APPLICATION OF THREE-COMPONENT ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

IN NEPAL

THANESWOR GAUTAM, Lecturer

Nepal Commerce Campus,
Minbhavan, Baneshwor
P.O. Box 2465

Author Note

Correspondence concerned this paper should be addressed to Thaneswor Gautam,

Nepal Commerce campus, Minbhawan, Baneswor, Kathmandu, Nepal. E-mail:
thaneswor@wlink.com.np

Acknowledgement

I am very much grateful to Dr. Ulrich Wagner, Dr. Rolf van Dick, Dr. Narottam
Upadhyay, and Dr. Upendra Koirala for their invaluable suggestions and their careful
editing of this paper.

1
Abstract

Similar psychometric pattern of translated measure to the original one can

assure the translation reliability and the proper replication of the model across
the samples can be the evidence of cross-validation of the concept. Thus, two
major aims of the article are a) to find translation reliability of Nepalese version
organizational commitment (OC) scales and b) cross-validation of three-
component OC concept over two similar Nepalese samples. First sample
consists 450 subjects and second sample contains 103 subjects generated
from similar organizations in one-year gap. Hence, psychological properties of
English and Nepalese version OC scales have been investigated and multi-
sample model fit has been tested comparing two structural equation models
designed in two different samples. This study successfully attempted to prove
satisfactory reliability of Nepalese version organizational commitment scale
and to show the construct validity of the three-component commitment
concept in Nepal.

2
Organizational Commitment Concept

Commitment concept has followed variety of approaches differing in a)

phenomenon of interest (e.g., organization, union, and career or occupation),
b) focus of commitment in the certain phenomenon (e.g., organization, unit,
manager, and goal), c) subjective or objective categories of commitment (e.g.,
attitudinal, behavioral), and d) the dimensions or components of commitment
(e.g., affective, continuance, and normative commitment).

Organizational commitment is understood as a commitment for the entire

organization but at the same time can be understood as a function of multiple-
commitment to organizational ideas (e.g., Goal, value, artifact) and agents
(e.g., Organization, unit, team). Commitment research tradition has also
followed in other domains, especially career and union. Thus, it can be
adapted into other societal institutions such as family, political group, and
cultural group, too. Occupational commitment (e.g., Ritzier & Trice, 1969) and
commitment to unions (cf. Angle & Perry, 1981) have been discussed having
positive as well as negative relationship to OC. Furthermore, employees can
have multiple commitments to more than one social institution (e.g., family,
organizations, profession); thus, the commitment to one institution might
marginalize the commitment to the other (cf. Meyer & Allen, 1997).

In the early years, OC research emerged in attitudinal and behavioral

commitment. The root of affective oriented attitudinal organizational
commitment (OC) can be traced back to the theory of Buchanan (1974) and its
operationalization of Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian, (1974). Buchanan
defined affective commitment as “a partisan, affective attachment to the goals
and values of the organization, to one’s role in relation to goals and values,
and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental
worth” (p. 533).

The continuance oriented behavioral commitment concept was initiated from

Becker’s (1960) side bet theory. In the behavioral approach, employees were
viewed as becoming committed to a particular course of action rather than to
an entity. Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) defined behavioral commitment as “A
structural phenomena, which occurs as a result of individual-organizational

3
 transactions and alterations in side bets or investment over time”(p 556).
Salancik (1977) has defined commitment in terms of a binding of individuals to
their behavioral acts. He argued that highly explicit, irrevocable, done by one’s
own volition, and public act will result in strong commitment of the individual.

Researchers conceptualized attitudinal and behavioral approach into single

multidimensional commitment concept. They pursued attitude and behaviors
compatible of each other’s. Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) hypothesized
that committed behaviors can lead to commitment attitude. Reichers (1985)
explained a cyclical relationship between commitment attitude and
commitment behavior. He argued that the attitude could lead to the behavior,
which would, in turn, reinforce commitment attitude.

