You are on page 1of 17

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

A management
A management development development
model model
Measuring organizational commitment and its
impact on job satisfaction among executives in 353
a learning organization Received February 2006
Revised April 2006
Steven Pool and Brian Pool Accepted May 2006
Richard E. and Sandra J. Dauch College of Business and Economics,
Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio, USA

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of organizational commitment and
the impact on executive’s motivational level in providing job satisfaction within a learning
Design/methodology/approach – A management development model examines the relationship
between the measurable constructs. The model explores the relationship between the executive’s
motivation level and their outcome with job satisfaction and organizational learning.
Findings – The results indicate there is a goodness-of-fit for the research model. The path
coefficients explained a significant amount of variation along with the identification that
organizational commitment is a significant attribute in the management development model.
Research limitations/implications – Limitations include the self-report methodology that
measures perceptual data with a series of questionnaire items.
Originality/value – The study examines executive’s perceptions and the significance of
organizational commitment. Management development specialists will recognize the dynamics of
organizational commitment and its linkage with motivation and job satisfaction in a learning
organization. There are practical applications for management development specialists and the model
supports an environment in which employees are encouraged to use new behaviors and operation
processes within the learning organization.
Keywords Management development, Motivation (psychology), Job satisfaction,
Learning organizations
Paper type Research paper

In the past decade, the impact of organizational commitment has grown significantly in
the field of management development. This concept receives a great deal of empirical
study both as a consequence or antecedent as a work-related variable (Mathieu and
Zajac, 1990). As a consequence, organizational commitment is critical among
executives in creating a business environment that promotes motivation and job
satisfaction at the workplace. It links the individual to the organization. Organizational
commitment reflects the extent an individual identifies with an organization and Journal of Management Development
Vol. 26 No. 4, 2007
committed to its organizational goals. Work attitude is important because committed pp. 353-369
executives are expected to exemplify a willingness to work harder to achieve q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
organizational goals. Executives demonstrating this commitment have a greater desire DOI 10.1108/02621710710740101
JMD to remain employed with that organization. Research indicates organizational
26,4 commitment is a viable predictor of many behaviors, including absenteeism (Gellatly,
1995), turnover (Jaros, 1995), job satisfaction (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), and work
motivation (Meyer et al., 2004). Organizational commitment is attitudinal behavior.
Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of an individual’s
identification and involvement is a particular organization (Mowday et al., 1979).
354 Conceptually, characterized by at least three factors; first, organizational commitment
reflects the strong belief and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values. Second,
commitment impacts the executive’s behavior within an organization. Third,
organizational commitment produces a strong desire to maintain membership in the
organization (Mowday et al., 1982). This study investigates the relationship of
organizational commitment, motivation, and job satisfaction. Therefore, organizational
commitment is measured as an antecedent construct for this study. Also, this study
investigates if the executive’s motivation level has a negative or positive relationship
with the attributes of the learning organization.
A learning organization creates, acquires, and transfers knowledge that changes
its behavior based on new knowledge and insights. Senge (1990) describes a
learning organization as a group of employees working together collectively
enhancing their capacities to create results that are truly meaningful.
Technological advancement, dynamic customer demands, increasing globalization,
the blurring of organizational boundaries, and increasing competition combine to
produce organizational environments’ that are more turbulent than ever before
(Parry and Proctor-Thompson (2003) and Bates and Khasawneh (2005). The
majority of literature defines a learning organization as acquiring, improving, and
transferring knowledge that improves individual learning (Campbell and Cairns,
Work motivation identified by the expectancy theory of motivation, determines how
individuals choose between alternative behaviors in studying motivation. The
executive’s motivation behavior is measured by two major components. They are (E-I)
effort-to-performance and (E-II) performance-to-outcomes. Effort-to-performance
expectancy (E-I) is a person’s perception of the probability that effort will lead to
successful performance. Performance-to-outcome expectancy (E-II) is a person’s
perception that the probability of performance will lead to specific other outcomes
(organizational and individual).
Job satisfaction is one of the most studied variables in the history of industrial and
organizational psychology (Spector et al., 1997). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment receive significant importance in research studies. This establishes these
variables as major determinants of organizational performance (Riketta, 2002) and
effectiveness (Laschinger, 2001). Job satisfaction is an attitude formed by individuals in
reference to their jobs. It results from the perception of their jobs and the degree to
which there is a good fit between the individual and the organization. Further research
involving job satisfaction is advocated. If organizations can successfully measure
which factors influence job satisfaction, they may strengthen employee’s morale and
provide positive outcomes for their organization.
Management development specialists are interested in the synergistic elements
(organizational commitment, work motivation, and job satisfaction) impact on a
learning organization culture. Therefore, further research and investigation is A management
warranted in analyzing this synergistic impact. development
Nature of organization commitment
The most significant developments in commitment theory over the past two decades
recognizes commitment takes different forms (e.g. Becker et al., 1996; Jaros et al., 1993; 355
Meyer and Allen, 1991; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Second, it can be directed toward
various targets, or foci (e.g. Becker et al., 1996; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2003;
Reichers, 1985). Several authors argue commitment evolves into different forms. There
is considerable overlap in the various models to explain these differences. For our
purposes, we focus on the three-component model developed by Meyer and Allen
(1991). This model retains the greatest empirical scrutiny and arguably receives the
greatest support. Meyer and Allen (1990) initially developed a three-component model
that observes similarities and differences in the conceptualizations of organizational
commitment. Distinguishing different levels of commitment characterized by these
different mindsets, Meyer and Allen labeled them “affective commitment”, “normative
commitment”, and “continuance commitment”, respectively. Meyer and Allen (1991)
states one of the most important reasons for distinguishing the different forms of
organizational commitment was the different implications of behavior.

