\ diffi!rt'lIll,l tllllll pl' r-
n '''''('rI ""RllfIi::;(lfiO//(// ,1f1f'port (/lid (J1').i(/l/i:::mi()//(/1 ".,/I1I11;tllli!III , A
USREL (//I(II.I',\'i,I' 11',1.1' "OI1(itw/n/ 1111 dllwjru/I1 380 /I1U11Ufill'llIrinK I'lmll
e/llp loy e/',,' (lml !J ,I'''II(' nilOrs. Joh I'I!ifllnllfJIlct' lI'(I,~ rl'lmed /fJ t1 'C11II
cO/ll/llilllll'lI/,' ill/l!/JIiml /{/ qllif It'IU felli/I'{I W ()fgIW;:::lIfi(llw/ 1'(IIllIlIi/ lIIelll: tIIU/ orglllli: flliOlwl cili: I' lIs hip /)('11(/1 1;01' II'llJ fe/(lwd III hotll 1(' /1/11
wul Oi'J,:(llIi:::tllioll(l l ( '0111111;11111'111. C Olltmilllll'1If II/('Iliatl.'d tltl' l'(' IlI1i(II/'
ships bt' /I\'(' (;II Stlppor( mul /1/1' 1)1I/('O/llt: 1'lldable.I, © 2()(XJ Eh~ \ 'ier
Scie/U '(' /II('. All
'i.~ltl,\ r,' l en 'I'rl,
Thl! U:ie of work team!> ha.') become a popular :-tratcgy ror increasing productiv ity and worker flexibility in the United Stales , Seventy-eigh t percentage of
U.S_organizations report thai ;u leaSt SOTlle or their employees are organized imo
work team:i. In those organizalions that utilize teams. an average of 6 1% of all
employees arc illember.- or tC;:U1)s (Tmillil/g. 1995), All 25 finali sts for the 1996
America- s Best Pl;lIlts sponsored by Imltt,wry Week have imple men ted work
teams. and the Illajority or lhese com paniel:>' production work force are engagi ng
in se lr-d irected or sel f-managed teams (Sherid:m. 1997), Org~Ul iziltion s have
reported a number of benefits derived frolll the usc of work tcum:-. These include
increased individual perrommm:c, bener quali ty. lel:>s absenteeism. reduced e mpl oyee turnover. [en ncr pl::trH structures, and substantial im provement s in production cycle time (Harri:-. 1992 ), III general. teams arc considered an impurtant
in gredient of org:lII izJtional succe:-s in the modem economy that is characterized
by a necd for rapid infomliition exchange and rC:ipoll se to customcr dcmand:(Cohen & Bailey, 1997),
Dl rCL'1 !Ill Cf llTC 'P"lI llclI ~C to: J1II1I." W, Bh hl>p , t >':1':011111': 111 <If Mlln:I ~C Il\Cnt , Nc\lo
Cnl~ c~. NM 1!~()lLl : .:--mull - .:; hl> li I'PJ" Q<' :11,1~"111 >_
1 1Il
Mc~ 1,',\
Stm e
U n l~c r-i 'y , t--ll~
I I 14
1. W. BISHOP ET ,\L.
Research has shown that many of the benefits assoc iated with teams are
related to the leve l o f an individual 's commi tme nt to both the organ izalion and to
hi s or her work team (Becker. 1992; Bishop & ~co t t. 1997: Bishop. Scott , &
Casino. 1997). O rganizatio nal commitment is the relati ve strength of an individuar s identifi cation with . :lIld in volvement in . a part ic ular organizatio n. Conceptually. thi s construct can be characterized by at least 3 factors: (a) a StTo ng beli ef
in and acceptance o f the organization's goals and values: (b) a willingness to exert
considerable effo rt o n behalf o f the organ ization; and (c) a strong desire to
maintain membe rship in the organizati on (Muwd:IY. Porter. & Steers. 1982).
Team commitm ent can be defined similarly because teams deve lop goals and
values that members may accept : members may choose to exert varying degrees
of eFfo rt o n the teams' behalf: and members may have varying levels o f desire to
maintain their team membe rship. FurthemlOre. individu<.l ls may ex peri ence a hi gh
level of commitmen t to one of these foci and not the other. both . o r neither
(Becke r & BiJlings. 1993: Bishop & SCali, 1996).
Prior research also supports the notion that commitment to the organi zation
and commi lment 10 a work team are re lated 10 a number of desired e mployee
outcomes. For example. organ izational commitme nt has been linked to extrarolc
behavior (Gregersen. 1993 ; Shore & Wayne. 1993). job perfo nnance (Mathi eu &
Zaj ac. 1990). and lower turnover (Bishop. SCOll, & Casino. 1997: Mathieu &
Zajac. 1990 ). whereas team com mi tment has been lin ked to extraro le behavio r
(Becker & Billi ngs. 1993) and team perfonn ance (Bi shop & SCali. 1997: Bishop.
SCOIL, & Casino. 1997; Scan & Townsend. 1994). Howe ver. these studies d id not
consider the si multaneous relati onships among the o utcomes and o rganizationa.l
and team cOl1l1uitmem.
Eisenberger. HuminglOll , Hutchi son. and Sowa ( 1986) point out that the
concept of comm itment also encompasses the notion that employees may perce ive
the degree to which th eir employing organi zation is committed 10 lhem. They use
the term perceived organi zational support (POS) to descri be the extent to which
employees believe that the organ iz<ltio n va lues their comributi on and cares about
their weU· being (Eise nberger et al.. 1986). S ubsequent research has identifi ed
other elllities with which employees could perceive rec iprocal attachment (cf.
Konke & Shararfinski . 1988). One such entity is the employees' work team
(Bishop. 1998). Members o f work teams sho uld be able to form perceptions as to
whether and to what degree their lenmmates value the ir input and care about them.
Therefore. the construct o f perceived team support (PTS) can be defi ned as the
degree to which employees believe that the team va lues their co nlribution and
cares for the ir well· being.
I.n contrast to traditio nal work settings. se lf- d irected work team environments
require that members assume man y of the functions otherwi se ascri bed to managemcllI. such as assigning tasks \0 members. scheduling work, determining work
methods. and scheduling breaks (Cummings, 1978). Self-direction is designed to
increase team members' sense o f respons ibilit y and to require them to make
decisio ns with respect to operati onal problems and uncertai nties (Campion. Medsker, & Higgs. 1993). To fu ncti on effecti ve ly in sLlch an environment. it is o f
particular importance lhat the interactio ns. exchanges. and affect among team
JOURNAL OF ;<.·,ANAGEfl.mNT. VOL 26, NO.6. :WOO
OUTCOMF.S FROM n , AM ANI) QRG,\NIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND COMMITM ENT
1115
membcr:-; be positivc and supportive (I-I ackman. 1986). Consequently. the level of
support members feel lhat they receive fro m their teams and the amount of
commitment Ihey hold for their [cams is of s ignificnnl im portance.
The purpose of thi s paper is [0 propose and test a model [hOJ[ examines the
relation ships among both POS and PTS. commitment to the o rganiz.ation and 10
[he work team . and desired employee ou tcomes (see Figure I).
This study ex tcnd:-. Ihe research on work teams and employee commitmcnt in
a number of ways. First. the model emphasizes the support that employees be lieve
they rCl.:cive from others as well as the commitment Ihal they givc. Second. the
model considers the simulwneous relationships among organiz:ltional and team
commitment and desired employee ou tcomes. Of particular interest. is our attempt
to clarify the rel,lI ionship betwee n organ izat io nal commitment and job performance. Research findings wi th respect to Ihis relation ship are ambi guous and the
em pirical linkages arc weak (Mathieu & Zajac. 1990). However. by examining the
commitment and perfonnan ce reialionsh.ip from [he perspecti ve of team members.
some much needed clarification may be obtained. Third . by reconsiderin g soc ial
exc hange relationships in a tcam e nvironmelll . thi s study addre sses whethcr
emp loyees can di stingui sh between s.uppon perceived to emanate from the organization and the wo rk learn and whether this disce rnment tfCmsl:lIes in to changes
in the levels of co rnrnitmentto the respective comm itment foci. Fourth. o ur use of
structural equation modeli ng (SE M) al lows us 10 ex amine the degree to which
team and organi zatio nal comm itmcnt mediate thc relatio nships among sources of
· , (11)
..
.
,
"
'"
",
.... ",,,.0.0
•..,"
...
,,
r.
'.
I "I
"
'"
"
...... ,...,ro...
'"
/»po"
<,
,
"
,
c..... _ O j
I, .... u, q.1I
"
"
ClIr ..
"
",
"
"
....
I0Io
"''''',a_"
I 1<1
<,
---.....
,,t'= - I
"
50 1; ..
"
,,
'
'"
."
..,
..",
"
<,
• To s.mpll fy (he pl<!5CnlUI ;011 of Ih~ mooel. oorrd DI;oM :lJnony Ihe Cltogtnous vnr1n hlcs 1Irt: 001 shown.
NUOIbcn!ll pllI"nlh<:.x.• 8ft \'81111:5 for con5trninro paw.
Figurl.' I.
Hypolhesi7.ed Slrucluml
M odc l ~
JOLJRNAL OF MAN AGEM ENT. VOL 26. NO Ii. 2000
J. w. BISHOP ET AL
I I 1(,
employee suppon and the outcome variables. Fifth. the model is germane to leam
rnanagemCIlI systems that ha ve become pervasive throughout industry. Finall y.
the resulting illodel will establish li nks among the commi tment. support, and work
learn literatures .
A Model o r Support and Commitment
SOll rce.\" of Elllpfoyee Support
Figure I illustrates our hypothes ized model of support and co nlmitmcnl. POS
and PTS are essent ial components o f the exchange relati onshi ps assoc iated with
organiziltional and team commit ment (Bishop, 1998: Wayne, Shore. & Liden,
1997). As such, it would seem Ihat support from these entities would be of
particul tlr importance to team-based o rgilnizations. Soc ial exchange theory proposes that when one person, o r entity, does a favor for anothe r, the recipient of the
favor is obliged to reciprocate (Blnu , 1964), tho ugh the detai ls of when and in
what fonn are unspecifi ed (Gou ldnc r, 1960). Based on soc ial exc hange theory and
the norm of reciproc ity (Gouldner, 1960), POS has been shown 10 have a positive
relat ionship wi th o rganizational commit ment (Eisenberger et a!.. 1986: ScHoon,
Ben nelt. & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore. & Liden, 1997). The theory behind th is
relationship is Ihal the employees experience affective commitment for the
COmpilny when Lhey perce ive the company provides support to them.