Obligation or moral responsibility based normative commitment concept came

later into the existence after Wiener and Gechman’s (1977) writing on
“Commitment: A Behavioral Approach to a Job Involvement” and Marsch and
Mannari’s (1977) writing on “Organizational Commitment and Turnover”.
Wiener (1982) defined normative commitment as “the totality of internalized
normative pressures to act in a way, which meets organizational goals and
interests,” (p 421). Organizational commitment research followed into diverse
approaches in the early years, which was empirically synthesized by Meyer
and Allen (1991) into affective, continuance, and normative components of a
multidimensional OC concept. Other researchers also viewed commitment as
a multidimensional construct that is discussed in the following section.

Nature of Organizational Commitment

Nature of commitment has been conceptualized into trichotomies in OC

research, e.g., affective, continuance, and moral, (e.g., Jaros, Jermier,
Koehler, & Sincich, 1993), affective, continuance, and normative (Meyer &
Allen, 1991), and compliance, identification, and internalization (O’Reilly &
Chatman, 1986).

Other forms of attachments have also been conceptualized into trichotomies of

organizational attachment. Etzioni (1975) conceptualized organizational
involvement as moral, calculative, and alienative. Ashforth and Mael (1989)
specified cognitive, affective, and evaluative identification in organization. And,

4
 Virtranen, 2000 specified commitment into obligation, utilities, and emotions as
the components of organizational culture.

Even though, the critical assessment of each aspect is required before

pursuing one concept as the central theme of research design, limitation of the
present study does not allow for the detail discussion. Thus, interested readers
are referred to go through previous reviews (e.g., Beyer, Hannah, & Milton,
2000; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer and Allen 1997; O’Reilly & Chatman,
1986; Virtanen, 2000).

Three-component Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is the attitude of an employee towards his or her

organization. It is a psychological state that categorizes the employee'
s
relationship with the organization, and has implications for the decision to
continue membership in organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

“Affective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification

with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with strong affective
commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to do so.
Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the cost associated with leaving
the organization. Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on
continuance commitment remain because they need to do so. Finally, normative
commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a
high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the
organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p.67).

These three components of OC reflect distinct psychological states. Therefore,

antecedents and outcomes of each component of OC construct might be
different.

Antecedents of OC

Affective commitment (AC) develops on the basis of work experience such as

job challenge, degree of autonomy, and a variety of skills which employees
find rewarding or fulfilling. These jobs characteristics have been found to be
strongly and positively associated to affective commitment but less related to
normative and continuance commitment in a study of Dunham, Grube, and
Castaneda (1994) among employees from a wide variety of organizations.

5
Other factors are communication fairness (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991),
and participation in decision-making (Kim & Mauborgne, 1993), which are both
positively related to affective commitment. Based on the above findings,
favorable team climate and organizational culture can be responsible factors in
development of affective commitment.

Continuance commitment (CC) develops as a result of any action or events

that increase costs of leaving the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Age and
tenure, therefore, can be predictors of continuance commitment (e.g., Ferris &
Aranya, 1983). It means that continuance commitment develops among older
employees who have longer organizational tenure, although the results are
somewhat mixed in this domain and should be interpreted with caution. Based
on Becker'
s (1960) side bet theory, many other factors have been investigated
as antecedents of continuance commitment such as employees'number of
dependent family members.

Normative commitment (NC) develops on the basis of a collection of pressures

that individuals feel during their early socialization from family and society
(Wiener, 1982). Some of the organizational actions can make a person
indebted toward the organization, which can build normative commitment
(Gouldner, 1960).