Nature of expectancy motivation

Motivation is a psychological process that causes the arousal, direction, and
persistency of voluntary action in reaching organizational and personal goals. Most
behaviors are considered a cognitive process. In this analysis, executives identify and
measure their motivational aspirations by analyzing three components. They are E-I
(expectancy), E-II (Instrumentality), and valence (the value of the rewards for
E-I is one of the expectancy constructs. It refers to the perceived relationship
between effort-to-performance measurements. Expectancy is the degree to which effort
is perceived to cause performance. Expectancy is the amount of control a person
perceives over their performance. If an individual believes their behavior impacts their
performance, then expectancy is considered high.
Instrumentality is the perceived relationship between performance and rewards, or
how well performance on the job leads to job rewards. This construct is called E-II
(performance-reward expectancy). Instrumentality is the perception by an individual
that first-level outcomes are associated with second-level outcomes (Vroom, 1964). It
refers to the strength of a person’s belief in attaining a particular outcome that is
instrumental in attaining second-level outcomes. Instrumentality is the degree a
successful performance actually results in valued rewards. The outcomes an executive
receives are evaluated in terms of their value or attractiveness. Valence refers to the
executive’s perception of how they value the rewards or outcomes. Valence mirrors our
personal preferences (Feather, 1995). According to expectancy theory propositions, a
person in a work situation perceives two levels of outcomes, first-level and second-level
outcomes. The first-level outcome is the degree the job performance is successful.
First-level outcomes result from behavior associated with the job. The second-level
outcome is the set of valued rewards attainable from successful job performance. The
JMD second-level outcomes are those events (rewards or punishments) associated with the
26,4 first-level outcomes. An individual decides how much effort to exert towards a
successful job performance after assessing expectancy, instrumentality, and valance.
Researchers conducted eight studies exploring the relationship between goal level and
instrumentality (Mento et al., 1992). Although the results so far are encouraging,
researchers suggest further research on employee’s job satisfaction within a learning
356 organization (Egan et al., 2004).
The development of a conceptual framework is based upon organizational
commitment and its relationship with expectancy motivation in providing job
satisfaction within a learning organization. Measuring motivation and its impact on
the organization’s philosophy is essential for management development specialists.
The expectancy theory of motivation explains the subordinate’s motivation levels in
the workplace. The basic concept underlying the expectancy theory is determined by
outcomes, which are result of their actions on the job (Vroom, 1964). Figure 1 illustrates
Victor Vroom’s expectancy motivation model which is a construct considered in this
Vroom (1964), recommends employees consciously choose particular courses of
action. They choose a course of action based upon perception, attitudes, and beliefs.
Porter and Lawler (1968) later developed a theoretical model, stating the expenditure of
individual effort will determine expectations in conjunction with the value placed on an
outcome in the person’s mind (Pinder, 1984). This model is generally known as
expectancy theory, but referred to as VIE theory. The letters represent valence,
instrumentality, and expectancy (Mitchell and Michel, 1999). More than 50 studies
tested the accuracy of Vroom’s expectancy theory in predicting employee motivation
levels (Nadler and Lawler, 1977). A meta-analysis of 77 studies indicated that
expectancy theory significantly predicted performance, effort intentions, preferences,

Figure 1.
Expectancy model of
and choice (Eerde and Thierry, 1996). Another summary of sixteen students revealed A management
that expectancy theory correctly predicted occupational or organizational choice 64. development
percent of the time: this was significantly better than chance predictions (Wanous et al.,
1983). The most recent study investigates the relationship between leadership and model
expectancy theory in motivating employees (Isaac et al., 2001).

