Abstract
Using a multilevel analysis including 207 volunteers and paid workers nested within 51 nonprofit organizations (NPOs), this study examines the effect of individual and group attitudinal and behavioral commitment on their assessment of organizational effectiveness. Drawing on classical attitude theories, our results indicate that individuals with higher affective organizational commitment tend to assess their NPO’s effectiveness higher, while individuals staying because of the lack of alternatives assess it lower. However, in line with behavioral commitment theories, both relationships are mediated by the effect of teamwork behavioral commitment. We also found a negative effect of normative attitudinal commitment partially nested at the group level. Overall, our results suggest that encouraging volunteers and paid workers to participate in concrete teamwork behaviors on a daily basis constitutes a twofold benefit: it adds to the effect of affective attitudinal commitment at the individual level, while counter balancing the negative effects related to normative individual and collective resistances.
Résumé
Utilisant une analyse multiniveau comprenant 207 bénévoles et travailleurs rémunérés intégrés dans 51 organisations à but non lucratif (OBNL), cette étude examine l’effet de l’engagement comportemental individuel et collectif sur l’évaluation de leur efficacité organisationnelle. S’appuyant sur les théories de l’attitude classique, nos résultats indiquent que les individus avec un engagement organisationnel affectif plus élevé ont tendance à évaluer l’efficacité de leur OBNL plus élevée, tandis que les personnes qui restent en raison de l’absence d’alternatives l’évaluent plus faible. Cependant, conformément aux théories d’engagement du comportement, les deux relations sont facilitées par l’effet de l’engagement comportemental du travail d’équipe. Nous avons également constaté un effet négatif de l’engagement comportemental normatif partiellement imbriqué au niveau du groupe. Dans l’ensemble, nos résultats suggèrent qu’encourager les bénévoles et les travailleurs rémunérés à participer à des comportements de travail d’équipe concrets quotidiennement constitue un double avantage : cela accroît l’effet de l’engagement comportemental affectif au niveau individuel tout en contrebalançant les effets négatifs liés aux résistances normatives individuelles et collectives.
Zusammenfassung
Anhand einer mehrstufigen Analyse von 207 ehrenamtlichen und bezahlten Mitarbeitern in 51 gemeinnützigen Organisationen untersucht diese Studie die Auswirkungen des einstellungsbezogenen und verhaltensbezogenen Commitments von Personen und Gruppen auf ihre Einschätzung der organisationalen Effektivität. Unter Bezugnahme auf klassische Einstellungstheorien zeigen unsere Ergebnisse, dass Personen mit einem höheren affektiven organisationalen Commitment dazu neigen, die Effektivität ihrer gemeinnützigen Organisation höher einzuschätzen, während Personen, die bei der Organisation aufgrund mangelnder Alternativen bleiben, die Effektivität geringer einschätzen. In Übereinstimmung mit verhaltensbezogenen Commitmenttherapien werden beide Beziehungen von dem Effekt des verhaltensbezogenen Commitments im Zusammenhang mit der Teamarbeit beeinflusst. Wir sahen auch einen negativen Effekt des normativen einstellungsbezogenen Commitments, das teilweise auf der Gruppenebene vorhanden war. Insgesamt weisen unsere Ergebnisse darauf hin, dass die Förderung täglicher konkreter Verhaltensweisen im Rahmen einer Teamarbeit bei Ehrenamtlichen und bezahlten Mitarbeitern einen zweifachen Vorteil mit sich bringt: der Effekt des affektiven einstellungsbezogenen Commitments auf der individuellen Ebene wird verstärkt, während die negativen Effekte hinsichtlich der normativen individuellen und kollektiven Resistenzen ausgeglichen werden.