Consequences of OC

Each component of commitment has its own behavioral consequences to the

individual employee or the organization. Mostly, outcomes for affective
commitment is seen positively for all parties involved, continuance
commitment negatively, and normative commitment in between these two. The
mostly studied consequence of commitment is employee retention. It has been
found that each form of commitment is negatively correlated with employees'
search intention, turnover intention and actual turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1996)
although correlations are strongest in case of affective commitment (cf.
Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

6
Cross Cultural Applicability of Organizational Commitment

Many empirical studies attempted to uncover the construct validity, predictive

validity, and cross-cultural applicability of organizational commitment
construct. Since Meyer and Allen (1991) presented their three-component
model of OC synthesizing diverse approaches into a single multidimensional
concept, few studies have been conducted to highlight its global applicability.
The dearth of empirical evidence has been still experienced (cf. Gautam, et
al. 2001; Lee, Allen, Meyer, & Rhee, 2001; Wasti, 1999)

Most of the commitment studies have been conducted in North-America, few

in developed Asian and European countries, and a negligible number in the
rest of the world. Recently, Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky
(2001) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of the three-component commitment concept. Findings
showed that the three components were related but distinguishable. Affective
and continuance commitment were found related to their antecedent and
outcome factors as theoretically assumed (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Furthermore, comparisons of studies conducted within and outside North-
America revealed considerable similarity. Nevertheless, the available evidence
is too small to state the global validity of the OC scales and more systematic
research concerning cultural differences is warranted.

Many empirical studies attempted to uncover the construct validity, predictive

validity, and cross-cultural applicability of this construct. Since Meyer and Allen
(1991) presented their three-component model of OC synthesizing diverse
approaches into a single multidimensional concept, few studies have been
conducted to highlight its global applicability. The dearth of empirical evidence
has been still experienced (cf. Gautam, van Dick, & Wagner, 2001; Lee, Allen,
Meyer, & Rhee, 2001; Wasti, 1999), thus, the present study has been
designed to minimize the existing gap pursuing a field study in the context of a
south Asian Hindu Kingdom, Nepal.

Primary objective of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties of

the three-component organizational commitment questionnaire (Meyer, Allen,
& Smith, 1993) through cross-validation across two Nepalese samples. It

7
would provide an opportunity to investigate the stability of scale-items and
internal structure of OC in a developing country that has a quite different
culture from the western world (cf. Gautam et al., 2001). The secondary
objective is to investigate the measurement reliability of the translated
Nepalese version compared to the original English version of the OC scales.

Each organizational commitment component ties employees with their

organization but the nature of the "psychological-bonding" is different. Affective
commitment (AC) ties people grounded on attachment, involvement, and
identification; continuance commitment (CC) because of employees'
awareness of the costs of leaving organization; and normative commitment
(NC) because of employees' obligatory feelings towards coworkers or
management (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Each component might have different
antecedent factors and different outcomes for employees' behavior, which
have been reviewed in earlier studies (e.g., Gautam et al., 2001).

Most of the commitment studies have been conducted in North America, few
in developed Asian and European countries, and a negligible number in the
rest of the world. Recently, Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky
(2001) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of the three-component commitment concept. Findings
showed that the three components are related but distinguishable. Affective
and continuance commitment were found related with antecedent and
outcome factors as theoretically assumed (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Furthermore, comparisons of studies conducted within and outside North
America revealed considerable similarity. Nevertheless, the available evidence
is too small to state the global validity of the OC scales and more systematic
research concerning cultural differences is warranted.

Aim of the article is to find the applicability of three-component OC concept in

Nepal. Thus, an attempt is made to cross-validate three-component OC
concept over two similar Nepalese samples (NA=450 & NB=103) generated
from similar organizations in one-year gap. Psychological properties of English
and Nepalese version OC scales have been investigated and multi-sample
model fit has been investigated by comparing two structural equation models
designed in two different samples.

8
Method

Participants

Participants were selected from head office and city branches of five Nepalese
organizations – Standard Chartered Bank, Nepal Bangladesh Bank, Nepal
Arab Bank, Nepal Telecommunication, and Nepal Television – for
questionnaire survey. Out of five organizations, first three are private sector
banking companies and rests two are state owned communication and media
companies. These organizations were selected by convenience to make a
large and heterogeneous sample.

The survey instruments were randomly administered to the participants by

human resources departments of each organization. Out of 500
questionnaires administered, only 450 valid questionnaires were returned to
the researchers. Thus, the overall response rate was 90% in the questionnaire
survey. In total respondents, 79% were male, arithmetic mean age of
participants was 33.6 (SD=6.29), 70% were married, 82.6% had graduate level
education, 38% were at supervisory levels (officers & department heads), 62%
at subordinate level, and their mean professional experience was 9.47 years
(SD=5.97).