Nature of job satisfaction 357

Job satisfaction reflects the extent an individual enjoys their job. Therefore, it is an
emotional response towards various facets. Job satisfaction is not a unitary concept,
rather, a person can be relatively satisfied with one aspect of his or her job and
dissatisfied with other aspects. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire utilized in
this study measures the executive’s satisfaction with recognition, compensation, and
supervision. Job satisfaction is one of the most frequently studied work attitudes.
There are more than 12,000 job satisfaction studies published by the early 1990
(Kinicki et al., 2002).

Nature of learning organization

Numerous studies conducted on the learning organization (Watkins and Marsick, 1993,
1999) focus on the theoretical significance (Power and Waddell, 2004). Empirical
studies assess the learning organization’s relationship to various measure of
performance (Ellinger et al., 2002). These studies confirm positive links between the
learning organization and performance. Both concluded more research is needed
therefore; convincing managers of the practical significance of the learning
organization. Both the learning organization literature (Senge, 1990) and
organizational commitment (Lok and Crawford, 2003) suggest researchers and
practitioners conduct additional empirical research investigating the relationship
between organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and the learning organization.
The foundation of the Watkins and Marsick studies (1993, 1996a,b) are seven
complementary action imperatives that identify the organization’s journey. The seven
are; create continuous learning opportunities, promote inquiry and dialogue, encourage
collaboration and team learning, establish systems to capture and share learning,
empower people toward a collective vision, connect the organization to its
environment, and use leaders who model and support learning at the individual,
team, and organizational levels. Their model emphasizes key components in studying a
learning organization, they are systems level thinking, continuous learning; and
managed knowledge outcomes; these outcomes lead to improvement in the
organization’s performance. Ultimately, its value is measured through both financial
assets and non-financial intellectual capital (Watkins and Marsick, 1999). There is
limited research in measuring the levels of motivation and the relationship with
organizational learning.
Is organizational commitment an antecedent construct in motivating employees?
What is its practical application and process in promoting organizational learning?

Empirical study
Management development model
Figure 2 illustrates the model utilized in this study. The constructs were organizational
commitment, E-I (effort-to-performance motivation), E-II (performance-to-outcomes


Figure 2.
The management
development model

motivation), Job satisfaction, and the learning organization. Structural equation

modeling was applied for a goodness-of-fit. Also, the path coefficients were studied to
identify any significance in this research.

Structural equation modeling

Structural equation modeling presents a statistical methodology utilized by many
researchers and behavioral scientists (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000). Researchers
examine this comprehensive method for the quantification and testing of theories. One
explanation for a precise application for statistical research is a major feature of
structural equation modeling that takes into account the measurement error. SEM
contains latent variables that are hypothetical constructs and accessed for significance
and goodness of fit. Once constructs are assessed, structural equation modeling is
utilized to test the theoretical assertions about potential interrelationships among the
constructs (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000).
The specific type of SEM utilized was Path Analysis. Path analysis models are
usually conceived only in terms of observed variables. Figure 2 illustrates the observed
variables. The observed variables are organizational commitment, E-I expectancy, E-II
expectancy, job satisfaction, and learning organization.
Bentler (2005), EQS software assessed and measured the constructs of this model.
The EQS software developed by P.M. Bentler in Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