Resumen
Utilizando un análisis multinivel que incluía a 207 voluntarios y trabajadores pagados incorporados a 51 organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro (NPO, por sus siglas en inglés), el presente estudio examina el efecto del compromiso actitudinal y comportamental individual y grupal sobre su evaluación de la eficacia organizacional. Basándonos en teorías clásicas sobre la actitud, nuestros resultados indican que los individuos con un compromiso organizacional afectivo más elevado tienden a una evaluación superior de la eficacia de su NPO, mientras que los individuos que se quedan debido a la falta de alternativas la evalúan de manera inferior. Sin embargo, en línea con las teorías sobre el compromiso comportamental, ambas relaciones se ven condicionadas por el efecto del compromiso comportamental del trabajo en grupo. También encontramos un efecto negativo del compromiso actitudinal normativo parcialmente anidado a nivel de grupo. En general, nuestros resultados sugieren que alentar a los voluntarios y a los trabajadores pagados a participar en comportamientos de trabajo en equipo concretos de manera diaria constituye un doble beneficio: aumenta el efecto del compromiso actitudinal afectivo a nivel individual, mientras que contrarresta los efectos negativos relacionados con resistencias normativas individuales y colectivas.
摘要
通过对51个非营利组织(NPO)的207位志愿者和受薪员工进行的多级别分析,本调查检查了个人及群体态度和行为承诺对组织效率评估的影响。基于经典态度理论,我们的结果表明,具有更高情感组织承诺的个人倾向于过高评估其NPO的效率,而缺少替代方法的个人对其评估更低。然而,与行为承诺理论一致,这两种关系都受团队行为承诺影响的调解。我们还发现,规范性态度承诺的负面影响部分停留在小组层面。整体来说,我们的结果建议,鼓励志愿者和受薪工人参与日常团队行为可以带来双重好处:这可增强个人层面的情感态度承诺影响,同时抵消与规范性个人和集体抗拒相关的负面影响。
ملخص
بإستخدام تحليل متعدد المستويات بما في ذلك 207 من المتطوعين والعاملين بأجور متداخلة ضمن 51 منظمة غير ربحية (NPOs)، تبحث هذه الدراسة تأثير الإلتزام الفردي والجماعي للمواقف والسلوك على تقييمهم للفاعلية التنظيمية. بالإعتماد على نظريات الموقف الكلاسيكي، نتائجنا تشير إلى أن الأفراد مع الإلتزام التنظيمي الوجداني العالي يميلون إلى تقييم عالي لفاعالية المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPOs) ، في حين أن الأفراد يقيمون بسبب عدم وجود بدائل تقييم ذلك أقل. مع ذلك، وفقا” لنظريات إلتزام السلوكية، كل من العلاقاتين تتوسط من خلال تأثير إلتزام سلوك العمل الجماعي. كما وجدنا أن لها تأثير سلبي على إلتزام المواقف المعيارية المتداخلة جزئيا” على مستوى المجموعة. عموما”، نتائجنا تشير إلى أن تشجيع المتطوعين والعاملين بأجر للمشاركة في سلوكيات العمل الجماعي ملموس على أساس يومي يشكل مصلحة ذات شقين: فإنه يضيف إلى تأثير إلتزام المواقف العاطفية على المستوى الفردي، في حين أن مكافحة موازنة الآثار السلبية المتصلة بالمقاومة الفردية المعيارية و الجماعية.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Zanna, M. P., & Kumkale, G. T. (2005). Attitudes: Introduction and scope. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitude (pp. 3–16). London: Psychology Press.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Batliwala, S. (2002). Grassroots movements as transnational actors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(4), 393–409.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32–42.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.
Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R. J., Vandenberghe, C., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: a latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 468–482.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information theoretic approach. New York: Springer.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516–1530.
Cumming, G. D. (2008). French NGOs in the global era. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(4), 372–394.
Dawley, D. D., Stephens, R. D., & Stephens, D. B. (2005). Dimensionality of organizational commitment in volunteer workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 511–525.
Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide: A study in sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2005). Attitude research in the 21st century: The current state of knowledge. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitude (pp. 743–768). London: Psychology Press.
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impacts. Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-099, pp. 1–52.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organisations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson.
Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item vs multiple-item measurement scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898–915.