Instruments

Questionnaire designed by Meyer, Allen, & Smith (1993) consisting of six

items in each commitment component (affective, continuance, and normative)
was adopted to assess three-component OC. Data were generated in six point
Likert type scale anchored by “Totally Disagree“= ‘1’ to “Totally Agree”= ‘6’.
Translated Nepalese version questionnaire set was administered to the
participants but an original English version questionnaire set was also used in
a small sub-sample (n=78). Supplementary part attached at the end of the
questionnaire was designed to gather demographic information about the
respondents.

9
Results

Comparison of Nepalese Version OC Scales with Original English

Version OC Scales

Exploratory PC Factor analyses were made in two respective sub-samples

that consists of: a) data generated from a joint-venture bank (n1=78) using
English version OC scales and b) data generated from the four other Nepalese
organizations (n2=365) using a Nepalese version. Factor loadings of these two
sub-samples are presented in Table 1.

Insert: table 1

Results showed considerable similarity of factor loadings in both sub-samples.

An exploratory PC factor analysis extracted three substantial factors in both
cases with around 57% of cumulative variance explained by the three factors.
All items loaded substantially on the expected factors. Item one, sixteen and
eighteen have loaded in two factors affective commitment (AC) and normative
commitment (NC) with higher loading in the respective factor and lower in the
alternative one.

Cronbach'
s Alphas of English version were .81, .82, .82, and of the Nepalese
version by .83, .87, and .75 for affective commitment, continuance
commitment (CC), and Normative commitment components of OC scales,
respectively. In general, the homogeneity in psychometric patterns of both
versions revealed that the Nepalese version OC scales are almost free from
translation biases and reliable enough to capture the three-component
commitment concept.

Cross Validation of OC Scales

Confirmatory factor analysis: In the beginning, maximum likelihood

confirmatory factor analyses were conducted assuming three different
models– one-factor (unidimensional), three-factor orthogonal, and three-factor
correlated – in sample A (NA=450). Fit indices were found best in three-factor
correlated model (Chi square=694.85, P=0.00, DF=132; CFI=0.85,
RMSEA=0.10) over other alternative models (see: Table 2). The incremental

10
change in the correlated model over the orthogonal model was found
significant (χ2=271.11, P<0.001, DF=3). Nevertheless, model fit was still poor
because of the relatively high Chi-square/DF ratio (5.26) and lower CFI (0.85)
compared to the normal standard (0.90).

The observed weakness in OC model fit points out some inherent

methodological or theoretical problems in the application of the OC measure in
Nepalese samples. The two most possible reasons might be either the
common error variance in the intra-scale items due to very similar item
formulation or the very high overlap between affective and normative
components. These two issues should be identified to discuss on the
applicability of the OC concept in Nepal.

Lagrange Multiplier Test (LM Test) was conducted in the first sample to find
the possible common error variance in intra-scale items. The LM test detected
some common error overlap among NC items. Besides, such error variance
was also experienced in between Items 4 & 6 of the AC scale and Items 7 & 8
of the CC scale.

The correlation for the detected errors between intra-scale items were
included in the three-factor correlated model to get new fit indices. It
significantly increased (χ2=229.46, P<0.001, DF=7) the overall model fit in
sample A (NA=450). The same model was replicated in another sample B
(NB=103), which also showed significant increment in model fit (χ2=35,
P<0.001, DF=7). Furthermore, a two factor correlated model was designed in
sample-A assuming moderately correlated affective and normative
commitment into a single factor to resolve the issue of distinctiveness of the
AC and NC scales. The poor fit (Chi-square=916.56, P=0.00, CFI=0.79,
RMSEA=0.11) confirmed that the AC and NC components represent different
factors in the present data structure. Fit indices for unidimensional, orthogonal,
correlated, and modified correlated models produced by using EQS version
5.7b in both data sets are presented in table 2.