This study investigates organizational commitment and its impact on the executive’s
motivation level. Organizational commitment measures the path and the effect on the
executive’s motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational learning.
Organizational commitment researchers seldom incorporate the motivational
processes in which commitment affects behavior (Meyer et al., 2004). Measuring
organizational commitment indicates the more committed the executive, the higher the
motivation level in pursing organizational goals for the business. Therefore:
H1. Executives with high levels of organizational commitment will be associated
with high levels of E-I motivation (effort-to-performance).
Expectancy motivation suggests individuals, acting through self-interest, adopt A management
courses of action perceived as maximizing the probability of desirable outcomes. This development
desire to maximize self-interest provides management development specialists with a
unique opportunity to assess executive’s expectancy and their outcomes. Managerial model
effort-to-performance expectancy (E-I) action will increase executive’s expectations
about outcomes (E-II). Therefore:
H2. Executives with high levels of effort-to-performance (E-I) attributes will be 359
associated with high levels of performance-to-outcomes (E-II).
If executives attain high E-II motivational levels and they value the outcomes
associated with the E-II’s instrumentalities, the question arises what impact will it have
on the executive’s level of job satisfaction? High levels of E-II expectancies will be
associated with high levels of job satisfaction. Therefore:
H3. Executives demonstrating high motivational levels with performance-to-
outcomes expectancies (E-II) at work will be associated with high levels of job
An essential question to be address: What is the relationship between the executive’s
level of E-II expectancies and the organizational learning? If executives are highly
motivated, there should be a high level of organizational learning. Therefore:
H4. The higher levels of motivation (E-II) among executives in performing their
work, the higher levels of organizational learning

The study
The study is a cross sectional and a multi-industry sample. The data is a sample of 208
MBA executives at Ashland University. The participants were employed in
manufacturing, retailing, financials, health organizations, accounting, energy, and
insurance industries. The questionnaire was developed with current literature
available. Procedures for the survey include a review of previous questionnaires. The
psychometric properties for a learning organization, organizational commitment,
motivation levels (E-I and E-II), and job satisfaction were satisfactory and listed in the
next section.

Questionnaire and measures

The DLOQ instrument (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1996a,b) was used for this study in
measuring the constructs of a learning organization. The seven dimensions in the
Watkins and Marsick instrument measured the forty-three items. Previous research
conducted by Watkins and Marsick (1997), and Yang et al. (2004) illustrated
accordingly, several stages of empirical research assess the psychometric properties of
the DLOQ. The analysis suggests the seven dimensions have acceptable reliability
estimates (coefficient Alpha ranges from 0.75 to 0.85). The seven-factor structure also
found the empirical data fit reasonably well (Watkins and Marsick, 1999).
The Mowday et al. (1982) organizational commitment questionnaire is a common
among researchers. The Mowday et al. (1979) lists 15 items. For each item, a statement
is presented and subjects respond using a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from
“strongly disagree”; (1) to “strongly agree” (7). The commitment scales were developed
JMD by Meyer and Allen (1984) and Mowday et al. (1979). Their results of a canonical
26,4 correlation analysis suggest the affective and continuance components of
organizational commitment are empirically distinguishable constructs.
Job satisfaction measured the twenty item short form of Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967). The instrument measured intrinsic and extrinsic job
satisfaction (Gillet and Schwab, 1975; Weiss et al., 1967). Psychometric properties of
360 these scales were found acceptable for the present analyses. The Cronbach alpha level
is 0.90.
The expectancy measurement for motivation is a validated instrument developed
by Vroom (1964). Expectancy theory constructs E-I and E-II will measure the
subordinate’s motivational level and is an integral part in measuring an executive’s
motivation level. The expectancy motivational scale was developed and enhanced by
Schrisesheim (1978). The psychometric properties of E-I and E-II scale reliability with
Kuder-Richardeson formula 20 estimates of internal consistency of 0.89. The intrinsic
rewards are feeling a sense of accomplishment, feeling a sense of responsibility for the
job, and feeling about one’s self. The extrinsic rewards include; positive relations with
coworkers, working relationship with one’s supervisor, increase job security, receiving
praise from the company management team, increase in wages plus a promotion.
Participants indicated how true or how false each E-II item (scale of 1 to 5) in regards to
their current work situation. The work motivation measurement scales have illustrated
high validity and reliability dimensions in other studies (Nadler, 1977).
EQS Structural Equation Software Program (Bentler, 2005) tested the hypotheses in
this management development model. Path analysis applied EQS. EQS is a linear
structural equation technique that specifies, estimates, and tests hypothesized
interrelationship among a set of important variable (Bentler, 2005). The EQS computer
software program provides a diagrammer and the researcher designed a practical
management development model before running the data analysis. The statistical
results measure the specific relationships and their contribution to the overall model. In
this management development model, the linear structural equation design measures
the relationship between organizational commitment, expectancy motivation (E-I and
E-II), job satisfaction, and learning organization.

