A THREE-COMPONENT CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT John P. Meyer Natalie J. Allen The University of Western Ontario Diversity in the conceptualization and measurement of organizational com- mitment has made it difficult to interpret the results of an accumulating body of research. In this article, we go beyond the existing distinction be- tween attitudinal and behavioral commitment and argue that commitment, as a psychological state, has at least three separable components reflecting (a) a desire (affective commitment), (b) a need (continuance commitment), and (c) an obligation (normative commitment) to maintain employment in an organization. Each component is considered to develop as a function of different antecedents and to have different implications for on-the-job be- havior. The aim of this reconceptualization is to aid in the synthesis of existing research and to serve as a framework for future research, Organizational commitment has been the subject of several critical reviews in recent years (Griffin & Bateman 1986; Morrow 1983; Mowday, Porter, & Steers 1982; Reichers 1985; Salancik 1977; Scholl 1981; Staw 1977). Among the issues of major concern in these reviews has been the lack of consensus in construct definition. This problem has been compounded by the use of measures of com- mitment that do not always correspond to the definition being applied (see Morrow 1983; Meyer & Allen 1984; Stebbins 1970), As a consequence, it is difficult to synthesize the results of commitment research. In this article, we review organizational commitment theory and research and propose a model of commitment to (a) aid in the interpretation of existing research and (b) serve as a framework for future research. The review begins with the identification of various approaches taken to the conceptualization and measurement of commitment. We then propose a three-component model of organizational commitment and review previous research concerning the development and consequences of commitment in the context of this model. Finally, we describe the results of studies undertaken to test the model and discuss the implications of the model for future research. Direct all correspondence to: John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 8C2, Canada, ‘Human Resource Management Review, Copyright © 1981 ‘Volume 1, Number 1, 1991, pages 61-89 by JAI Press, Ine. All rights of reproduetion in any form reserved. ISSN: 1053-4822, Copyright @ 2001. All Rights Reserved.62 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1, 1991 THE NATURE OF COMMITMENT The Attitudinal and Behavioral Perspectives ‘The distinction between attitudinal and behavioral commitment is now well established in the organizational commitment literature (cf. Mowday et al. 1982; Reichers 1985; Salancik 1977; Scholl 1981; Staw 1977). Mowday et al. (1982 p. 26) offer the following descriptions of the two approaches. ‘Attitudinal commitment focuses on the process by which people come to think about their relationship with the organization. In many ways it can be thought of as a mind set in which individuals consider the extent to which their own values and goals are congruent with those of the organization. Behavioral commitment, on the other hand, relates to the process by which individuals become locked into a certain organization and how they deal with this problem. ‘The distinction between the attitudinal and behavioral approaches is also clearly reflected in the research traditions that have become associated with each. In the attitudinal approach, research has been directed largely at identi- fication of the antecedent conditions that contribute to the development of commitment and at the behavioral consequences of this commitment (e.g., Buchanan 1974; Steers 1977). In the behavioral approach, research has focused primarily on identifying conditions under which a behavior, once exhibited, tends to be repeated, as well as on the effects of such behavior on attitude change (e.g., O'Reilly & Caldwell 1981; Pfeffer & Lawler 1980). ‘A schematic representation of the basic postulates of the attitudinal and behavioral approaches is presented in Figure 1, Examination of the ordering of variables and the primary causal relations (solid arrows) outlined in this figure reveals the obvious differences in the two approaches. Note, however, that both approaches include secondary relations (broken arrows) which imply that a complementary set of processes may be involved in the commitment-behavior link. In the attitudinal approach, the behavioral consequences of commitment are likely to have an influence on the conditions that contribute to stability or change in commitment. In the behavioral approach, attitudes resulting from behavior can be expected to affect the likelihood of that behavior occurring again in the future. In the model of commitment to be described in this article, we incorporate both the attitudinal and behavioral approaches and their complementary rela- tionship. The primary purpose of this article, however, is to expand upon the concept of organizational commitment as a mind set, or psychological state (ie., feelings and/or beliefs concerning the employee's relationship with an organization). For reasons to be discussed, we will argue that this psychological state need not be restricted to value and goal congruence as described by Mowday et al. Rather, we argue that it can reflect a desire, a need, and/or an obligation to maintain membership in the organization. It is important to note that, as we expand the concept of commitment to Copyright @ 2001. All Rights Reserved.ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 63 ATTITUDINAL PERSPECTIVE Psychological eee Conditions }—_—_»_»_ > }———| Behavior BEHAVIORAL SPECT! VE Conditions (e.g, choice, revocability) 4 Behavior Behavior Psychological 1 State FIGURE 1. The Attitudinal and Behavioral Perspectives on Organizational Commitment. include desire, need, and obligation to remain, it no longer falls within the traditional social psychological definition of an attitude. To avoid confusion, therefore, we will hereafter use the term “commitment” to refer to commit- ment as a psychological state (with an appropriate modifier, where necessary, to identify the nature of the psychological state), and the term “behavioral commitment” to refer to commitment as behavioral persistence. Conceptualization and Measurement of Commitment Although there are many and varied definitions of commitment, they appear to reflect at least three general themes: affective attachment to the organiza- Copyright @ 2001. All Rights Reserved.