Insert: Table 2

11
The Chi-square and RMSEA dropped and CFI improved significantly in the
modified three factor correlated model. The fit indices of both samples also
seem very close to each other. The OC scale showed the three-correlated
factor structure in both Nepalese samples. However, some differences
observed in the psychometric patterns of the two models have to be discussed.

Results of confirmatory factor analyses of the modified three factor correlated

model for both samples (NA=450, NB=103,) are reported in Figure 1 to give a
comparative overview. The factor loadings, correlations, and error patterns
present some clues about the item stability of OC scales over the two different
Nepalese samples.

Insert: Figure 1

Most of the parameter values – factor loadings, R2, and standard errors –
show very similar patterns in both samples. Nevertheless, some differences
were also observed in both samples, especially in the correlations between
factors and correlations between standard errors. Sample A is around five
times greater than sample B in terms of valid cases, thus, it is very hard to
compare all the parameters in absolute terms. In general, the CC scale was
found strong, AC satisfactory, and NC relatively weak in stability of
psychometric patterns over the two different Nepalese samples. However,
some issues appeared in the OC models that have to be discussed before
multi-sample analysis.

Item six was found highly loaded in sample-A but weakly loaded in sample-B.
Item 13 and item 17 showed higher factor loadings than the other items in
sample-B but the same items loaded relatively lower than the other items in
sample-A. The correlations among the three factors showed almost similar
patterns in sample-B, which showed moderate correlations between AC and
NC and weak correlations between CC and AC in sample-A. The correlations
of standard errors between Items 4 & 6, and Items 16 & 18 were found
different in the two samples.

Multi Sample Analysis: The modified three component correlated OC model

was tested in a multi-sample analysis using EQS version 5.7b. First, each

12
 parameter – variables, factors and errors – were defined as equal in the model
to explore differences between the two model fits generated from the two
samples. LM test pointed few significant differences between the samples
especially due to correlations between AC and NC, factor loadings of item 13,
and common error variances between Items 4 & 6 and Items 16 & 18.
Thereafter, the aspects of the observed differences in LM test between two
models were defined as constrains in the EQS. Results showed satisfactory
overall model fit in the multiple sample analysis (Chi square=688.53, DF=254,
CFI=0.90) in the two Nepalese samples. The low Chi-square/DF ratio (2.71)
and CFI at the general standard (0.90) seem satisfactory to argue the stability
of OC model across the Nepalese samples.

Discussion

The main purpose of this chapter has been specified as to cross validate the
OC scales across two Nepalese samples. In the beginning, the existence of
translation biases has been investigated. The analysis was based on the sub-
samples (n1=78, data generated by English version OC scales, and n2=372,
data generated by Nepalese version OC scales) of sample A (N=450). Results
revealed similar psychometric properties, thus, the Nepalese versions were
found almost free from translation biases.

In the next step, confirmatory factor analyses were calculated assuming

unidimensional, three-factorial orthogonal, and three-factorial correlated, and
modified three-factor correlated models. Results confirmed the modified three
factor correlated model best over the alternative models in both samples.
Good model fit and consistency in results of both samples proved the three-
component OC structure to be stable in Nepalese context.

Some differences of in the models between the two samples were tested using
multi-sample analysis. The observed differences in some paths and
correlations were defined as constrains. The model fit was satisfactory which
proved that the differences observed in two samples were not determinants in
model fit, i.e., three-component OC was found stable across the Nepalese
samples irrespective to the minor differences observed. Moreover, the CC
scale was found comparatively more stable whereas normative commitment

13
was less stable among three components of Meyer, Allen, and Smiths'(1993)
OC scales. The reason behind some differences observed in model fit in two
samples has to be discussed.