The exogenous & endogenous factors – goodness-of-fit model

The exogenous variable in this study is organizational commitment. The endogenous
factors are E-I, E-II, job satisfaction, and learning organization. The results will review
the goodness of fit for the overall model as well as explained variance (R 2). The
evaluation for the model fit is calculated on the basis of inferential goodness-of-fit
index as well as a number of other descriptive indices. The inferential index refers to
the chi-square value. It represents a test statistic of goodness of fit regarding the data
for the research model. The goodness-of-fit demonstrates if the null hypothesis does or
does not fit the model in analyzing covariance matrix. The descriptive-fit-indices
provide additional indices to access the goodness-of-fit. They are Bentler-Bonett (NFI),
Bentler-Bonett Non-normed fit index (NNFI), Comparative Fit index (CFI), and Lisrel fit
index (GFI), and Lisrel Adjusted fit index (AGFI). The model will measure the standard
error with test statistics. The explained adjusted R 2 for the relationship between the
variables listed in the model are illustrated in Figure 2. A complete statistical analysis
is included in Table I.
Maximum likelihood solution (normal distribution
theory) Adjusted
Standardized solution: R-squared

JOBSAT ¼ V1 = 0.803 *V4 þ 0.597 E1 0.644

EI ¼ V3 = 0.848 *V2 þ 0.530 E3 0.719
EII ¼ V4 = 0.882 *V3 þ 0.471 E4 0.779
LO ¼ V5 = 0.876 *V4 þ 0.482 E5 0.767
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
Mean 64.8121 71.5738 37.2181 66.9732 151.8960
Standard dev. 17.8553 13.1001 8.9572 18.3915 48.6086
Residual covariance matrix (S-Sigma):
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
JOBSAT V1 0.000
TCOMMIT V2 77.678 0.000
EI V3 18.003 0.000 0.000
EII V4 0.000 24.558 0.000 0.000
V6 V5 7.485 61.275 1.648 0.000 0.000
Standardized residual matrix:
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
JOBSAT V1 0.000
TCOMMIT V2 0.332 0.000
EI V3 0.113 0.000 0.000
EII V4 0.000 0.102 0.000 0.000
V6 V5 0.009 0.096 0.004 0.000 0.000
Fit indices:
Bentler-Bonett Normed fit index ¼ 0.910
Bentler-Bonett Non-normed fit index ¼ 0.773
A management



Table I.


Table I.
Maximum likelihood solution (normal distribution
theory) Adjusted
Standardized solution: R-squared

Comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.910

LISREL GFI fit index ¼ 0.910
LISREL AGFI fit index ¼ 0.600
Reliability coefficients:
Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.834
Coefficient alpha for an optimal short scale ¼ 0.942
Based on the following 2 variables JOBSAT V6:
Greatest lower bound reliability ¼ 0.939
GLB reliability for an optimal short scale ¼ 0.968
Based on 4 variables, all except: EII
Bentler’s dimension-free lower bound reliability ¼ 0.930
Shapiro’s lower bound reliability for a weighted
composite ¼ 0.951
Weights that achieve Shapiro’s lower bound:
0.465 0.378 0.240 0.421 0.638
Measurement equations with standard errors and test statistics
Statistics significant at the 5 percent level are marked with @
JOBSAT ¼ V1 = 0.779 *V4 þ 1.000 E1
EI ¼ V3 = 0.580 *V2 þ 1.000 E3
EII ¼ V4 = 1.812 *V3 þ 1.000 E4
Learn ¼ V5 = 2.315 *V4 þ 1.000 E5
Maximum likelihood solution (normal distribution
theory) Adjusted
Standardized solution: R-squared

Maximum likelihood solution (normal distribution theory)

Variances of independent variables
Statistics significant at the 5 percent level are marked with @
V2 -TCOMMIT 171.612 *I
14.083 I
Maximum likelihood solution (normal distribution theory)
Variances of independent variables
Statistics significant at the 5 percent level are marked with @
E1 -JOBSAT 113.454 *I E3 – EI 22.549 I
9.310 I 1.85 I
12.186@I 12.186@ I
E4 - EII 74.882 *I E5 – Learn 550.064 I 550.064 I
6.145 I 45.139 I
12.186@I 12.186 I
Notes: Goodness-of-fit summary for method ¼ ML; Chi-square =361.039 based on 6 degrees of freedom; Probability value for the chi-square statistic is
A management