Graddy, E., & Wang, L. (2009). Community foundation development and social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 392–412.
Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1108–1119.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of non-profit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 185–206.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations, a panel study. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 694–704.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(4), 399–415.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, M. P. (1999). Cut off creteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jun, K. N., & Shiau, E. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple constituency approach to civic association effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 632–655.
Kanter, R. M., & Summers, D. (1987). Doing well while doing good. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 154–166). New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Press.
Kelley, M., Lune, H., & Murphy, S. (2005). Doing syringe exchange. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 362–386.
Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New York: Academic Press.
Kline, C. J., & Peters, L. H. (1991). Behavioral commitment and tenure of new employees: a replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 194–204.
Kreutzer, K., & Jäger, U. (2011). Volunteering versus managerialism. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 634–661.
Laville, J. L. (2010). Politique de l’association. Paris: Seuil.
Laville, J. L., Young, D., & Eynaud, P. (2015). Civil society, the third sector, social enterprise: Governance and democracy. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434–457.
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92.
Marsh, K. L., & Wallace, H. M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on beliefs: Formation and change. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitude (pp. 370–395). London: Psychology Press.
McGee, M., & Ford, R. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 638–642.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace. Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in & around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Mobley, W. H., Homer, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 408–414.
Moscovici, S., & Duveen, G. (2000). Social representations. Paris: Lavoisier.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Mueller, C. W., & Lawler, E. J. (1999). Commitment to nested organizational units: Some basic principles and preliminary findings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(4), 325–346.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1981). The commitment and job tenure of new employees. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 597–616.
Olson, J. M., & Stone, J. (2005). The influence of behavior on attitudes. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Handbook of attitude (pp. 273–313). London: Psychology Press.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. M. (2010). When worlds collide. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.
Penley, L. E., & Gould, S. (1988). Etzioni’s model of organizational involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 43–59.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W.J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2005). MLwiN Version 2.02. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
Reid, W., & Karambayya, R. (2009). Impact of dual executive leadership dynamics in creative organizations. Human Relations, 62(7), 1073–1112.
Rothschild, J., & Stephenson, M. J. (2009). The meaning of democracy in non-profit and community organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 800–806.
Rousseau, V., Aube, C., & Savoie, A. (2006a). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37(6), 540–570.
Rousseau, V., Aube, C., & Savoie, A. (2006b). Internal functioning of work teams: Conception and measurement. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 38(2), 120–135.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1992). In search of the nonprofit sector II: The problem of classification. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3(2), 267–311.
Salancick, G. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 210–221). Chicago, IL: St Clair Press.
Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 347–367.
Sowa, J. E., Selden, S. C., & Sandfort, J. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 711–728.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44.
Valeau, P. J. (2015). Stages and pathways of development of nonprofit organizations: An integrative model. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1894–1919.
Valeau, P. J., Mignonac, K., Vandenberghe, C., & Gatignon, A. L. (2013). A study of the relationships between volunteers’ commitments to organizations and beneficiaries and turnover intentions. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 45(2), 85–95.
Van Vuuren, M., De Jong, M. D. T., & Seydel, E. R. (2008). Commitment with or without a stick of paid work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 315–326.
Verbruggen, S., Christiaens, J., & Milis, K. (2011). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5–32.
Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Hudy, M. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.
Whitman, J. R. (2008). Evaluating philanthropic foundations according to their social values. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(4), 417–434.
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418–428.
Willems, J. (2015). Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,. doi:10.1177/0899764015601244.
Willems, J., Boenigk, S., & Jegers, M. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit performance and effectiveness. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1648–1670.
Willems, J., Jegers, M., & Faulk, L. (2016). Organizational effectiveness reputation in the nonprofit sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(2), 476–497.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Jill Bennoson for her helpful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Valeau, P., Willems, J. & Parak, H. The Effect of Attitudinal and Behavioral Commitment on the Internal Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness: A Multilevel Analysis. Voluntas 27, 2913–2936 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9703-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9703-6