Some overlap between AC and NC has been experienced because of the high
correlation between the factors. Exploratory PC factor analysis showed some
double loadings, albeit relatively lower loadings than in the respective factor,
which indicates that same items have some content ambiguity in the Nepalese
context. Item 1 ("I am happy to spend rest of my career in this organization")
might be close to satisfaction than to commitment in Nepalese context. The
possible reason behind instability of the NC items might be content ambiguity
of the items or a different cognitive meaning of normative commitment in
Nepalese context. For example, item fifteen was found relatively unstable. The
possible reason for this instability could be that the statement e.g., "I would
feel guilty if I left organization now" might led contradictory responses in both
way around: for the subjects who are willingly remaining and for those who are
obligatorily staying in the organization. Some equivocal words (i.e., "loyalty" of
item 16 and "owe" of item 18) used in the normative commitment items are
unclear about the meaning in sense of rational or irrational commitment (cf.
Virtanen, 2000). Thus, it would be better to capture the NC construct by
restructuring items in future research. Nevertheless, some possible reasons
behind the observed differences in the model fits of the two samples might be
just because of the differences in sample size, too.

In general, overall loadings of the NC scale were observed very clear, albeit
some instability observed. Cronbach'
s alpha was found satisfactory (sample A
= .81, sample B = .71), thus, the data generated from the NC scale seems
appropriate enough for the further analysis. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of
some statements should be resolved through item reformulation in future
research to precisely capture the OC concept.

This investigation successfully attempted to prove OC scales almost free from

the translation biases, reliable to assess OC, and satisfactory in item stability
and internal structure. Nevertheless, open-ended measures seem better to
uncover the semantic meaning of commitment to find content validity of OC in
Nepal.

14
References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative

commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3) 252-276.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational
commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27, 1-14.
Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 14, 20-39.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the Concept of Commitment. American Journal
of Sociology, 66, 32-42.
Beyer, J. M, Hannah, D. R., & Milton, L. P. (2000). Ties that bind: Culture and
attachment in organizations. sss: dddd.
Buchanan B. (1974). Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization
of Managers in Work Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
19, 533-546.
Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Organizational
commitment: The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79(3) 370-380.
Etzioni, A. (1961; revised 1975). A Comparative Analysis of Complex
Organizations. New York: Free Press.
Ferris, K. R., & Aranya, N. (1983). A comparison of two organizational
commitment scales. Personnel Psychology, 36(1) 87-98.
Gautam, T., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2001). Organizational commitment in
Nepalese setting. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 239-248.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity. American Sociological
Review, 25, 165-167.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the
development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 17(4) 555-573.
Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of
continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process:
An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of
Management Journal, 36(5) 951-995.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and
subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals'corporate
strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3) 502-526.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee
drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5) 698-707.
Lee, K., Allen, N. J., Meyer, J. P., & Rhee, K. Y. (2001). The three-component
commitment model or organizational commitment: An application to
South Korea. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 596-614.

15
Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover:
A prediction study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1) 57-75.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational
commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2) 171-194.
Meyer J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1,
61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
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(4) 538-551.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2001 in press).
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A
meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational Linkages:
The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteesm, and Turnover. San Diego
CA: Academic Press.
O’Reilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
psychological attachment: The effect of compliance, identification, and
internalization on pro-social behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
492-499.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Boulian, P. V. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476.
Ritztzer G., & Trice, H. M. (1969). An Empirical Study of Howard Becker'
s
Side-bet Theory. Social Forces, 47, 475-479.
Salancik, G. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior
and belief. Chicago: St. Clair.
Virtanen T. (2000). Commitment and the study of organizational climate and
culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Widerom, and M. F. Peterson
(eds), Hand Book of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Pub.
Wasti, S. A. (1999 August). A Cultural analysis of organizational commitment
and turnover intentions in a collectivist society. Chicago, IL:
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View. Academy
of Management Review, 7, 418-428.
Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A. S. (1977). Commitment: A behavioural Apporach
to Job Involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 47-52.