Table I.
JMD Results
26,4 Utilizing EQS software, the determinant of input matrix is 0.5363 indicting no
multicolinearity or perfect linear dependency with the data. This indicates the data
analysis is accurate and no redundant data was evident that artificially inflates the
prediction of the model. The amount of adjusted explained R 2 variation is listed in
Table I for each variable. The amount of explained variation between E-I and
364 organizational commitment is 72 percent. The amount of explained variation between
E-I and E-II is 78 percent. The amount of explained variation between job satisfaction
and E-II is 64 percent. The amount of explained variation between E-II and learning
organization is 77 percent.
Table I illustrates the statistical results for the model. Chi-square value is 361.04 and
significant at the P ¼ 0.00. The results indicate a goodness-of-fit for this research
model. The residual covariance matrix contains the computed variable variance and
covariance residuals. No large standardized residuals were observed. Therefore,
indicating no serious deficiencies in the model when reviewing these variances. This
study depicts a good fit of the model to the data; specifically; those variable in the path
analysis model.
The limitations of the Chi-square value indicate the importance that alternative fit
indices aid in the process of model evaluation. The descriptive-fit indices provide an
alternative of indices that assess the goodness-of-fit in the proposed model. These indices
are similar to the R 2 in explaining the amount variation for a goodness-of-fit. The indices
demonstrate as much as 91 percent and as low as 60 percent of the amount of variation
explained for the goodness-to-fit for the model. Models with scores in the mid-1990s or
higher are viewed likely to represent a reasonably good approximation of the data
(Raykov and Marcolulides, 2000). The results are mixed comparing the indices. Figure 2
lists the descriptive-fit-indices. Bentler-Bonett ðNFI ¼ 0:91Þ; Bentler-Bonett Non-normed
fit index ðNNFI ¼ 0:77Þ; Comparative fit index ðCFI ¼ 0:91Þ; and Lisrel fit index
ðGFI ¼ 0:91Þ; and Lisrel adjusted fit index ðAGFI ¼ 0:60Þ and the root mean-square
error of approximation ðRMSEA ¼ 0:15Þ:
All path coefficients are significant at the 0.05 alpha level. The results are listed in
Table I. The overall results with the goodness-of-fit utilizing the chi-square and the fit
indices are encouraging. The model denotes the importance of organizational
commitment and its impact on the motivation level among executives for high job
satisfaction in businesses promoting organizational learning.
H1. Executives with high levels of organizational commitment will be associated
with high levels of E-I motivation (effort-to-performance). Results: There was
a significant and positive relationship between organization commitment and
E-I motivation level ðR 2 ¼ 72 percent).
H2. Executives with high levels of effort-to-performance (E-I) attributes will be
associated with high levels of performance-to-outcomes (E-II). Results: There
was a significant and positive relationship between E-I and E-II motivational
levels ðR 2 ¼ 78 percent) among executives.
H3. Executives demonstrating high motivational levels with performance-to-
outcomes expectancies (E-II) in the workplace relates to high levels of job
satisfaction. Results: There was a significant and positive relationship between
E-II (motivation) and job satisfaction ðR 2 ¼ 64 percent) among executives.
H4. The higher levels of motivation (E-II) among executives in performing their A management
work will result in higher levels of organizational learning (Senge, 1990). development
Results: There was a significant and positive relationship between E-II
(expectancy) and organizational learning (learning organization) among model
executives ðR 2 ¼ 77 percent).

Research limitations 365

This study relied on self-report and survey data. The research examines a
cross-sectional survey, this is difficult in determining a definitive causal claims based
on the findings. The model presumes a specific time ordering among the exogenous
variable (commitment), and the endogenous variables (motivational levels, job
satisfaction, and organizational learning). Consequently, all variables were measured
at a single point in time. This research relies primarily on perceptual data measured
with a series of questionnaire items. Future studies are necessary to validate the model.
Although a large amount of variation is explained among the exogenous and
endogenous variables, other variables introduced in future studies will increase the
amount of explained variation. Future efforts directed at more precise models to clarify
potential errors; specifically, the descriptive-fit-indices. To increase the goodness-of-fit,
the R 2 among the indices should account for mid-1990s or higher to support the
chi-square calculations. The root mean-square error of approximation was calculated
at 0.15 and should be at the 0.05 level or lower to support the model. Although these
areas provided research limitation, future researchers may investigate these
limitations to strengthen the model presented in this paper.