Although the POS -organi zational cOlllmitment relationship has rece ived
suppol1 in prior stud ies (c.g .. Eisenberger el (Ii.. 1986: Seltoon, Bennett, & Liden,
1996: Wayne. Shore. & Liden. 1997 ). Wi! be lieve thai it is impol1ant to retest it in
a team e nvironmc11I . By doing so, we can test the ex tent to wh ich employees
di stinguish among sou rces of support ;lml deteml ine the degree to which such
di scern ment is related to diffe rent foci of com mi tment. Therefore. based on social
exchange theory and the norm o f reciproc ity, we hypothesize that. in a work team
e nv ironment:
fll :
Perleil'eli orglllli::.miol/a/ l·II/I/1url (POS) will be posili1"t't.I· reo
hll ed Iu org(mi::.tl liOlwl (:UIIIIII;IIIII:I1/.
The norm of reciproc ity has a "division of labor" component which states
that reciprocation will be made in temlS of goods and servi ces that are o f value to
the objeci of the reciprocation and is within the capabi lit y of the donor (Gouldner.
1960). Morc speci fi c<l ll y, when an indi vidu<ll team member knows that other
members of the team value his or her contribution 10 lhe team and cares aboul his
or her well-being, then Ulnt member is incli ned to reciprocate by put ting fo rth
gre.atcr effort on bch" lf on thc ~e am. Furthermore . a team member who perceives
such supportin g con sideration is likely to make the interprewtion lhal such
behavior represcllIs underlying team values and internalize these values. This
component o f commitment should be enhanced by the learn member's re<letia n to
high level:. of PTS . There fore. we hypotheSize an cxchtlOge re lat ionship will lake
place between the member and the team such that:
JOURN AL OF MAN /\ GEMENT, VOL. 2b. NO. 6. "2000
OLJr(OM I!S rRO~ 1 rt'.J\M A;>J O ORGANIZ,\n ONAI. SUPf'ORT MW (,O:-" IMln ll ~T
1111
l>t' f Cl!il'C'lIICUIII .I'U/JJI"" (PTS) wi/{ he l'O,lili1'dy ridurc'iI to rewlI
c Ollllll i t111,' 111.
112:
An importan t t:ol11ponent of th i:;; siudy i ~ 10 ~x :lll1ill C the ~{} urce or the support
associated with an emp loyee' :;; job perfonn ance. Research on soc ial exchange
theory has shown Lhal em ployees who reel they receive high lcvels o f support
from their organizations are mOre like ly 10 perrorm beller than those who do not
(Eisenberger. Fasolo. & Davi s-LIM:lstro. 1990). On the mher hand. Settoon.
Be nnctt . and Liden ( 1996) and Wayne. Shore. and Liden ( 1997) tested the
relat ions hip between POS and job performance usi ng structura l equ ation modeling. In both o f these s tudi c ~ the path cocnicient fwm POS ;lIld job perfonml nce
was nOl signit"'icullI . However. neither of these studies addre:;;scd the iss ue o f work
teams and te'lJll commit ment.
We reason that the exislence of work teams and the focu1> on teamwork may
have a s ignificant influence on the dynamic that li nks s upport in the workplace
with perfo rmance. In an environment where team perfomlance, rather than
individua l perfo rrna nce. is emphas ized. employee efron is applieLi wi thin the
corHeXt o r the teorm ami OUtput is measured in terms of the team' S performance.
therefore. the rclev.mt and most ~ali e lH entity wit h respeci 10 Ihe exchange
relationship involving suprarl and pcrforrn:tIKc I!) the cmpl oyee'), work tcam.
Therc fore. we hypOlhes ize th at:
H J:
Pacl' il'NI'I'(1II1 .I IIPpOr/ ( PTS) will lI,' po,\'ili"dy rt'!clle(/ 10 Joh
PI' (/i l/'n/Oll! '1'.
Employee OIlfCOIII(,S
Pri or rese.m:h Mlpr() rt ~ the idea that the level !. of cOlllmiunelll an indi vidu:ll
feel s toward d istinct en titie), have d iref.:t rc l a ti o n s h i p~ wi th various e mployee
Oll1corne1> such as inte ntio n [0 '1011 ( Bec ker. 1992: Bishop & SCali . 1997: Mathieu
& Zajac. 1(90 ). organizational cili zenship beha vior (Becke r. 1992: Bis hop &
SCali. 1997: Gregersen. 199J: Shore & W;lync. 199J: Williams & Anderson:
199 1). and job pcrfornmnce (Bi shop & Sca li . 1997: Bis hop. SCott. & Cas ino.
1997).
Fie ld theory (Lew in . 1943) assert), thm indi viduals ' re:u::tions to an en viron·
ment me detcrm ined. to or gre;1I extent. by the proximity lind the ),alience o f the
e lements tilat are perceived (Mathi eu & Hamel. 1989). In gcncml. lIlore prox.imal
e lements have a greater infl uence on indiv iduals than distal ones, Howeve r. the
degree o f influence also de pends upon the level or the psyd 1OIogicai sali ence of
the cl ement s. For exam ple. OJ distal s timuli Illay have a greater influence on ;t
react io n if its salience is particul arl y hig h. while a proxima l clemen1 may have
lillie influence on a re:lcli on if its salience is low (Mathieu. (99 1).
Wi th rcsl)Cc t to intent ion to quil. we view its relationship with te;Hn commitment different ly than its relati ons hip wi th org:lni zationa l commi tment. If an
indi vidu:tl want s to leave an organi zul ioll. he or she Illllst di ssolve the n: l;lIion~hip
or redefin e it in sllch ;t way that he or she is no longer u membe r. Indeed . pri or
research s upport.;. a negative relations hip between organ iziltiona l commitment and
JOUIo:N,\L OF M:\Nt\GEM E!\1T. VOL
~6.
NO 6. 201J(!
J. W. IJISHOP lOT AL
I I 18
intention to quit. On the o ther h~\l\d, if an employec ha!> al\ um,atisfactory
relationship and low level of attachme nt to hi s or her work team, the e mployee
may seek to change teams while still remaining with the organization (cr. Wayne.
Shore, & Liden , 1997). Therefore, the employee may regard the assoc iation with
the learn as tempora ry. In other words, the employee would not have to leave the
company 10 obviate an unsati sfactory re lati onship with <t give n team, In thi s way,
an o rganiz3I ion 's goal s, valucs, and other c haracteristics upon which an indi vi d¥
uar s organ izational com mitmcnt is bmicd could be independent o f the individu ~
al" s leam membership (Bishop & SCOII. forthcoming). In the cilse of a temporary
team or lask force, the unhappy indi vidual has on ly to wait until the team' s
purpose has been accomplished and the team di ssolved. If the team is permanent,
the employee may seek a transfer to a different team within the same organization.
Howeve r. even though the team may be the mo re physicall y proximal elc ment . the
organization is more psyc.ho logica ll y salient wi th respect to its influence on the
continuation or lemlination of the employ ment relationshi p. There fore. consistent
with the results of prior research, yet consideri ng the effects of both team and
organizalionn l cOllunitment. we hypothesize that:
114:
Orgm ri;.tlfiUlwl L'Ol!1l11ifmelll lI'i/l be lIeg(l/il,e[y re/mell /() illfell ~
r;oll to quil.
Drgani zllli onal ci tizenship behavio r (DC B ) can be defi ned as behav ior that
goes beyond what is expected on the basis of the fonnal employ ment contract
(Bateman & Organ. 1983: Organ, 1990) and. as such. is a highl y valued employee
outcome (Organ, 1988). In genemL research suggests a positive relatio nship
between organizati onal commitmen t and OCB, yet the results arc mixed . For
example, W illiams and Anderson ( 199 1) fo und that organizational commitment
was not a signi ficant predictor of OCB. On the other hlrnd , Gregersen ( 1993) and
Shore and Wayne ( 1993) fo und Ihnt affecti ve commitment was posi tive ly related
to OC B. Becker ( 1992), applying a mult iple foci perspective, found that co mmit ~
mcnt to foci ot her than the o rgani zation (e,g .. co~ w o rkers) ex plained significant
variance in OCB not accounted for by organizational commitment. [I shou ld be
noted that Becker did not test the simultaneous effects o f team and organizational
commitment o n ex traro le behavior. nor wa~ his study conducted in an environ¥
men! characteri zed by work learns. On the other hand , Bi shop and SCOIt ( 1997)
found that both team and orgilnizalio nal commitment were relatcd to a lVilli"gfles,~
to engage in OCB. Combining the results of these studies in light of the assenioll
by Fi shbein and Ajzen ( 1975) that inten tions (wi llingness) precede beha vior, we
hypothesize thaI:
H5:
Borll orgulliwriOlwl (wd rewl! <:omfll irmcmr will /Ie I'Miriveiy
relatn l 10
oeB.
Mowday el al. ( 1982) slaled that the weak relat ionship between organi zational commitment and job performance is the least encouraging finding in the
organi zati on.ll commitment literature. A Ill etn~a nal ys i s by Mathieu and Zajac
JOURNA L OF r-,·' ANAGEJ.1ENT. VOL 26, NO. 6. :m lO
OlJl"COM ES FROM Tb \M ,\NU OIWANI7..ATIONAI.. SUPI'OII:T AND COMMITh1ENT
11 1'1
(1990, !>uppon thi !> ob~erv ation by showing that the conlidence inlerval around the
mean correlation between organi zational commitment and pcrfornlance included
ze ro . They concluded thut "conullil1llCnt has relatively littl e direct innuence o n
pe rformance in most instances" (p. 184). In:ln attcrnpt 10 clari fy the relationship
between organiziltiollill com mitment and job perfom lancc. researchers have cxamined the nature o f thc curnmit mcnl. the type of job pcrfonllance being considcrell . <tnll the objects. or foc i. of employee auachment.
With respect to the nature of cOlllmitment. affective conulliunent (cmOl ional
auachl11ent to. id c llli fi('~lIion wi th. and in volve mcnt in the org:lnizalion) was fo und
to predict pcrfonnance. as l1lea~ured by superv isor rati ngs (Mayer & Schoorman.
1992: Meyer. Paunonen. Gellatly. Goffi n. & Jackson. 1989). When the Iype o f job
perfonnance wa... (,·onsidered. affeclive commitment w;.\s fo und to pred ict dependabil ity and initiUlivc but lIid not predict accompli shmcnt or judgment (Angle &
L:.lwson. 1994,. COlll inuance cOnlmitment (des ire to stay with the organization
due to "~ id e heL;,;" such u:. rCli rClllcnt vesting. seniori ty. or o ther sunk COS1S) did
not predict job performance (Mayer & Schoorman. 1992: Meyer et al., 1989).
Furthermore. Brclt. Cron. lind Slocum ( 1995 ) fo und that o rgunizational commitmen t pred icted job pcrfonnance more Mrongly when ex ternally imposed pressures
to ~ Ia y on the job (i.e .. lin;ml:1al requirements) were low.
Wi th respect to team:.. Bishop and et al. ( 1997) found empirical support for
a posi ti ve relationship between teum commitmen t and j ob performance . However.
their hypotheses were nol tested in the context o f a model Ihal considered the
simultaneous effects of both tcam and organizational commitment. Additionally.
their study did not co n ~ ider thc innuence of support variables on the cOlll mitment outcome relati onships.
In a work team environment. physical proxi mity and regul ar intcraction with
the team suggests thm it is easier fo r cmployees to rece ive feedb;\ck regarding
how well !.hei r behavior refl ec ts tc;.tm goal s. values. and nornlS than it is to rece ive
si milar feedback wit h respect 10 the globa l organization . Therefore. the work
team. when compared to the organization. is more psychological ly sal ient in lerm~
of pcrfonnance- rclated behavior (d . Becker. Bill ings. Eve leth. & Gilbcn . 1996).
The :u.:tu al work pcrfonned by indi\'iduals takes place within the auspices o f a
tcam that is both physicully proxim,ll and psycho log icall y !-alienl. Hcnce:
Methud
PlIrlicipaw.\· fllld Sl'flill8
The sumple for t hi ~ study consisted o f 380 production employees from an
,Iutomoli ve oulsource l1\;\nuf;lI.:turi ng plan t in the southeastern Uni ted St'lIes. The
ave rage :Igc of the employee), w a~ 36.9 years. 1lle respondents were mostly white
(83% ). there were slightly more femal es (53%). and 1110st had fi nished high school
(88%),
Empl oyecs were org;'lIli1..cd into 65 teams o f 6 workers I.!ach. Tcam members
worked with in <.I few steps o f I.!ach other and each mcmber could easily see his or
JOURNAl.. OF MI\NAGI:Mt:.NT. VOL 26. NO.
r.. 2000
1120
J W I:USIIQP ET AI-
her Ie:umnutes. The l eam .~ were se lf-directed in thilt they ~ontro lll!d the pace of
their work. di stributed tasks. and scheduled work breah. The company provided
cross- lr;lining on various ope ratiuns so that team nH.'ll1bc r~ \VQuh.l be skilled in
mure than one task and they were able [0 switch stations from lime to [ime to
reline their skills. Training programs in quality control and gro up process skill s
such as communic.uion. !:onflkt resoluti on. and problem ~o l vi n g were also
provided.
First -level supcrvisiun wa~ pro\'ided to the teams by I of 9 "fac il itators." The
role of the f;)ci litator.. \Va.') di ffc rc 111 when contrasted wit h !irs! level superv ision in
a trad itional work sClling (Cummings. 1978: H:lekman. 1986: Manz & Sims.
1984 . 1987: Wall. Ke mp. Jackson. & Clegg. 1986). Structurall y. thl! fac ilitators
wc rc nOt members of the team. but were extcrnal 10 them. EUl'h facilitat or was
rt!.~ pon s iblc for bet ween wvcn and nine team s. The fac ilitato rs ev:t luatecl team
members. schecluled trai ning. acting :t ~ conullunication links betwee n team s and
upper manage ment. ex pluined and int erpreted company IXlli cy. gave feedback
performance and customer needs. and consull ed wi th teams o n an as- needed basis.
Proced/lre
Proouctio n employee... completed surveys that contained mca... ures of POS .
PTS. organizalio n:1 1 cOlllmi tmcnt. tcam commitment. and intcnlion to quit. "nlC
survcy W:I S administered in the com pany tmini ng room and cafctt!ri:1 o n cU111pany
lime. The 380 panicipant s represcnted :1 11 employees who were prese nt on the day
the survey was conductcd. Pa!1icipation was volunt:lry but no one refused to take
part. Members of the research tcam were present 10 answer questions and to
ensure th;lI the participants respo nded to the survey independentl y. Seven incomplete surveys were dropped rrom subseq uent anal yses. Surveys that measured the
criteri on variables o r job performilnce and OeB for eac h employee were completed by the teams' cOiTesponding fac ilitator ...evcral days after the prod uction
c mployees completed their surveys.
A1e(/.\'fln'.~
Production employees responded to five scven-poi nt Liken scales wi th
responses ranging fro m "strongly disagrec" ( I) to "strongly agree" (7). Team
fac ilitaton. responded to twO seven -point Liken scales to measu re job performance and OCB.
Perce ived organizational suppon (PaS) and perceived [cam suppOrt (PTS ).
POS was measured by a shon e ned version or the Survey of Perceived Organizationa l Suppon (S POS: Eisenberge r et al .. 1986. 1990). Sevcn items were selected
from tile SPOS that loaded among the highest in Eisenberger Ct al.'s ( 1986) factor
analysis. Shon fonns of the survey have bee n used with success in previous
research (Eise nberger et al .. 1986: Wayne. Shore. & Liden. 1997). The coefli c ient
alpha W' IS 0.85 . To mC:1sure PTS . this same short 1'0 n11 was modified to refe r to
the team rather than to thc o rganization (Cl = 0.90). Similar modificati ons ha ve
becn used successfull y in prior research and have been shown to measure support
constructs (e.g .. perceived supervisory suppon ) di stinct from org;Hli z;t1i onal supPOl1 (d'. Kottke & Sharafinski. 198H).
JOURNAL OF M ,\NAGJ::M ENT. VOL 21). NO {'. :!OOCI
Organi.mliunal comm itment and te:lIll c.:olllll1i tmenl. The :-- horl fOrln of the
Organ izati onal COI nmitlllcllt Questionnaire (OC Q: Mowday. Stee rs. & Porter.
1 97~) was used to measure organizatiunal commitment (0: = O . ~9). Team commitmcnt w a~ rne,L<;tm:d by modi fy ing the shorl fo rm of the OCQ to re fer to the
team rather than 10 thc nrganiLat ioll (o: = 0.89). Th is tcc hnique wa~ suggested by
Rekhcrs ( 1985) and has bee n refe re nced in the literature (e.g .. Scott & Townsend .
1(94 ). Based on the recllllll1lcodatinns of Podsakoff :md Organ ( 1 9~ 6 ) onc ite m
was t1elctcd due 10 the re~ lIlI s of o ur factor 'Hl :l l y~i... and a re(' valuatio n of i tem
content.
Imenlio n tn qui t. A t h rce ~ il e m !.calc W:I). LL ~c d to mC;'lsurc. intent ion to qllit
(u = 0.86). T wo items. '" It i<; lik ely lhal I will acti vely louk fo r a new job in the
next year" and " I o ft en th ink about quill ing" were taken fronl the Michigan
Organizational A<;se~s m ent Q uestion naire (Cammann. Fichman . & Klesh. (979) .
The third itelll . "11' I could. I w'ould gCI :mother job wi th anot her com pany" was
ad:lpted rrom a scale developed by Landau and Ham mer (1 986).
Job performmlce , The fac i1 i l a l o r~ ntlcd their cmployces 0 11 job performance
lIsing:1 six- item :--ca le (0. == O,8J ). T he items were take n from a 1lle a.~ ure used by
Wayne. Shure, ami Lidc n ( 1997), The fo llowing it c 1ll ~ we re ratell on a ~evc ll · p() int
scale wit h anchors ra n g in ~ from "neve r" { I J to "a lw:IYs" (7): ·'Overall. to what
ex te nt has this employce bce n c lTecli vc ly fulnlling hi s or her roles :U1J respon~ ibi l i t i e sT. ·'Ovcrall. to what e:Hent has this employee bee n pcrform ing hi s or her
job the way you would like il tu be performed?"'. and " In my estimation. thi s
empl oycc get!'> h i~ (I f her work done vc ry effec ti ve ly." The fo ll ow ing hem was
mted 0 11 a seven-po in t scale with anchors ra n~ in g from "poor" ( I) 10 "outstanui ll ~( (7): " Rate thb employcc' s oVl! ra ll lcve l of pe rformance:' The following item
W:J;:. rate!d on a 7- po il1 t sc.t1e with :mehors rangi ng fro m "not al all" ( I ) to"U grcill
cx ten!" ' (7): " I f you en ti re ly h:,d your way, to \Vhat extent wou ld you change the
m:mner in which this em ployee i ~ performing hb or her jobT The! following item
Wil S rtlled on a seve n-point M:u le wilh :H1chon: ranging from "~tro n gJy disagree"
( I ) 10 "Mrong ly :Jgrcc" (7): "A II in all thi » employec is very competent: '
Organi zational d lize n ~ hi p bchavillL Fullowing the suggestion of Organ, we
condw.: ted int erviews Wllh fad litators and other pl'l1l t man age rs to {]ctennine the
itcms Ihat would best reflect aC B in IC nns of the "si lc speci tic needs. proble ms.
~: u l ture, n o rm~. and tradi tion" (Org:11I. 1988: 106). As a re~ult. aCB WliS measured
with a six item sc'lle (0: = 0.76). Four item:-- were from Smit h. Orga n. and Near
( 1( 83) ,I!. mod ilied by W ay ne. Shorc, and Liden ( 1997 ) and two item:-- were from
Will iam s :1I1e1 Anderson ( 199 1). The facililalOr!. responded to the i t c m~ un :l
seve n-poi nt ~c a l c wi th anchor.- r:.lIlgi ng from "nO( :11 :Itr' (I ) to ";I great ex tent " (7 ).
Results
Before testing our h ypl.l th c .~e<;, princi pal faetm anal yses were lX' rforlllcd 011
the itc m ~ til which the lea rn Illembers ami the faci li t a t or~ rc.;pondcd. Team
memOer!. rc:-pondcd \() :1 IOwl of 34 i l e m ~ measuring POS, PTS , organizati onal
cOlllmit mcnt. tea11l l:oIll11lit ment. ;lnd intention to quit. Five ral:lOr~ l.! lllcrgcd wit h
l'igcnv:l1ucs g.reater than 1.0. ex pl;lining 60.9 I CA: or the vari'1I1ce . Fa ci l iw l o r~
JOllRNAt Of· MANAGf:MENT, VOL JI •. NO (1,210(J
J. W. 81SHOI' ET AL.
1122
responded to a total 12 items mensuring OCB and j ob pcrfonnance. Two fac tors
had e igenvalues g rea ter than 1.0 and ex plained 55.22% o f the variance. In each
analyses. there were no erOS!> loadings (the l:lrgest loading of an item on an
unintended f:lcto r was 0.32) and. w ith thc exception of onc intention to quit item.
all o f the items h:ld loading~ of greater than 0.40 on their intended fa ctors. Table
I reports means. standard dev iations. correlations. and coe fficient alphas among
the scale scores.
To test the hypothesized model (See Figure I ). a covariance matri x was used
as input to USR EL 8. 12<1 (Joreskog & Sorbom. 1993). Fol lowing the procedures
outl ined by SeHoon. Be nnett . and Liden ( 1996). we cre.ned mani fest indica tors for
each latent conSlI'Uct by averag ing the items for each sC:Jle. A n itelll measuremen t
mode l would have 46 paths eslirnated wi th 968 degrees of freedo m. The addition
of the structural portion would result in the estimation of only 7 more paths. with
977 degrees o f freedom. Hence. with the item a pproach. our ability to detemline
how well the structural portion of the model holds up wi th our sample Wli S
reduced. C re:lling s ingle indicators fro m the scales all ows a more rigorous test of
the structural portion of ou r model. Because. a covari ance matrix was used as
input. we set the error variance for each manifest indic.llor to the product of the
vari ance of the ite ms by scale. and the quantity one minu s the rcli ,lbi lity o f the
scale . The values to which the error variances were se t appear in Figure 1. The
e1Wgenous varia bles were assumed to corre late. Figure 2 d isplays the comp letely
standardized path coe fficienl s for the relationships in the model. Com pletely
standardized path coeffi cien ts are reported because of their sui tabil ity in comparing re lative contributions explained variance (Bagozzi. 1980).
n,t::
Hypothesized Model
The Ilt indices for the hypothesized structural mode l were X\9) = 15.04 .
P < .09. Root Mean Square Error o f Approximati on ( RM SEA) = 0.043. Comparati ve Fit Index (CFJ) = 0.99. and the T ucker- Lewi s Fit Inde.'\: (TU ) = 0.98.
These result s indicate that the data fi t the hypothesized model we ll (Medsker.
Williams. & Holahan. 1994).
Direct Relariomliip.l'
POS was posi ti ve ly re lnted to organizational commitmen t. prov iding support
for Hypothesis I. PTS was positively re lated to team commitment. but not to job
performance. providing support for Hypothes is 2 but not Hypothesis 3. respecti ve ly. Hypothesis 4 was s upponed because organi zalional comm itmen t was
negati vely related 10 intention to quit. Both organ izational commitment and tea m
commitment were pos iti vely related to OCB. s upporting Hypothesis 5. lmd team
commitment was posi ti ve ly related to job performance. s upport ing Hypot hesis 6.
Mediating Role of Orgllfl;ztUioll{l1 and Tealll COlll mitmelll
Implicit in ou r model is that organizatjonai commitme nt mediates the relationships between POS and the outcome vari ables. intention to quit and OCB.
whereas tetlm commitment mediates the relat io nships between PTS and job
performance and OCB. T o test the mediating roles of lhe commitment vari ables
JOURNAt. OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 26. NO. 6. 2()OO
O lrrCOMF~~
FROM TI:AM AND OIUiANIZATIONAL SUI'I'ORT AN D COI\.IMITMENT
v
- -••
- '"
~
~ ~
~
-•
~
0
- •• ..-••
- -, ,
"
•
"
>
0
~
~
,-
¢
"
~
~
u
-
~
~
~
">.
~
0
••
-
-.
~
0
g
•
,
-•"
..
~
••
•
'.
§
••
-.
-•~
~
••-.
•• 0•• •• . ••
"' I c c
~
~
~
~
~
¢
- "
-
~
~
.
- '"- - -.- ~
••
•• • •• ••
"'
~ - 0, "' ~
~
0
0
¢
<
.••> .£
~
~
'20
~
~
~.
~
~
~
~
- <l S!
~
~
'"
•
~
~
~
~
•
•0
•
.
,
"
-i
~
v.
~j
~
•
,
0
j
•>
~
il
•
0•
•••
"
,
0
-
,..
c•
~
•
E
•
•
-
"- •
~
,~
~
••
=
>
1
•
s
•
..
•
,> ..•
,•
,•
-.
, E > E ..• > ,~
-•0
• • ,• •• " -• •
'"
• •
• •
• !;:
'" .E ,• E .===
E
'"•'u•" '"•• 0 ..~;; 5•u .2•, ..," .g8.
= Eu •" 0
C C &
•
Ii: Ii:. •• 0 ~ - 0 _
- " -. • • .,;
¢
1l0
3
v.
>
~
is-.
~
0
.. -.
-"
-§.
~
"i
-.
-.
-.
'"2
0
0
-.
~
0
-
'"
~
.. - '" -d -
., -. •
•
0
~
•• •• •• •• ••
-- ::J •- "
0
c,
0
8 "
-'"
•
0
~
~.
'-" " "
~
~
v,
•• ••
, eO 0
E
••
••
~
0
--•
'"
~.
~
~
-- ""' "
~
0
112J
•~
,
•
-.
"
~
~~
~
.:
<
,
e
v
,.- ,
•
~
•
0
0
u
V
IE
•
"
JOU RNAL OF ~IANAGEMEN"r. VOl. 26. NO b. 2000
II 2-1
J. W. BISHOP ET AL.
,3'1
.47
f'cr.:t; Y~d
Orx.
.73 '"
Support
OriJlllllallonll
Inlcnl 10 Quil
Commitmem
",
<,
"'
.72
Orll""; r.at ienal
C;li'.cnship ach ~vlor!
. 1S· •
Team
Commilmc~ 1
.SS · . ~
. ____-
",
I'crcdvcd Tum
Sur!"'rt
.
.,
,,'
.>'
\L______________~·1~4__
r
______
~
P~rform~nt~
",
<,
.78
~ Structural path estimates are the standardized parameter estimates. To simplify
the presentation o f the model, the manifest variables have been omit1ed .
• • p < .01 , one-tailed test.
...
p < .001, one-tailed test.
Figure 2.
StruclUraJ Path Es timat e~
l)f
Ihc Hypolhesizcu Modrl '
we fi r!'t estimated a model in which the direc t palhs fro m the supporl variables 10
the o utcome \'a riablcs were freed. Thi s was done so that variance in the o utcome
vari;lb les attribut ed to thc suppon variables would 110t be forced 10 be re ll ected in
[he indirec t path ~ throug h ll1e commitme nt variables . Nonc of [hese palhs wcre
signiti cam.
We the n used the technique recommcnded hy Sobel ( 1987) to de le nninc the
s ignificance of the indireel paths. By us ing the max imum like li hood path coeffi ·
c ients and Iheir sta ndard erro rs as input. we computed the indirect e ffects, lheir
standard e rrors. and 95 % confide nce in lerva ls (Cl) ror each path. The indirec t
erfec ts o f POS on intention 10 qui l <"Y., jjJ') was - 0.5 1 ::!: 0.16 (SE = 0.081 ) and
o n OCB ('YI, [3" .) was 0.9 1 ::!: 0.15 (SE = 0.078 ). The indirel'1 e ffecis of IYTS o n
OeB (-Yn[3-12) was 0.18::!: 0. 13 (SE = 0.064) and o n j o b pe rfo rmance ('Yn (3s2)
was 0.36 ::: 0. 14 (SE = 0.070). In none of these cases d id the 95 % CI conwin
zero. Thi s !>-upports the medi:llin g roles of the com mi lmc nt variables suggcsled by
o ur mode l.
JOURNI\L OF MANAGE.M ENT. VOl.. 21>. NO. () , 2000
QUTCO t.! E.·.. Atm.,! TEAM ANI) (JIH.i ANIZ"TIONAL SUPI'OI<T AN D COMM!TMEr-.'T
!!.!5
M odi!! COIII/mrisO/I.\'
Anderson and Gcrbing ( 1988) proposed illcchnique for testing an hypothesized model by cumparing it to :J series of nested mode ls through sequential X-:'
difference !CstS. The resul ts are shown in Table 2. These nested ruodel s represent
tIle " nc,XI mosl likely conslmillcd mId um:onslrai/li;.'d ;llrcrn;lIives" (Anderson &
Gerbillg. 1988: 4 18).
Less conslmi ned mode h.. In a less constrained Illode l. one or more palh s arc
added to the hypothesized model. That is. one or more of the paths thm were
conslrJined (i.e .. set to zero) in the hypothesized nuxl!!l arc eSlinmted . If the AX 2
between these mode ls is not signifi cant. then the hypothesized model is supported
becau se it is more parsimoni ous (A nderson & Gcrbing . 1988).
The ex tant liter:uu rc repon s tests of direct relation ships bet ween pas and lhe
outcome variables. intention to quil. OCB. and job performance. Significant
rcl ;lti o n ship ~ between POS and intemion to quil and OCB arc generall y suppol1ed
(Sclloon. Ben nett. & Lidt.!n. 1996: Wuyne. Shore. & Liden . 1997) whil e lhe
relationship bet wee n pas and job pcrfonnance is mixed (c L Eisenberger. Huntington. Hutchison. & Sowa. 198fi: Sellonn. Bcnnell . & Liden . 1996: Wayne.
Shore. & Liden . 1997 ). One of our purposes was to bui ltl on these finding s by
testing the propusal that the relati onships between pas and lhe outcomes.
intenti on to quit and Oe B. werc primarily through organiz;u iOlml commitment.
FUl1hermore. cons ideri ng a rnodclthnt incl udctlthe effects of team commitment
and was tested by data drawn from a sample of em ployees working in a le;lm
envif()nment . we c hose [0 make no h y po lh e~ i s suggesting a significant relation ship between POS and job performance. To chal lenge these contenti ons we
.. llo wed the di rect paths frolll POS to intenlion to qui t. OCB. and job performance
10 be estimuted (Model I ). The difference in the chj ·squares betweelllhe hypothesized model and Model I. Xl (3) = 3.24. was nol sig nil'icant. Thi s meuns thaI
lidding the paths did no t result in J better fit. There fore. the hypothesized model
is prcfclTcd over Model I because the fo rmer is morc parsimonious.
Pri or research also reports mix.cd results wi th respeci to the re lationship
between organi zati onal commitment and job perfonnance (Mmhieu & Zajac.
1990). We did no t hypothesize t hi ~ path to be signili canl. However. in light of lhe
ambiva lent tindings of previ ous rcsc:.Ifch. we challenged our contenli on with
Model 2. a mod el in which the path fro m organ izati onal co mmilmen[ to job
"r;.hlc 2.
Mudd
•
"
1·\ ypothcl> i1.c\t
[5JI-'
Mode [
Model 2~
[ UfO
,"
IJ.J7
Resul !., uf Mood Comparisuns
Com{Htrlml'e
rue-loa- I.... " i."
.}.~ ((Ifj frtl ll1
'if
RMS£A
,.-if imt.·.1
I·' if ' mll'.f
11),(111111("""="(1
9
.1 1-13
HI)
nIH
Ojl
.
.
.98
.97
",
.tlj)
""
""
.\.IX
3.24 tJ)···
1.67 (I )
"M..J cl I lin"""., tile flath~ 1'11 >111 I'OS 10 '~lc'lIiofl I" 'luil. OC B. :mJ lIth pcrfr'nlla OCt III I-.: "-~I"lIUICJ.
hMvdci ! allo"", Ih .. path from "r{~am/.ulll'llal ':I'ln lllllrncnt III J"h p<:rfornlllJ'lrt III tJc, c,hrnmcJ
" · {I
<
(MIL
JOUHNM_ 01" M,\N ,\GEM ENT. VOl.. 2f). NO. (,. 1000
1120
J W. 13ISHOI' ET AI..
performance was freed. The nonsign ificant i ! difference. X.!( I ) = 1.67. suppons
the more pan; imoniou s hypot hesized mode l.
More constrained models. Our model includes two separate hypotheses we
believe arc appropriate to emphasize and challenge wi th compe ting alternati ves.
However. each of these altemlltives in volves the removal of onl y one path .
Because a test for (he fi X :! when deleti ng a singl e path would be redundant wi th
<I I test for the indi vidual paramelCr estimate. on ly an in spection of the t-value is
requ ired test these alternatives. First. we fe lt that it was appropri ate to e mph asize
the relat ion ship between organizatio nal commitmen t and Oe B because pri or
research has focused on the relat ionship with mi xed results (Gregersen, 1993:
Shore & Wayne. 1993: Wi lliams & Anderson. 199 1). Hypothesis 5 posited th at
the relationship would be sign ificant and this was supponed (f = 5. 19, P < .00 I).
Second, Hypothesis 3 posi ted that fYfS would have a di rect re lationship w ith job
performance because "I' the prox imity and sa lience of the work team. Indeed. the
bivariate correlation coeffi c ient suggests th at this is so (r = 0. 18. fJ < .0 1).
However. when the sim ult aneou s effects of the o ther variables in Ihe mode l arc
~Icc o unted for. the path from PTS tojob perfonmlllce is nOl sig rlificaJl I (r = - 1.69.
ns) and Hypot hes is 3 is not supported. Based on thi s fi nding. a rev ised model IS
proposed and discusseLl be low. See Fi gure 3.
Grouping £Jf{'Cl.~
Because the resporuJents were nested within (cams and facilitato rs. we
c hecked the self-repon variables for grouping effects at the leam level and lhe
faci li w.lor-reponed vilri ablcs for grouping effects at thl' facilitator level. Our
mode l proposes re lationships among individual le vel construct s. To the extent that
the va riable scores are inlluenced by team membershi p or rating tendencies
unique to indi vidua l faci litato rs. ollr :Ibility to draw cOllc lusion s from our stati stical results would be weakened. We checked for group level influences by
computing int rilclass correlations. ICC( I). for each variab le. The results suggested
that grouping effe cts arc no! of suffi cient magnitude as to compromise the resul ts
of our ind ividual ana lysis. We also chec ked for syste matic differences across
faci litators in job performance and OeB scores. suggesting poss ible h ~lrsh n ess or
leniency. The results of Duncan and Tukey post hoc comparisons offer lillie
evidence of either bias.
DiSCU5."iion
The pUrpOse of thi s study was to propose and test a rnode lth3! exa mined the
simu\{<t"cous rclation\'.hips am\)"g POS. PTS. orgal1i7.<.niol1al cOn\lnitmCI1I , {cam
commitment. and employee outcome v.. riab les. Factor analysis supported the
ex istence of fo ur separate factors represent ing the POS. fYfS. organizat io n:.tl
commitment. and tea m cOlllmitme nt constnrcts. Structural equation modelin g
results prov ided evidence of lhe di fferen tial relationships among these constnJ(::ts
and suggested that :1 11 were imponant with respect 10 the oli tcome variables
investi gated . Furt bem1Ore. several plausi ble aite m3tivcs models we re examined
providing a rigorous test of our hypothesized model (Anderson & Gerbing. 1988:
rlatl, 1964),
JOURNAL OF I\\,\N,\GEMENT. VOL. 26. NO fl.2(]()U
OU TCOME.') FROM TEA t.l AND 0I(GAN1ZJ1.Tl0NAL SUI'I'ORT AND COMMITMfJ\'T
1127
.34
r."ei,·.d Ora!
.73' • •
Supp',"
Orpnizmlooll
Co n.milmcnl
"
"
- .82" •
Inl<n1 10 Qui!
"'
.72
Or8....,;1IIIon,1
U .h.,·i~,...
Ci1ll.o:nship
.1S"
•
lI.r och·.dTun,
.6S· .•
SUPI'Cl"
•
",
Tum
,,.
Comml lmcnl
P.rforman ••
",
"
.'0
.S8
f"
StruelUml path estimates arc the standardized parameter estimates. To simplify
the presentation of the model, the manifesl variables hnve been omillcd.
..
,
.
p < .0 I. one-tailed test.
..
p < .00 I. one-tailed test.
Figurl" J .
Structural I' ath Estimates of the Revised Mudd
I
A distinct pallern of correlates for organizational and team commitment was
fou nd. This pattern implies that employees distinguish belwcen s upport offered by
the organizmion and thm offe red by the work team and respond by directi ng
attitudes and behavior toward lhe corresponding e ntity. That is, employees react
differently based on the source o f s upport und the obj ect o f their commitment.
This siudy l:ontributes to the literature o n support. comm itment. and work
tca ms in several w:lys. It ex tends recent rcsearc:h on suppon in the workplace by
consi dering multiple sources of s upport. We found that peS and PTS are related
to differcm foml ~ of commitment through which employees fulfi ll ex.dmngerelat ed oblig:tlions by ex hibiting attitudes and behaviors that benefit the organi zation. In light of the rew studies that have been publis hed o n POS. ,lIong with the
nove lty o f the PTS construct, thi s finding provides a va luable contribu tion to the
litera ture. Of particular importance was the demonslrat ion thaI the relationship
between PTS and tearn comrnitmcm has a strong conceptual basis and thaI it is
di stinct from the relati onship between POS and Organ iz..11i ol1a l Comm itment .
JOURNAl. OF MANAGEM ENT. VOL. 2(,. NO. (,. ](00
J. W
I 12l'i
BtSHOI' r."1' At.
As mentioned above, pri or research repons mi xed firuJi ngs with regards 10
the relation ship between POS and job perfonnance. Thi s study offe rs additi onal
insight in to the SUp!>ort -pe rformancc relation ship by findin g that SliPPOri emanating from the work team ( PTS ) is related to job performance and thi s relation shi p
is mediatcd by tcaln commitment. Mowday, Poner. and Steers ( 1982) concluded
lhat the weak relationship belween organizational commitment and job performance is the least encouraging findin g in the literature. M,lIh ieu and ZOljac
confirmed th is by concludi ng that "[organizationa l] commitment has relati vely
Jiule direct influence on performancc in most instance);" (Mathieu & Zajac. 1990:
184). The significant path between team cOlllmilment and job pcrfonnance suggests that commitrllerH Illily be related to performance when the focus of commillnent is more immediate and proximal and that the imii viduai" s perfomlance
ims ;1 more immediate and signil'icant effect on thl.! succcss of the 0bjcct of
commitment .
The lack of suppon for Hypothcsis J and the s i g nin~an r.:c tesls of the indirect
effects suggest thaI. despite the proximity ;lIId sa lience of the team. Ibe relation ship between PTS and job perfo nnance is mediated by tcam commi tment. In light
of these results. a re vised model was proposed in whi r.: h :t Il of the relat.ionships
among the SUppOl1 variables and the outcome variables are mediated by comm.itment. This model has the :rppcal over our hypothesized model in that it is more
parsimonious and the mediating role of commitment is consistent across both
support variable s. Howe ver. ~, ccc ptan cc of thi s model should be deferred unti l it
c:ln he tested on :Iddilional dat a to pre vellt capitali zati on on chance .
Applicarioll s of I;ill dill g,~
Our li ndings are important to practicing managers in thai they sligges t that
commitlllent to different entities with in the organi zati on arc associated with
different empl oyee beha vior. The magnitudes of the outcome variables were
related to the degree to which employees felt that they recei ved commi tment. or
suppan. from different sources . With knowledge of the relationships rep0l1ed
here. managers mny ha ve an addi tional diagnostic tool to help Ihem determine the
focus of intcrverriions. At the same time. we urge cauti on in assuming an in variant
causal order among the constnrcls. On one hand . it seems reasonable that increasing learn commitment could h:lVe a posit ive inl1uence onjob pe rformance . On the
other hand. it is also reasonable th~tl members of team s who perform well together
may develop stronger comm itment 10 their teams.
Practici ng managers might cunsider both the salience and the source of
employee suppon as they address lhe variety of issues present in ihe modern
workplace. For example. if a manager is com:erned with turnover. he or :-. he may
want to make sure thaI support from the organiz,lIion is demon strated in tangible
ways that arc easil y seen llnd interpreted by employees. However. if job pe rformance is the issue, a manager may want to examine the degree to which member
interacti on wit hin tcarns engenders a supporting. caring environment in whi ch .,11
members' co ntribution s are recognized , valued, and acknowl edged .
The re vised model .:!I so has implicalion s for practi cing managers with respect
to job performan ce. The revised model suggests that team commitment mediates
JOURN Al_ OF
~" ,\ NI\C.EM ENT.
vOI_
u•. NO
6. 1lJOO
ouTt·n ~'1J:. ·'
. FIWM ThAM ,' ND OltGM"[7.t,nuNAL SLll'l>(JltT " ND (,OMMIT MENT
II:!')
the rdationship betwl!cn PTS and job performam:e. Stated with cau tion . it cou ld
be that successfu l effort." to enhance ITfS I.·ould posi ti ve ly influence pcrfonnance.
However. other cx temn l inlluences could subvcn commi tment to the teams and
performance cou ld suiTer desr ite such effort s. For ex ample. a poorly pl<lnnecl
incentive plan Ihat rew:lrds ind ividual s rather than Icams may e ncuurage lndivid~
uals to put forth effort 0 11 Iheir own behalf r:uher th an (In behalf of the team. and
to I'll! personal goal :-. and val ue:-. ahead of team goals and values. This could
undermine team coml111!lllcnt olnd Ihereby adversely alleet performance.
Umiw{itm s
Thb stud)'. like :111 field research. has lil11itali uns. A main conce rn is thut
re.tders unfam ili ar with "tructlJral equation modeling. Illay c rroncou~ly concl ude
that causal relationships C: lIl nc infe rred frOIll our results. Making such conclu sions h.w e been cxaccrb:J[ ~·d. in pan. bccause structural cqu'lli on modeling has
'lhou been referred to as ClIII.W ( modeling. One shnllid reme mbe r that proof or
c:1lls<l lity cannot be ll1a (h~ rrom st:l! isti cal result!'! ulone. Only sound theory .
appropriate experirncntal design)". and corroborating statisti cal result s can allow
one 10 make causal inferenrc:-.. Even so. the ilHJependent variabl es in our model
ha ve been idcntili ed by theory and prior research a~ anteceden ts of the depcndclH
variab les. The re"u ll" show onl y that c all ~a l relationships arc poss ible and reade rs
shou ld Illake ~ u ch inferen..:es with caution,
As with all studies ur thi s Iype . corumon method variance, or monO- l1let hod
bias. is a conce rn . However. we feel that due to the nature of our dependent
variables. it is unlikely that CO/llillon Ille thod variance wouhJ be a seriou s problem
in thi:-. stud y. For c,'( .uuplc. intentiun 10 quit can be assessed only hy asking lhe
indi vi dual hi s or her thought.!. on the matter. Although common method variance
is :tn issue with this type or research methodology, thi s design can be qui te useful
in providi ng a picture of how people fccl about and view thei r jobs (S pector &
Branni ck. 1995 ). Fu rt hennorc, thi s design can provide informat ion aboll t the
intercorrcl;lti ons among \'ar i Oll~ fee lings and perceptions (Spector. 1994 ), Spector
condudes lhat "properly de"e loped in ~ lrum e n t s arc resistant to the melhod
variance problem" (Srcx:tor. 1984: 438). To enhance this resistance. we made
cffol1S to follow Ihe rccom lllendation of Podsakoff and Organ ( 19S6) to elimi nate
obvious overlap in itt.!l1ls across mcasures.
A stre ngth or thi s stud y is that Ihe depende nt variable)" of job performance
and OCB wcre asse~scd by d'lta from a source (i.r.: .. facililamrs) other Ihan the
production employees. Multiple sources of data reduce the effects of common
method variance.
FII/lln'
Re.\'/:,(/rrh
The result s of Ihi ~ study " lI gge~ t sc\'eml add it ional paths for fUllire research.
fi rst. testing this modr.: 1 in diffcrelll work environmcnts could address bolh its
degree or genera lizability and the possib le bou ndary conditions for its applicabi lity. ln other conte xt:-., indi viduub may be :IITected by dynamics involv ing tC:l IllS
Ihat differ from this site . Cro)O!. ~ functionul ac t i v iti c~ ilCroSS teams may prod uce
rcsul! s dirfen:n t from those reported here . T h i ~ may be eSI>ccia ll y lnlC for team
JOUltNM. QI' ,\l ANAC E~l hN' .
vOL. :!{,. NO. h. ;:(;0:)0
J. w . IlISHor ET At..
1130
mcmbers with bo undary spanni ng tasks and respons ibilit ics. Second. our study
W;b conducted with permanent work learns. Research involving temporary teams
such as task forces should a lso be done. Such studies may need to base the ir
hypotheses on theoretica l standpoints other than those prese nted here because
employees may view team membership differently whe n the team is temporary in
comparison to when \he \cum is peml<mem.
Th ird. it may be that when an ind ividual' s high job performance is recognized by hi s or her teammates. the team m:.y respond by demo nstrating that it has
a gre;.lIer value fo r the high pcrfonning member's contribut ion (i.e., PTS). Such
PTS may, in turn . be rclmed to an increase in team cOlll mitmcni and then even
greater performance. By employing a longi tudinall y desig ned stud y. the reciproca l nature of Ih is process could be teslCd. Fourth . Future research shou ld ex plore
other types of support-comm itment rel ationships. One type or su pport-commi tment exchange that may be of particu lar importance is II mentoring relati onship
(Wh itely. Dougherty. & Dreher, 199 1). Superv isory support in t.he foml of
menloring may affect one's profess iona l commitment and sho uld be examined in
future research. It may a lso be useful fo r future in vestigat io ns to consider the
de rnogmphi c make-up of work teams wi thin the contex t of the support-conunil ment exchange in which organi zation;t l members partiCipate. As o rganizations
beCOme less hierarchically structured and utili ze more work tea ms. the issue of
diversity among team membe rs is likc ly to be cri tical in the slUdy of suppon commitment re lationships.
Fifth, one of the purposes of our study was to assess the re lationshi ps among
tea m commitment. organi zational commitmcnt . and OCB. In doing so, we showed
lhal the gcncml altruism dimension of OC B was rcl,lted to both foci of commit me lll . Futu re work could distinguish and ex amine which dimensions of c itizenship
behavior are directed IOwunJ the team versus those directed toward the global
o rgan ization. Thi s approach wou ld be cons iste nt with Organ 's call for OCB
measures thai considered "site-spec ifi c" needs (Organ. 1988: 107) and Wi lliams
and Anderson's ( 199 1) dichotomi zation of citizenship be havi or directed toward
an individual (OCBI) versus the organization (OC BO). The study of OCB
directed toward the work team may be of particu lar interest to organ iza ti ons that
make ex tcnsive use of teams.
Finally_ relationships in volving other commitment foc i (e.g .. profc..'ls iona l
coml11itrnen l. uni on commitmen t) should be examined to determine if similar
patterns e me.rge.. If lhey do . il would demo nstrate eve.n more stro ngly that
managers shou ld be conccmed with employees' pe rccptions of support and
commit/nent .
Acknowledgm ent : We thank Eric Sundstrom and Gay le Baugh fo r their hel pful
co mmen ts o n drafts of this articl e. We would also like to thank the ano nymous
reviewers of JOllmal of Mal/agemelll for their helpful conune_nts and suggestions.
Refcr€.'nccs
J. C .. & Gcrbinl1. D. w. t~)!lS. S UllClUmt cqu~li{)lll1"l<.Ichll!! III pm,'lI ce: A rev iew UII<J
IWO·Slcp nppn);l<:il. I'SI'chlJ/ogitll/ /Jill/,-Im. IOJ (3) : JI l-J2J
A n<J~"-Im.
JOURNA L OF MANAGEMENT. VOL 26. NO. (l, 2(XX)
rL'C(}II1 II1~Il,leti
Olrrcm. \I~s
I' ROM I'EM.'I ANl) ORGANIZATIONAL ~UJ'I'OIfI ANI) COMM ITMENT
II~I
l\l1gl ~, II . I.".\: l.il",,'n, ,\ 1 Il
I'J'JJ Or~~nl/;UII.'"a ll'Ul II11I1I11Cm mill cl11pln~ec, ' pcri,'rmlllu:c nm nj!s : BOlh
Iypc vr CUllll1lllmcni ~n,j I),pc "I /X'rf"rlllall.... c """11111 ,','," /"'/"11" {II H,'/",,.,,,, 7~ I ~ 1<1 I ~~ I
R n~ul.lJ. It I' 1"110 C""",/ ""~I"/,,,,.., II, m!lr~"lm~ NcYo y",~ )(.1111 Wdq & S"II'
Ib lc/!Ian, T S, & Or~lIn,1) W .. I'IS~ Jut. "HI'rtlCllllll :In<l .hc g.... o<J "uMlcr 11,c 'el ~lIun'h j p h<:l wecll aflC .... 1
lUl<l cII1Jlh'y~'(' "CIIIIC,,,llIr" A,ml.."" "f .l lmw~'·""'1I1 )'IifI'1lU/, 1(,: ~S1- ~'J~
Ikc~ cr, T E. l')In r'':1 alld h"...." ,.1' c."nnlllnlCn( An: thl'> <I"l",.:l,,'n~ ,,,,nh n l ,,~,n{' A,·..,/..m\, "I
M"''''lI'''''''''' ./m",,,,I, IS II Ie 112_~~ .
B cc ~ ~r. T , E .. & B i llin~', R 0;; )'19' I'r(lllk, <'I ""11111111111"111' All crnp,rK!,1 Inl )"uuw/ ,1 Orxm" :Jllitlll<l/
11...11("""", 1-1 111- I'lH
Ilcr ~ ~r. T . (:" lIi1lil'!;.'. R. S.• bdelh. D M. $: tillhcr! . N L 1'.1"1(, 1'<":1 ~I"I h.I"':' "f empl"~,..., ,"1I11I11HII1C III
hllp lic"'1\ "I' Inr j, 'h l.... r1'1 '!'IlIall~e . AI",ld,.""
""lII".C,''''''1/I ),,,,nllll, 1') 1~ 1 -Ito.! - 4112
Blshup, J, \V I'JI)I! '1,1." rcl:lIl{)I1slnp ~!"~-':II 'IUuJil} UIIJ ,UPPUII "' Ihe " ,"l pluce ""llCr pre"':lIleJ..<1 Ihe
C."'frr",II'.'
(JIll/UN Will M II/IUX'-"I.. ,,' (.11"'/'" /1/, '" "",/ 1J,,,'nl"" jor Iii" J I" Ccmllr~ . ,\0/" 11>1 Stall'
U " h'CI.' IlY, Tellll'e, ArllHn;, Feh(1l;,,)' 1-1
Il"hnr. J, W ,. & Seuit. K D 1'1'1(), Multl!,I,' f''''1 01 ,'''lUlU llm,'U\ III a "" I(~ 1";1111 ell~ll'\JnlUCIlI n"" rill"'"
1'"~ ",,',Ii,,x, ilf ,10 .. IQWi ,1.-tldr"'1 "f M"'Id,C~"''-1I1 M""IIII.~ ("""'IIIII!II,
B"hop, J. W .. & Scnll. K. 11 , 19<J7 bn'llln>'ct: eullillUmlClll and "or~ I!."am produelll'lt~ . IINM<l))"~mr. I I :
107- 111.
BI~hIlP, J. W .. & s..'<)I1 . K I). ~OOIl OrC3I1 ,r;U'On31 ~nd !C~m Ct'l1Tl1111lmcnt 111 ~ Icam cnv,mnmcnl Jm,m.llof
"llplo",1 l'n'dwl"X\" 115: 4J'J- -I 50.
Ill-hop, J. W , Sc"u, K . J) , & C;1~1I1n, LSI '1')7 111c <I. ffcn:nll"l effe<.·h ,.1 lelllil COlllnllWI<:f\1 und ,'r~""",, , ,"nl' l
~O"'lTIilmelll on Jilh perlnmlnlKc and mtclilion to qlHl I':lpcr prc.'<CllIed III Ihe IlIUIlIII/ Mf""'I~ of ,ilf
"r
w,
""mI.-II'" "1 M""'I,~.'''''''''. Uo,tun
Blnll, P M 19(..i, E"IIIIII,1(r 11111/ I'''h,-.. III '''<'<II/ lire New York Jl'lm Wiley SO"", hI\:,
Brei!. J, I' .. Cmn. W. L.. & Siocuill. J. \V . 1'/<15 &nll"'"I<': del'emlc"cy VII ....'ul'l . ,\ " " "'en",,,. nr Ihe rei:" ","sill!,
betw\'Cn OI'~UII""1l< ",ui eUlilinilllk:1Il alld p,.'rfunFHm,·c A, ".I..", I' ,0{ M,lFIoIg .."h·m 1m/moll. JR I I): ~C>I- 27 1.
CU lilmmm. C. Fidlll1:II1, " ,1 , .... Kll',h , J 1'17" n ... ,\I'ch"I"" O~~"'''~;'I",,,,tI
Q'II",/",,,,,,"n,,
Ull pu hll,IK'tlI119I1U,enpl , UIII"Cr-II> <,I M ldl1gDIl. Ailil A''''If.
Clllllp i"", M A .. Mcd~~er, G 1. • •'It. 1I ,i,ep. A (" 1!N.l . RdulI"II,', hct"L't."1I "nr~ ~r<lUI) ,·h~r."·!crl'lk, ,lIId
~ncr" l'cnc,,: lonpllc;oh()", r", <lc"f'lling C'llecll"" work smups. 1"' ,.I'OIlth·II',Hho/Oj:l'. .J o: Kn- I!~II.
C .. hell. S. 0 .. &. Bli lley, D. r _ l 'I'n. Wh,1l 1II,ll~, Il'!l1II "url (jrtlllp dk,' ,ilcne" re...:"n.h r"'lll Ihl' ,hup "' ~If
I" Ihe c~cell l lH' '11110' ./""""'/ "J M""<1,~"""'III. lJ (1 1: :!J') -~'XI,
Clim mlli gs. T. G. 1'J7S Sdl· rell"lallnll "'u, ~ ).'ruup' .\ "O;:I"· IL'.:hlll~at ~>'lIIhe" , .1.'",1""" "I If""(',~,''''rlll
H",'i.,.,. 1 IJI (,"!,'_ f,:t-\
Ei ,cllt>.:r);ct, R , 1'11",1" , p, & O;"',,- L:, Mil'1!"," 1')lXI, I'er~e"cd "').'nl\'~JIIIlI\~ 1 ,uppOI1 ~n.! emp)">cc
dtligcn~e, .... ' 1ITltllllfl'Ctll. ~II<I
)"""'1111 "f "1'1'/""/ p, \, "0/. 'X' . 7~ I I i: ~ I ~')
Ei...:nl)('r~cr, R" 1 11I1I111I~t"n , R , lI uI ~ hi" 'II, S . 0\1; S"w~. D I ')l!/, I'eree",'ed "rg:IIlIl_:lIii>ll~1 '''I'P<)rI, )",,111.11 .if
",,!'I.rd I"",-'m/II}:", 7 1 1.11: ~(j(l -~()1.
Fi~hhcitl. M .. & AJlt'tI , l. 11J7~ 1/,'I1 ../. IlIIltm/" IIIh·m;.. ", "",I/"'/um'"" R ,'~<lill~, MA : Ad<lI",Hl- W c,lcy
(4)lI ltl lI~', A . W, I '}(~1. 'n,,' limn! ilf n:clpn ..... 'I)' A r'~lnllln~1) ,HIt,'men!. Am('n .."" .'{~ '''/"x,r,t! H",·i.,,,, 1~:
II,.,D.,,,,,.,,,
'"","'UI"",.
Ihl - 1111.
Gre);~I"''', J Jil l '1'1 ,1 M IIlhpie ~"'II1t1l1l l1 leU" :" "", 1 nll.J C ~Ir,lmJe h.!ha, ,ur dUri nl.! Ihrel'
ti .. n~ 1 tCOlirc Jo"",,,1 ,1 H" ,m w,. " H~u(lrr", 26: 3 1 ~ -1 7,
'I;(g~
" f urgallm,·
Guul dncr. ,\. W !\)60 '[1,!." IIOfIlI uf rc('lrltlO;:lIy A !,rclllnmitty 't,'telll~'tl . ""'rnnm S<h '''/''X ...'', H.. """",, 1';
lol - I1K.
Il ackmiin. J. R. 11)[010. T il!." l"ych(1l(1g~' nf self· management , tI urglll1 ll,;II IUr". In R (i1!J!>C1 I b J I, Ch,.''I(' mll/'" ~<,
in "'1j."II/I/(IiI"'lt '''111>1,,,,,4 : 1.f;l- 191 KillJ::
Pm ...\m,I'A . Orgl1l1lfllt iun:tl Dc~I~tI mId 1),:,duplllclII.
Ilam>, TE. l Y')~ T"wanl d f,'.:t" ... ,·1I\111o.)'«" "" "I"e",elll ; II " all"I)",~ "I par.,lIcl all') .el f IlH' "~glllg I c~m~.
)"'11'11111 '-'J A'hrd
N"$rllrt'I" IJ III 25--n
Ji'lresLug, K, G .. & Siirhlllll, O. 19<1.1 USN":l. ,<j . Sm"-,,,m/ "II"(I/,,,n "w'/d/ll,~
I"r SIMI'US """"''''''/
/1"'~llUxe, Hillsda le, NJ: La'Hellce ErihaullI A" ..o;: , ~.c:.
K,lll k.." J I... ,!;; Sh;ll'IIrlUI'~ " C fl, I'JRR , ~lca~"rill~ pcn:cileil , upt'rv""f) ,md l' t~:"'II,Hlon;11 'UPp' Jil ,
1::<111«11;011<11 .llld /"yd!OI"}:,,.((/ Mf'lb"rr",,.,,' , .fK; 1075- 107'J
L:mwu , J., & H:Ulllllcr, T II I 'JII6, Clerical emph ')'C.,, ' r<n:Cplllll1' (If IInrnul}! ~llll,;lllllll~1 ,'areel • 'riM 'rl ll ntl i c~.
"r
/J,,,,,,,.'''''
'\~lld~",.I'
,,!I"
,1 M .WI'I:"",nll )OUr'II,", 2Y: 38:>~-I(1oI .
LeW I" , K. 11.4) DclinHl~ lhe "Iield "I a 1(I\~n 11II1e." I'.,.,..-I",I"~I('"I N",'",,,, 5IJ: 2"~-] HI.
~'l ll n/ , C C " ,\:;. Siln., II , I' I')X.J Searchlllg fur Ihe "unlc~<k"'" Or~llI1ilari"lIal II1cml)l;'( ,ic"' 4)" Icading
...: l r· lIlu l1;(J;~,j llf<lUil", Nil/111m N.. /all",,",, l7 (5 1: .J 1I9 - ~.J2 ,
MaH1, C C.. & Si 1I1~, I I I' l'IM1 Lcu,j, ng ".. ,'r~en tu !cuil th"m,eI~e>, TIJe' c~lcm~) kadcn;l"p '-'I 'Clf· tn:tJ '~~lnl!
wnr~ team' . .oI.JI/IIIII,lmllll'r Sr''''".~ QIIII""r/l-, 12 10/. - 11:0:
JOU RNA L OF " 1,\ NAClI, MENT. VO L U). NO. 6. 2(';(1
J. W. BISHOP ET AL.
1132
M Ulhl~u.
J. E. 1991 . f\ <·rlls, ·k,·~1 n ,""e.::llr~ i'·(" model of !l1~ anIL'C~IkIlIS l,f urgul1Ilm,ollUJ l'(111l11l1IlnCIll III1Il
""11~f~(1 iOIl. 1mm",/ <1/ A,lpli..d I'.<y("/",I"S)". 76 (5): 607-618.
MOIllI cu. J. E.. & Hmnd. K. 1<)119. A caus:l1 11I1Xk1 of Ih~ ull1,xedcnl) lOr urgull ll.nlllJnaJ commllmcnl unmnJ;
pll".>fe ~lunuls utld I")nprof... s~iom'! '" lmlnlll/ '!f \',>(: iIIl,"Iul IJt'I", I'lor. 34: 29'1 - 311.
MDlJm·u. 1. E.. & ZIljae. D. M. 199\). ,\ I..,\'icw !1II1l mcru·urmlysis uf the "me(c ..Jcm~. (UlTt"'llllc.... lind ~llnS<.··
'lucile... , of "rgill1ilmiulI:l1 co mnlllllll.·nt. I's\'dw/ogi" ul /Jlllinin . 101': (2): 111- 194.
Mayer. R. C.. & Sdlll<lnnM. R. (). 11J(j2. PrC(h~lInJ; paniclpmioll ;lIul prudlK'llIllI OUlcull1<:S Ihmugh II IWI./·
Jirn ... nsiuuIII ""KId ,,( urgalll l.ufi<Jrt~1 ,·m!IJniuncnl. AI"II'/I"III)' "f MII"" .~ .."'rllf }",m",(. 35 (3 I: 6 7 1 - 6~.
Mellsker. G . J.• Willlllm.•• L J.. & Holahan. 1'. J. 191.)4. A r",v,ew of curr,'nl pmcllCCS fur c\'aJummg c:\II.~allll,,,IC!,
in "rganil.11tionul bl:ha"lor un<J hllll1"JI ",~nll l"Cl.' m:lI1agCtll"nl rt.""'eun."h. 1,,~rtllll of M"n/t.e,·",,·/II. 1!l (1):
439- ..t&4.
Meycr. J. I' .. I'uunl.lntn. S. V.. Gcllmly. I R.. Guffin. 11.. D.. &. J;t(." k..'on. D N. I')IN. Orguni/.::ui'ln"r ,·nmmitm<."1li
unll Job pcrfonn:lll<."(': II 's thc nUlu,," uf Ihc t;Un1mi1tncnl Ihlll ~QUIIIS. 1,)/m",lof Applif'd ('$\"'/1 ,,1"8.'" 74 ( I I:
152- 156.
Mowll,,~ . It T .• Ponet. L. w .. ,\1 SI,:"''"''. R. M l!lij 2.. t.n l/,''''·... ,' ·' W):''III~IfI'''''''lill~'',~(".,; Tlw 1"')'r h"logl" 4
("Q""11;WlI!m. ,,1!;"'· "" ·~I.IIII. ""d mm,w"r. N~w Y"rl..: '\C:I\lCIIlII: Pres'
Mow<JJ Y. R. T•• SIC~flo . R. M.• & Poner. L. \II I'nll. '111~ rne:!surcl11~nl .)1" urg:milati"!llI i commitment. 1,."1"(,,,/
"IV,,,,,,;,,,,,,I fh·M""",. l..t: n ..t - 247
Il'''''/ ,·,,!.Iit·,
L~Mngl'm . M,\ : I'lealh &
Orgull. 0 w. I·III~ . ljrSIII"; lIl1lJ1wl ,·ifl·~t'II.\Mp /"'11"1"1,,,:
n,,·
nil""''''''.
Co.
Or!!nn. D. W. I'fIXI. 'Ille mnU"~l i, 'n~1 b:bt~ uf or!!~niJ.al")rlul Clli/CII,hlP hch ~," i,'r. In H. M. Staw & L. L
Cummings (Ed~.I. Rr.\·t'u,dl III '''IIt1I11:J1/;"IWII'''II''''';"r, 12: J :1-? ~ . Grecnwkh. c r. JA I r'r"'~~.
Pi al!. J. R. I'J"". Slnlng I1Ifc","ce. S<·it'lIr1". 164: j.l7- 35.l.
P,,,I~llkoff. P. M.• I\: O'l;~n. O. \II . 1!I!th ScJ(· rcptlMs In ')rl! anl zmion:,1rc.~can."h : I'",bk:ms ami pm~pcl."l.'. Jmmwl
oj Mwltlg"",.'IH. 12 (..t): 5~ L -5+)
R ckb~,.". A. E, 19115. A rCVlew I1l1d rc(O n~Cpl Ullh/.~li[)n !> ( orgllni/lll;, .nal to"lIm"n~l1l . -\<"1,,1"/11)" "f MmwKI"III!'/l1
" I'I·U''''. 1U 13): 465- 476.
SCiloon. R. I'.. Ilcnll~H . N .• & Lhkn. R C. 11.)<)6. S,k.·i:...1 c.~ chunge III orl!~ni ~lltion, : l'en.:cil'ell or)!unizlIliollul
sIIp["IIm. 1c:"lcr·meml:!cr exc hange. ;11111 ~mpl<Jyce rc:.:ip",cil)· 1",,,,,,,/ 'if Apl,lied f'syc/wwS.'". III : 21 IJ -227 .
SC('II, K. D.• &.: Tn .... I1""'''''. A. M. l<)<}..t. Team,; Why ,;um~ pcrfonn am] /lthcr Il<.) 1M. I,"M".~"~III(". II: 62-61.
Sherill;/Il. J. H. L'i')7. Cullun' . dlange le .. son~. /"'/".I/'Y IV.. ,·~. 17' 20- 2-1.
Shore. L M.. 8.: Wayne. S. J 1'.I9.l. CI"nmillm.· nt "nd cmpl"yee b<:h"vlor C"lllpJri!<un uf affcc.i,· ... l."ommil mcnt
lInll (ol1linuiul("(' cmnmilmclII wnh pcrceilcd "rg:ml/.ullonal Mlll/"m. JIIlIfI",1 "f A/'pli':lf I')·.,·,.II" " II:.\". 7')
(5): 774 - 7(010.
Smilh. C. A .. Orgu n. D. W • & Ncm, J. 1'. r 9 ~ .I. Org"nl~':III O I\ll1 d hf.l:II,JlIp beh:,,'''''': II,. n:llurc nnll lInlcccdcnl.l.
l uunw/ lIj "p/JI'l'd I'HI"III,!t!II.\·. 611: 65..- 663.
Sobel. M. E. 1987. f)i rcct MJ inJ irecl cff<x'\> in lincar Slnl~ luru l c4Ul.llloO lIul(]cl". S,wi"I".~""II1 Mrlll<)d.~ ,(,
~
16: ISS-I7(•.
Spcrmr. I'. E. 19l14. Mel l",d l·urianl.:C 'I, an amfllCl III ~c l f·rcJlOnoo nffeci a nti IlCIl·CPIl(JlI.'.:11 work: Mylh nt
~il!nllkmlt pmhklll J" "rlllil "f ;l"/III<"</ /' n)·lm/ogy. 72 Pl' ..t31'; - 44.1.
S1'(:clor. 1'. E. 1'.194. Us inG >-e lf· rq)on Ilu ~s,i "nn:llres in OB rc~un.: h: A CO lllltlCt\1 on Ihe us<: of a .:ontrll>"ersiul
melhod. 1"''''1<1/ vi O"/{IIIII: <1limllJ/ /J"lIm';o" 15: .1!i5-J92..
Spa:lOr. I' . E.. & Hnll1n k l... M T. 1995. Th~ nalor~ il/\tI efl;"cts of IHelh,"; ~ :lrinl\~c in "'I!ani/minnal r... scan:h.
In C. L C.)I.'(">Cr ~lI<l I. T R"oc·rt... m (cd.., Imr nUlII"",,1 R"'l"tr lt of fm/lIst,iul ItIl<I ()rg ,mi~<IIi"'liIl
I'J:" '/"'(lIgy 1'J'J5. VI'/IIIIt<· Ill: 2-19- 27..t. New York : Joh/l Wiley.
T,u;"IIIK M'I/Ut ~m,' . 1!1:I~ . Tellllls in pru~ti ec. Lu~ew,~,<.J l'ublicu.inn~. Minnellpol b . ();Iober.
\II ayne. S. J•. Shure. L M.. &.: Liden. R. C. 1'JY7. l'c("Cci"ed organi/.miul1:<] sl.lpp<m :11111 lcader· tllCmbcr cM:h:mge:
,\ social c~.;:ha,,~c jl\:"'I",·.:(i\c. Anfdrlll.\ .if ,1""wgrlllt.'lIf }(l(fm,ll. J/) t Il; 112- /11 .
Wall. T. 0 .. Kemp. N. J .. Jud..,"Jf1 . I' . R.. & CIc)!I:. c. W. I'JIII:!. Omcol!1l!.' "r UUlOn!/m(\OS work ~mups : A
10nJ;· lcml Held cxpcnrn ... nt . ,I<"ud"",\' <if MWIIl}:<''''''''/ l ut/mlli. 2'J 12J: 280-.Ht4.
Wh ildy. W.• OuUghl·rt) , T. W .. & Drt:hcr. C. R. 1"")1. Rcl:uil1l1';hil'" (If .:;r rccr I1H.'!Itllrillg & 'tX·ilJl.:l.:uI1oTn ic
ori~i n I.U man:,!;crs alld pmfcs..,unul"s emly curecr J!f<lgres~ . A,'lId"",,· "f MIIIIII.~'·"'''111 J",mlll/. ) 4:
". . ..,,"·,I.
33 1- 351.
WiII illllh. L. J., & I\l1l1"NIII.. S. E. 1<)91. SUII ~(U,·. i"" nllll "rgnni~Tlli"I1"1 cOUlll1i tt11e m ," prcllk l m~ <If
ul");:mll.ll1 io":!1 Clillen,hlp 31111 lII ' rIIle hch:II'lOf'. l UII,,,,11 'if M,mIJ;:r''''t!III. 17 (3 J: (,(J 1_ 617.
JOURNAL OF
M /\N ,\GE~ ! ENT.
VOL. 26. NO. fl. 2001J