16
 Table 1: Exploratory PC factor loadings of sub-samples followed by English
and Nepalese version three component OC scales

Scales n1= 78 n2=372

Affective Commitment Scale
1. I would be very happy to spend rest of my career in this organization. .36 .62
2. I really feel as if this organization'
s problems are my own. .54 .83
3. I do not feel like "part of my family" at my organization (R). .78 .58
4. I do not feel "emotionally attached to this organization (R). .90 .84
5. This organization has great deal of personal meaning for me. .72 .50
6. I do not feel strong sense of belonging to my organization (R). .76 .82
Continuance Commitment Scale
7. It would be very hard for me to leave...if wanted to leave my organization. .60 .73
8. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I leave my organization. .75 .81
9. Right now, staying in my org. is a matter of necessity as much as desire. .72 .82
10. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization. .73 .72
11. One of the few negative consequences of leaving...scarcity of...alternative. .75 .73
12. One of the major reasons I continue...is that leaving require...sacrifice... .68 .65
Normative Commitment Scale
13. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (R). .79 .65
14. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave... .84 .71
15. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now. .78 .71
16. This organization deserves my loyalty. .38 .40
17. I would not leave my org. right now because...sense of obligation... .74 .46
18. I owe a great deal of my organization. .46 .48

Note: n1 = Data generated by using English version, n2 = Data generated by using Nepalese
version (R)= Reversibly scored

Table 2: Model fit indices of three-component OC scales across two Nepalese samples

Models Sample A (N=450) Sample B (N=103)

Chi-sq. DF CFI RMSEA Chi-sq. DF CFI RMSEA
1. One-factor model 1741.46 135 0.57 0.16 341.76 135 0.62 0.13
2. Three-factor orthogonal 965.96 135 0.77 0.12 257.27 135 0.78 0.10
3. Three-factor correlated 694.85 132 0.85 0.10 222.80 132 0.83 0.10
4. Three-factor correlated, 465.39 125 0.91 0.08 187.80 125 0.89 0.08
modified

17
 Figure 1: Three-component Organizational Commitment Model in Two Nepalese Samples
Sample A (N=450, valid cases 448) Sample B (N=103, valid cases 87)
.73 .95
AC_01 R2 =.47 AC_01 R2 =.11
.68* .68 .32* .90
AC_02 R2 =.54 AC_02 R2 =.20
.73* .44*
AC_03 .76 AC_03 .82
R2 =.42 R2 =.32
Aff. .65* Aff. .57*
Comm. AC_04 .62 Comm. AC_04 .76
.78* R2 =.61 .65* R2 =.43
.65* .68*
AC_05 .76 AC_05 .74
R2 =.42 .33* R2 =.46 -.14
.74* .44*
AC_06 .68 AC_06 .90
R2 =.54 R2 =.19

.23* CC_07 .86 .49* CC_07 .70

R2 =.26 R2 =.51
.46* .57*
.51* CC_08 .76 .71* CC_08 .67
R2 =.42 R2 =.55
.65* .74*
CC_09 .71 CC_09 .66
.78* R2 =.49 .41* R2 =.57
Con. .70* Con. .75*
Comm. .77* CC_10 .64 Comm. .76* CC_10 .65
R2 =.60 R2 =.58
.82* .84*
CC_11 .57 CC_11 .54
R2 =.67 R2 =.71
.74* .72*
CC_12 .67 CC_12 .70
R2 =.55 R2 =.51
.46* .34*
.80 .66
NC_13 R2 =.37 NC_13 R2 =.57
.28* .59*
.61* .77 .75* .92
NC_14 R2 =.41 NC_14 R2 =.15
.64* .33* .38* .19
NC_15 .72 NC_15 .92
R2 =.48 R2 =.15
Nor. .70* -.01 Nor. .39* .12
Comm. NC_16 .85 Comm. NC_16 .81
.53* 2
R =.28 -.13* .59* 2
R =.35 -.21
.62* .71*
NC_17 .78 NC_17 .70
R2 =.39 .26* R2 =.51 -.07
.67* .39*
NC_18 .75 NC_18 .92
R2 =.44 R2 =.15

Chi-square=465.39, P=0.00, DF=125; CFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.08 Chi-square=187.80, P=0.00, DF=125; CFI=0.89, RMSEA=0.01

18