Managerial practical implications and applications

This integrated model consisting of organizational commitment, motivation, job
satisfaction, and a learning organization illustrates important implications for
practitioners. If these constructs were improved from an environmental change rather
than organizational, the imperative question did the development program or
environmental changes have a positive impact upon the subordinate’s behavior? The
implications are a careful analysis in measuring the change in executive’s behavior. Is
the change a continuous state or an intermittent event? Management development
specialist must recognize this dilemma. Executive development programs must
reinforce a continuous process that is practical and meaningful change of behavior in
gaining organizational commitment and its association with job satisfaction in a
learning organization. There are practical applications for management development
specialist to consider when strengthening organizational commitment within a
Organizational commitment defines how strong the individual’s beliefs are towards
the organization and its goals. Improving and enhancing a positive work attitude is
imperative. Managers can increase the components of employee commitment through
the following format. First, a business employs executives whose personal values are
consistent with organization’s values. A positive, satisfying work environment
increases employee’s desire to stay in the company. Second, the organization’s action
enhances the level of trust through the organization. Positive outcomes among
employees rein enforced by their manager gain support for organizational
commitment. Another practical application reflects on a number of antecedents in
JMD supporting organizational commitment; by supporting and improving work experience
26,4 and value congruence or person-culture fit. Once an employee is committed, the
specialists can proceed by strengthening the executive’s motivational levels.
Expectancy theory has managerial implications among employees. Managers
enhance their efforts for performance expectancies by supporting employees in
accomplishing their performance goals. Managers coaching strategies improves
366 employees’ self-efficacy. Manager’s influence employees’ instrumentalities and monitor
valences for various rewards. Money is a positive reward, but there are many issues to
consider when deciding on the relative balance between monetary and non-monetary
rewards. Therefore, managers should focus on linking employee performance to
valued rewards regardless the type of reward. Conceptually, employees who are
motivated reach organizational goals and are satisfied with rewards. These employees
will display job satisfaction, a goal valued universally.
A learning organization infuses a company with new ideas and information. This is
accomplished by constantly scanning their external environments, hiring new talent,
and developing significant resources to train their employees. This new knowledge
transfers through the organization striving for reduced structural, process, and
interpersonal barriers in sharing information, ideas, and knowledge among
organizational members. Finally, behavior must change as a result of new
knowledge. Learning organizations focuses on results that foster an environment in
which employees are encouraged to apply new behaviors to achieve corporate goals.
Job satisfaction is not a unitary or global construct, rather; it is multidimensional.
Top management must identify the key elements among employees, which impact the
employee’s level of job satisfaction within an organizational setting. A recent
meta-analysis of nine studies and 1,739 workers revealed a significant positive
relationship between motivation and job satisfaction (Kinicki et al., 2002). Managers
can potentially enhance employees’ motivation through various attempts to increase
job satisfaction.

The findings in this research paper established strong support for commitment as an
antecedent in motivating employees that directly impacts job satisfaction.
Management specialists must examine the power of commitment when personal and
professional relationships become a priority goal. This generates trust among
employees and empowering subordinates in accomplishing corporate goals. Once the
employees gain trust, and build a culture of commitment, they are motivated to remain
with the organization, because commitment is a strong force in enhancing motivation
and job satisfaction. The management development model in this research paper
indicates a direct relationship between commitment, expectancy motivation, and job
satisfaction.. An organization supporting developmental programs that promotes and
values commitment reaps substantial benefits. Commitment enables employees to
collaborate and solve business problems as successful teams, because they value
commitment. These findings reveal tangible relationships between commitment,
motivation, and job satisfaction that are integral components for success within a
learning organization.
References A management
Bates, R. and Khasawneh, J. (2005), “Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate development
and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations”, International Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 96-109. model
Becker, T., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M. and Gilbert, N.L. (1996), “Foci and bases of employee
commitment: implications for job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 464-73. 367
Bentler, P. (2005), EQS 6 Structural Equation Program Manual, Multivariate Software
Publishing, Encino, CA.
Campbell, T. and Cairns, H. (1994), “Developing and measuring the learning organization:
moving from buzz words to behaviours”, paper presented at the 1994 ECLO conference,
La Hulpek.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2003), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processe, Vol. 86, pp. 278-321.
Eerde, W.V. and Thierry, H. (1996), “Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria:
a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 575-86.
Egan, T., Yang, B. and Barlett, R.K. (2004), “The effects of organizational learning culture and job
satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intentions”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Ellinger, A., Yang, B. and Howton, S. (2002), “The relationship between the learning organization
concept and firms’ financial performance: an empirical assessment”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Feather, N. (1995), “Values, valences, and choice: the influence of values on the perceived
attractiveness and choice of alternatives”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 639-56.
Gellatly, I. (1995), “Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: test of a causal
model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 469-85.
Gillet, B. and Schwab, D.F. (1975), “Convergent and discriminate validites of corresponding job
description index and Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire scales”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 313-7.
Isaa, R., Zerbe, W. and Pitt, D. (2001), “Leadership and motivation: the effective application of
expectancy theory”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 212-27.
Jaros, S. (1995), “An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of
organizational commitment and turnover intentions”, Academy of Management
Proceedings, pp. 317-32.
Jaros, S., Jermier, J., Koehler, J. and Sincich, T. (1993), “Effects of continuance, affective, and moral
commitment on the withdrawal process: an evaluation”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 951-96.
Kinicki, A., McKee-Ryan, F., Schriesheim, C. and Carson, K. (2002), “Assessing the construct
validity of the job descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Laschinger, H. (2001), “The impact of workplace commitment, organizational trust on staff
nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Health Care Management
Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 7-24.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2003), “The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job
satisfaction and organisational commitment: a cross-national comparison”, Journal of
Management Development., Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-38.
JMD Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletins, Vol. 108 No. 7,
26,4 pp. 171-94.
Mento, A., Locke, E. and Klein, H. (1992), “relationship of goal level to valence and
instrumentality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 395-405.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Employee-Organizational Linkages, Academic
368 Press, New York, NY.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 224-47.
Mitchell, T. and Michel, A. (1999), “The meaning of money: an individual difference perspective”,
Academy of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 568-78.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-90.
Meyer, J., Bobocel, D. and Allen, N. (1991), “Development of organizational commitment during
the first year of employment: a longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 716-36.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), “Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 372-8.
Meyer, J., Becker, T. and Vandenberghe, C. (2004), “Employee commitment and motivation: a
conceptual analysis and integrative model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6,
pp. 991-1007.
Nadler, D. and Lawler, E. (1977), Perspective on Behavior in Organizations, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Parry, K. and Proctor-Thompson, S. (2003), “Leadership, culture and performance: the case of the
New Zealand public sector”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 376-99.
Pinder, C. (1984), Work Motivation: Theory, Issues, and Applications, Scott, Foresman and
Company, Glenview, IL.
Porter, L. and Lawler, E. (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Dorsey Press,
Homewood, IL.
Power, J. and Waddell, D. (2004), “The link between self-managed work teams and learning
organizations using performance indicators”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 244-59.
Raykov, T. and Marcolulides, J. (2000), A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Reichers, A. (1985), “A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 465-76.
Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 257-66.
Schriesheim, C. (1978), “Development, validation, and application of new leadership behavior and A management
expectancy research instruments”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 42, p. 251.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY. model
Spector, P., Brannick, P. and Chen, P. (1997), “When two factors don’t reflect two constructs: how
item characteristics can produce artifactual factors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 659-68. 369
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Wanous, J., Keon, V. and Lattack, J.C. (1983), “Expectancy theory and occupational/organizational
choices: a review and test”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 66-86.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G. and Lifquist, L. (1967), Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire – Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XXII, Industrial Relations
Center Work Adjustment Project, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and
Science of Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1996a), “Adult educators and the challenge of the learning
organization”, Adult Learning, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 18-20.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (Eds.) (1996b), In Action: Creating the Learning Organization,
American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1999), Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire,
Partners for the Learning Organization, Warwick, RI.
Watkins, K., Yang, B. and Marsick, V. (1997) in Torraco, R. (Ed.), “Measuring dimensions of the
learning organization”, Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development
Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development, Academy of Human Resource
Development, Atlanta, GA.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (2004), “The construct of learning organization:
dimensions, measurement and validation”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-55.

Further reading
Yang, B., Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1998) in Torraco, R. (Ed.), “Examining construct validity
of the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire”, Proceedings of the Academy
of Human Resource Development Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development,
Oak Brook, IL, pp. 83-90.

Corresponding author
Steve Pool can be contacted at:

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:

Or visit our web site for further details: