603612

research-article2015
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484315603612Human Resource Development ReviewMercurio

Integrative Literature Review

Human Resource Development Review
2015, Vol. 14(4) 389­–414
Affective Commitment © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
as a Core Essence of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484315603612
Organizational Commitment: hrd.sagepub.com

An Integrative Literature
Review

Zachary A. Mercurio1

Abstract
This article responds to the call for the identification of a core essence of organizational
commitment. Since this call 14 years ago, scholars studying organizational commitment
have not come to an agreement as to the nature of organizational commitment, and how
it develops. The research’s fragmentation creates a problem in a time when practitioners
are looking toward organizational commitment interventions to attract, retain, and
develop talent and enhance employee performance. With organizational commitment
research remaining confounding and fragmented, further clarification of what commitment
is and how it develops is warranted and important to guide future research and evidence-
based practice. Through a review of the competing and overlapping organizational
commitment theoretical frameworks and the empirical research on the consequences
of affective organizational commitment, this article proposes a conceptual framework
in which affective commitment, or the emotional attachment to the organization, is an
important core essence of organizational commitment.

Keywords
organizational commitment, affective commitment, employee commitment, employee
emotional commitment

On the topic of human motivation, Abraham Maslow stated, “The fact is that people are
good. Give people affection and security and they will give affection and be secure in
their feelings and their behavior” (Lowry, 1973, p. 18). Securing employees’ affection

1Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

Corresponding Author:
Zachary A. Mercurio, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 8011, Fort Collins, CO 80523-8011, USA.
Email: Zachary.Mercurio@colostate.edu
390 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

and subsequent, demonstrated commitment is a rising concern emerging in organiza-

tion development (OD) and human resource development (HRD) practice. Increasingly,
leaders in modern organizations are tasked with attracting, cultivating, and retaining
talent with the skills and capabilities to maintain a competitive advantage in their indus-
tries (Aguirre, Post, & Hewlett, 2009; Alvino, 2014; Clifton, 2014; Dychtwald,
Erickson, & Morison, 2013; Pangarkar & Kirkwood, 2013). The modern environment
of economic uncertainty, rapid change, continued globalization, increasing competi-
tion, and the rise of the mobile millennial generation serves as the backdrop and poten-
tial driver of this increased attention and focus on employee commitment from both
practitioners and scholars (Cohen, 2007; Gibb, 2011; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &
Topolnytsky, 2002; Morrow, 2011; Fornes, Rocco & Wollard, 2008).
A poignant example of the practical call to reengage scholarly inquiry into organi-
zational commitment can be observed in one of the most prestigious U.S. government
agencies. In the 2014 Government Executive article, “The High Cost of Federal
Workforce Depression,” author Howard Risher commented on the current U.S. Secret
Service systemic failures by focusing on an endemic lack of morale and emotional
commitment to the agency over the past 7 years. Risher (2014) stated,

. . . poor morale can be a cancer that slowly spreads and vitiates the commitment of even
those who are seen as role models. The agency fell from 66th on the 2007 list of the “Best
Places to Work” to 226 out of 300 in 2013. (para. 5)

Risher observed that poor morale, an attitude or feeling, can consequently impair
employee commitment.
Other modern practitioners seem to agree. In 2014, Forbes Magazine published an
article titled “Engage Your Employees or Lose Billions.” Alvino (2014) observed that
behaviors such as working long hours and productivity are enacted first by an emo-
tional attachment, or commitment, to an organization’s mission or story. In addition,
the Association for Talent Development (ATD) released a bulletin titled “Four Ways to
Gain Employees Commitment.” Pangarkar and Kirkwood (2013) stated, “Employee
engagement is the holy grail for every business leader. It’s described in a variety of
ways but generally defined as when employees fully invest emotionally, mentally, and
physically so they focus on achieving the organization’s objectives” (para. 1). To fur-
ther underscore the need for an exploration into what commitment is and how it devel-
ops, in 2014, Gallup released a poll that found just three out of every 10 employees felt
engaged in their jobs and committed to their organizations (Clifton, 2014).
The recent attention given to engagement and commitment in the popular manage-
ment press has centered heavily on emotional well-being when describing employee
commitment to organizations. William Davies (2015), in The Atlantic article “All the
Happy Workers” further examined the modern organizational and societal need for
happy and emotionally committed employees. Davies (2015), while highlighting the
refocus of corporations on emotional commitment and well-being, stated, “ . . . this is
the monistic philosophy of the 21st-century manager: Each worker can become better,
in body, mind, and output” (para. 45).
Mercurio 391

Purpose
At the same time 21st-century managers renew a focus on and investment in employee
attitudes and organizational commitment, HRD and OD scholars have lamented that
the stream of organizational commitment literature remains confounding, fragmented,
and difficult to access (Cohen, 2007; Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002;
Morrow, 2011; Mowday, 1999; Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe, 2008; Stazyk, Pandey,
& Wright, 2011). The fragmented state of the organizational commitment research, a
renewed practitioner focus on commitment as an HRD strategy, and the increased
popular attention given to the role of emotional attachment to organizations warrants
a modern review of the organizational commitment literature with a focus on affec-
tive (or emotional and attitudinal) organizational commitment as termed by Meyer &
Allen (1984).
Thus, this article intends to serve as a modern review, analysis, and synthesis of the
affective organizational commitment scholarly literature within the broader context of
organizational commitment. The ultimate goal of this review is to provide direction for
future researchers and practitioners studying organizational commitment, and more
specifically, how affective organizational commitment is developed and managed.
Furthermore, this review responds to Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) call for the defi-
nition of a core essence of organizational commitment by arguing that affective com-
mitment is an important core essence of the organizational commitment construct.
This article is organized into the following sections: (a) method, (b) statement of
the problem, (c) an integrative literature review of the construct of affective commit-
ment within the context of the broader organizational commitment literature, (d) find-
ings and conceptual model of affective commitment as a core essence of organizational
commitment, and (e) implications for researchers and practitioners.

Method
Based on recommendations by Torraco (2005), the following outlines the strategy of
selecting and analyzing the articles and texts used in this review. The method of con-
ducting this integrative literature review is in alignment with the article’s stated pur-
pose to synthesize a very complex and confounding stream of organizational
commitment research to situate affective commitment as an important core essence of
organizational commitment. First, the seminal and high-impact articles and texts on
organizational commitment as a general construct were selected and reviewed to cap-
ture the evolution of the construct and to review the various competing and overlap-
ping theoretical frameworks. Articles and texts published from 1960 to present were
reviewed to scaffold the construct of organizational commitment’s development from
its initial appearance in scholarly journals. The time range of selected articles was
determined by selecting the first articles specifically naming employee and/or organi-
zational commitment as a distinguished construct (e.g., Becker, 1960; Buchanan,
1974; Gouldner, 1960; Kanter, 1968; Steers, 1977). The high-impact, seminal articles
that serve as the scaffolding for this review were initially identified by examining the
392 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

reference lists of the most often cited (as statistically reported by Google Scholar)
meta-analyses and existing literature reviews on organizational commitment pub-
lished within the past 15 years. The articles on organizational commitment as a general
construct were selected to serve as the context and backdrop from which to distinguish
the construct of affective commitment and describe its evolution.
Next, articles that presented both one dimensional and multidimensional concep-
tual models that included definitions of affective organizational commitment as a dis-
tinguished construct were selected and reviewed. These articles were selected to
compare and contrast the definitions of affective commitment with the early defini-
tions of the general construct of organizational commitment to determine if affective
commitment and the original, defined construct of organizational commitment dis-
played commonalities and therefore may be a theoretical core of organizational com-
mitment. Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational
commitment was selected to serve as the base from which to select and analyze articles
that investigated and theorized on the three most widely recognized and studied forms
of commitment: affective, normative, and continuance commitment.
Then, articles that focused on both the theoretical frameworks and empirical
research of the antecedents and consequences of affective commitment, specifically,
were selected and analyzed. In addition, meta-analyses that combined the study of the
antecedents and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment
were selected and reviewed to determine commonalities and incongruences among the
findings. Finally, research articles in the past 15 years that studied and linked HRD
practices as antecedents to affective commitment were selected to inform the discus-
sion of implications to practitioners and researchers.
Research databases and portals such as Google Scholar, EBSCO Academic Search
Premier, JSTOR, and ERIC served as the portals for accessing the literature. The data-
bases were queried using the keywords: affective commitment, organizational com-
mitment, employee commitment, and employee emotional commitment. A total of 75
texts and peer-reviewed articles were selected for review based on the above criteria.

The Problem: Defining a Core Essence of Organizational

Commitment
The problem is that when faced with the task of improving employees’ emotional com-
mitment to organizations, practitioners and scholars are faced with confounding and
contradictory scholarly research from which to base planned interventions and empiri-
cal studies. The popular commentary by practitioners urging a focus on organizational
commitment as a means of sustaining a high-functioning workforce incites a simulta-
neous need for scholars in HRD and OD to examine and clarify the state of organiza-
tional commitment research for future empirical investigations and practitioner use.
Practitioners and new scholars exploring organizational commitment literature will
find a stream of research that is fragmented, confounding, and contradictory. This
problem was raised by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) when they stated, “Despite the
increase in attention given to the study of workplace commitment, there still appears
Mercurio 393

to be considerable confusion and disagreement about what commitment is, where it is

directed, how it develops, and how it affects behavior” (p. 299).

Defining a “Core Essence”

In addition, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) urged the definition and conceptualization
of a core essence of organizational commitment to guide future research. A core
essence, as described by Meyer and Herscovitch, is a binding force that should drive
future theory-building and modeling of the construct of organizational commitment.
Core, as defined in the Oxford Dictionary (2015), means the most central and impor-
tant part of something. Essence is defined as the intrinsic nature or indispensable qual-
ity of something.
Therefore, for the purpose of this review, a core essence can be defined as an endur-
ing, indispensable, and central characteristic of the organizational commitment con-
struct that distinguishes it from other constructs. Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001)
attempt at defining a core essence, however, resulted in a proposed multidimensional
core, therefore not meeting the definition of a core essence and perhaps adding to the
confusion of the complex stream of research and definitions of organizational
commitment.

The State of the Literature: 2001-Present

Since Meyer and Herscovitch’s call for the definition of a core essence of organiza-
tional commitment in 2001, there remains significant fragmentation and debate as to
what the core essence of organizational commitment is and should be (Cohen, 2007;
Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002; Morrow, 2011; Solinger et al., 2008;
Stazyk et al., 2011). It is important to acknowledge that the fragmented evolution of
the scholarship on organizational commitment can be attributed to the diverse disci-
plines (e.g., psychology, management, sociology) that have undertaken the study of
commitment. However, the combination of a renewed practical focus on organiza-
tional commitment and a confounding body of research represents a problem for both
scholars studying organizational commitment and practitioners developing and imple-
menting interventions focused on organizational commitment. By proposing a core
essence of organizational commitment through an updated review of the literature, a
narrower and more accessible definition of organizational commitment may assist
researchers and practitioners in continuing important empirical research to design
effective interventions to develop and manage commitment.
The current dilemma in the organizational commitment literature has risen out of
the abundance of healthy scholarly debate that has endured regarding the meanings,
definitions, and dimensions of organizational commitment since the early 1960s.
Much of the scholarly literature examining organizational commitment sought to clar-
ify and define the construct more narrowly and accurately to provide researchers with
a sound framework to base inquiries. However, after more than 50 years of scholarly
work on the topic, there remains rigorous debate as to the nature, types, and bases of
394 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

commitment, and whether dominant frameworks such as Meyer and Allen’s (1991)
three-component framework are valid across multiple contexts and accurately describe
the phenomenon of commitment. This debate is evidenced by the recent research ques-
tioning the efficacy of the theorizing around organizational commitment and its poten-
tial role in fragmenting future empirical research (Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Fornes,
Rocco & Wollard, 2008; Solinger et al., 2008; Stazyk et al., 2011).
Furthermore, with the significant meta-analyses of organizational commitment
research now nearing a decade old and practitioner publications citing commitment as
a key variable in workforce development, it is important and useful to conduct a review
of the literature that may clarify and focus an area of future organizational commit-
ment research and add to the modern organizational commitment literature.

Organizational Commitment Theories

To further define and distinguish affective commitment as a core essence of organiza-
tional commitment, the following will review the existing theoretical frameworks and
conceptualizations of organizational commitment and discern how affective commit-
ment remains at the core of these diverting and overlapping theories.

Behavioral Commitment Theory

The definition of the behavioral conceptualization and theory of organizational com-
mitment is perhaps best stated by Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982), when they wrote
that behavioral commitment “ . . . relates to the process by which individuals become
locked into certain organizations” (p. 26). The primary assertion of the theories of
behavioral commitment posits that an individual’s psychological state of commitment
to an organization is a consequence of the actions of the individual. Under this theo-
retical lens, an individual’s behavior also creates the conditions through which a psy-
chological state of commitment is reached. Meyer and Allen (1991), when contrasting
the behavioral perspective and the attitudinal perspective of commitment, describe the
behavioral perspective as a cycle that starts and ends with the individual’s behavior.
Salancik (1977), in the primary work on behavioral commitment, argued that orga-
nizational commitment arises out of (a) an attachment to the individual’s own freely
chosen actions, (b) a perceived obligation to follow through with these actions, and (c)
the perceived costs of continuing or not continuing the actions. Salancik used the term
“volition” to describe the individual’s perception that an action was made out of a free
choice. Salancik posited that when volition is high, an individual might feel more
personally responsible for that action. In addition, Salancik theorized that perceived
costs of continuing the action result in the repetition of past actions in the future.
For example, under the behavioral lens of commitment, if an employee freely
chooses to act loyally to a supervisor, then that individual will feel a heightened obli-
gation to continue to act loyally. Moreover, if the costs of not continuing to act loyally
are high, the obligation to continue acting loyally will be further heightened; thus
producing a psychological state of commitment to the supervisor.
Mercurio 395

Transactional Commitment Theory

Scholars have also theorized that commitment arises out of an individual’s investment
of resources and subsequent rewards (Becker, 1960; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). The
transactional perspective is based on the idea that commitment is the result of eco-
nomic decisions and rationale. Becker’s (1960) “side bet” theory brought this concep-
tualization of commitment into focus.
Becker (1960) argued that commitment was a result of the perceived loss of an
accumulation of specific investments if the individual did not maintain membership in
that organization. Examples of these investments could include time, effort, and
money (Meyer & Allen, 1984). In the transactional view, the potential risk of losing
these investments coupled with the lack of other employment alternatives for the indi-
vidual may result in commitment to the organization as manifested by longevity.
Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991) labeled this type of commitment as “continuance”
commitment.
Other scholars have used terms such as instrumental, compliance, or calculative
commitment, but rely on Becker’s (1960) side bet theory as their general base (Mathieu
& Zajac, 1990; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Balfour and Wechsler (1996) took a dif-
ferent approach to theorizing about transactional commitment and used the term
“exchange” commitment and theorized that commitment may be formed directly due
to rewards received from the organization.

Obligatory Commitment Theory

Other researchers (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Wiener, 1982) theorized that commitment is
partly developed by an individual’s predisposition or mind-set of obligation to an
organization. This psychological state of obligation may arise out of specific norms
that are internalized by the individual. Scholars adopting what Meyer and Allen (1984)
termed “normative” commitment argue that internalized norms of obligation can be
developed by a need or perceived expectation to reciprocate specific benefits to an
organization. Normative commitment can be seen as having significant, overlapping
principles with the ideas of continuance or behavioral-transactional theories of
commitment.

Attitudinal Commitment Theory

Theories that are based on an attitudinal definition of commitment focus on the
desire of the individual to remain in an organization (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
Kanter (1968) pioneered the theory of attitudinal commitment by hypothesizing that
feelings of cohesion or involvement with an organization likely contributed to an
individual’s commitment to that organization. Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991) termed
this attitudinal type of commitment as “affective” commitment and base their term
on Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s (1979) work in developing the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire (OQM), which measures affective commitment to
396 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

organizations by measuring values congruence with the organization, feelings of

care for the organization, pride in the organization, and willingness to put forth extra
effort into the organization.
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), based on an extensive review of the literature, theo-
rized that affective commitment is developed primarily by an individual’s involve-
ment and identification with the organization. More specifically, they asserted that
individuals become intrinsically motivated or involved in a course of action that devel-
ops from an identification, association, and attachment with the larger organization’s
values and objectives.

Commitment as Multidimensional
Out of the previously reviewed theoretical bases, researchers have developed impor-
tant multidimensional models that conceptualize organizational commitment as
nuanced, with overlapping and multiple meanings and bases that include all of the
above definitions and theories (Angle & Perry, 1981; Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, &
Sincich, 1993; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Perhaps the
most well-known and enduring multidimensional conceptualization is Meyer and
Allen’s (1991) three-component framework. This framework presents organizational
commitment as a complementary relationship between attitudinal and behavioral defi-
nitions of commitment. They proposed that affective commitment (the desire to remain
in the organization), continuance commitment (the need to remain in the organiza-
tion), and normative commitment (the mind-set of an obligation to remain in the orga-
nization) are interrelated and may be experienced and demonstrated by individuals
simultaneously. In fact, Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed that these varying theories
of commitment should not be defined as types of commitment, but rather as compo-
nents of commitment.
Meyer and Allen (1991) also theorized that attitudinal commitment and behavioral
commitment are not mutually exclusive theories. For example, they state that affective
commitment may result from specific, freely chosen behaviors that, over time, may
lead individuals to then feel affectively attached to the organization.

Toward Affective Commitment as the Core of Organizational

Commitment
Over the past 10 years, however, authors have challenged the three-component model
and similar models that attempt to combine the previous streams of continuance, nor-
mative, and affective commitment research (Bergman, 2006; Solinger et al., 2008;
Stazyk et al., 2011). These authors argue that the three components are “qualitatively
different concepts” (Solinger et al., 2008, p. 73). They argued that the results of empir-
ical studies measuring commitment indicate that affective, or attitudinal, commitment
repeatedly correlated more strongly with consequences such as turnover and perfor-
mance as summarized by important meta-analyses of the research (Cooper-Hakim &
Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005).
Mercurio 397

For example, Solinger et al. (2008) confirmed previous meta-analyses’ findings

(Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer et al., 2002) that found affective com-
mitment correlated more strongly with absence (affective = −.15, normative = .05,
continuance = .06), performance (affective = .16, normative = .06, continuance =
−.07), and organizational citizenship behaviors (affective = .32, normative = .24, con-
tinuance = −.01) than continuance commitment and normative commitment. In addi-
tion, affective commitment correlated with the widest range of behavioral variables
such as helping others, working extra hours, information sharing, and supervisor’s
evaluation of performance (Solinger et al., 2008).
Solinger et al. (2008), therefore, argued that, in light of the empirical research, a
singular approach to understanding commitment should be the base of future research.
More specifically, they posited that a possible return to a solely attitudinal, affective
approach is necessary due to the construct’s more conclusive empirical evidence.
In review of the theoretical frameworks that underpin the study of organizational com-
mitment, it is clear that there exists significant debate and confusion around what organiza-
tional commitment is, and how it should be conceptualized. Most of the disagreement about
the nature of commitment seems to focus on the behavioral and transactional conceptualiza-
tions of commitment in light of empirical research findings that indicate a considerably
weaker predictive relationship with behavioral and transactional conceptualizations of com-
mitment and consequences of commitment such as employee turnover and absenteeism
(Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002).
Therefore, there does seem to be a relative constant in the research: attitudinal,
affective commitment as a construct is a possible core of organizational commitment
and could prove to be an important area of focus for future research and practical
application. A review of the research of the evolution of the construct of affective com-
mitment, therefore, helps to position it further as an important core essence of organi-
zational commitment.

Research on Affective Commitment

Foundational Research
Researchers over the past 20 years have generally agreed that the construct of affective
commitment can be described as the emotional attachment to an organization as mani-
fested by an individual’s identification with, and involvement in, that organization
(Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002). The early research
that underpins the current study of affective commitment seems to have studied the mod-
ern construct of affective commitment without operationally naming it as such. When
reviewing and analyzing the modern study of affective commitment, and the practices of
managing and developing the construct, it is important to understand its origins.

Cohesion Commitment
One of the first inquiries into affective commitment as a distinct construct was Kanter’s
(1968) non-experimental, comparative study of utopian communities. Kanter first
398 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

proposed and hypothesized three major constructs that facilitate commitment to social
communities and organizations: continuance, cohesion, and control. Furthermore,
Kanter posited that these three constructs of commitment are manifested in a person
by cognition (continuance), cathexis (cohesion), and evaluative (control) mechanisms.
It is the second variable, cohesion by cathexis, that formed the notion of cohesion
commitment that serves as the basis of the modern research of affective commitment.
Kanter (1968) defined cohesion commitment as “ . . . attachment to social relation-
ships which absorb the individual’s fund of affectivity” (p. 501).
Kanter (1968) chose 91 utopian communities and used longevity as an indicator of
success. A system that existed for more than 25 years was determined successful and
one that existed for fewer than 25 years was deemed unsuccessful. Kanter found,
through a 260-question survey designed with hypothesized commitment variables,
that successful utopian communities employed strategies to intentionally design cohe-
sion commitment, whereas unsuccessful communities did not structure practices to
this effect (Kanter, 1968). Kanter found that one of the key variables of a successful
utopian community was “communion” and defined this variable as “becoming part of
a whole, the mingling of self with group” (p. 509). This definition still resonates in the
affective commitment research today.
Building upon Kanter (1968) and earlier research on profession identification,
Sheldon (1971) made an important distinction of affective commitment as a construct
by defining commitment as an “attitude or orientation toward an organization which
links or attaches the identity of the person to the organization” (p. 143). This distinc-
tion of commitment as attitudinal and not solely behavioral helped create the path of
the development and distinguishability of affective commitment as a discriminate con-
struct. Sheldon studied scientists and engineers in research laboratories to determine if
social involvement and investments impacted the participants’ commitment to their
organizations. Sheldon (1971) found that when participants did not involve themselves
in the organization through social relationships, in spite of investments (i.e., time
spent), they tended to withdraw from the organization.
Buchanan (1974) corroborated Sheldon’s (1971) research and also defined commit-
ment as a psychological bond to an organization. More specifically, Buchanan sur-
veyed 279 business and government managers and found that there are activities that
organizations can structure that lead to the development of higher levels of commit-
ment. Specifically, Buchanan found that peer group cohesion and attitudes toward the
organization related significantly to commitment, and that tactics focused on early
socialization into the organization correlated positively with attitudes of commitment.
The early research that defined affective commitment as a construct led to important
inquiries into the consequences of low and high levels of affective commitment.

Consequences of Affective Commitment

More analysis will be provided later on specific, researched consequences of low and
high levels of affective commitment, but it is important to note the evolution of com-
mitment as a strategic element in organizations. Arguably, the most notable and
Mercurio 399

relevant problem in organizations related to commitment is employee turnover due to

its financial implications. In an initial investigation of how commitment affects turn-
over, Porter, Crampon, and Smith (1976) studied 212 management trainees in a longi-
tudinal study that measured attitudes over a 15-month period. Attitudes were measured
in relation to defined variables of affective commitment including the desire to remain
at the organization, willingness to input high effort, and a belief in the values of the
organization. Porter et al. (1976) found that employees who exhibited a lack of a posi-
tive attitude toward the organization in the first week of employment were more likely
to leave the organization. In addition, they found that feelings of “disaffection” (p. 96)
were a precursor to eventual turnover. This research would pave the way for future
studies that have defined turnover and withdrawal as a consequence of low affective
commitment levels and buttress future studies on absenteeism and job performance as
potential consequences of low affective commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer
et al., 2002; Mowday et al., 1982; Mowday et al., 1979).
As reviewed above, the relatively quick evolution of the scholarly research in the
1970s on affective commitment represents the importance of understanding how indi-
viduals’ attitudes toward an organization affect their contributions and investment in
that organization. Early social scientists played a key role in legitimizing commitment
as an important sociological and psychological variable in social organizations. This
early research also constructed the foundation upon which researchers began studying
how to define and measure affective commitment.

Distinguishing Affective Commitment

In addition to defining the construct of affective commitment, a significant amount of
research and discussion has prevailed in distinguishing affective commitment from other
forms of commitment. In particular, Becker’s (1960) research described and defined
commitment as a result of a series of activities, such as time spent and money invested,
termed “side bets,” that motivate an employee to stay in an organization. This view of
commitment, termed by Meyer and Allen (1984) as continuance commitment, was
widely held and researched (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Ritzer & Trice, 1969). In addi-
tion, Wiener’s (1982) research provided a normative view of commitment that held that
an individual’s predisposition of certain values such as loyalty lead to commitment.
Mowday et al. (1979), in developing the predominate measurement instrument of
attitudinal organizational commitment, the OQM, found indications of discriminate
validity of commitment as a variable distinct from concepts such as job satisfaction,
pay, or promotions. The definition of commitment used by Mowday et al. (1979) as “a
construct that is global, reflecting a general affective response to the organization as a
whole” (p. 226) is significant when distinguishing affective commitment from other
conceptualizations. In research testing Becker’s side bet, behavioral-based theory,
Meyer and Allen (1984) found that studies testing the theory, such as Hrebiniak and
Alutto’s (1972) work, had validity issues in that they were measuring affective com-
mitment variables through a scale developed to measure Becker’s (1960) side bet
theory of commitment.
400 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

Meyer and Allen’s (1984) study of full-time university employees at various job
levels found that tenure (time invested) in an organization was not a specific variable
that directly produced commitment. Conversely, they found that time spent in an orga-
nization correlated to higher affective commitment measures, which may have led to
longer tenures. Meyer and Allen (1984), therefore, found that the nature of commit-
ment was significant in predicting tenure versus tenure predicting commitment. This
research further distinguished and solidified that affective commitment as a construct
seemed to be a distinct, discriminate, and influential construct, much as Mowday et al.
(1979) previously theorized (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Meyer and Allen (1991) went further in categorizing and deconstructing prevailing
debates about the definition and distinction of types of commitment and created a
three-component conceptualization of commitment that has been utilized in numerous
subsequent research studies. As noted previously, this model describes commitment as
a desire (affective), a need (continuance), and an obligation (normative) (Meyer &
Allen, 1991; Somers, 1995). Much of the research, however, has found that affective
commitment has the strongest predictive relationship with outcomes such as turnover
and absenteeism (Meyer et al., 2002).

Measuring Affective Commitment

The seminal work in measuring what Meyer and Allen (1984) termed “affective commit-
ment” is Mowday et al.’s (1979) OQM. This research defined the variables and measures
of affective commitment that have been utilized in research on affective commitment over
the past 50 years. Moreover, the measurement has been found to be psychometrically
sound and valid through rigorous testing in various contexts (Cook & Wall, 1980).

OQM. The OQM consisted of 15 items designed to measure the feelings that individu-
als have about their organization. The questions on the instrument are phrased both
positively and negatively to control for response bias and measure variables of com-
mitment such as values congruence with the organization, feelings of care for the
organization, pride in the organization, and willingness to put forth extra effort into the
organization (Mowday et al., 1979).
Mowday et al. (1979) administered the OQM to 2,563 employees in various con-
texts including the public sector, university settings, hospital settings, banks, telephone
companies, scientists, engineers, automobile companies, psychiatric technicians, and
with retail management trainees. Measures selected for correlational and predictive
purposes included job involvement, job satisfaction, career satisfaction, turnover,
absenteeism, intent to leave, and performance. Through laborious analysis and testing,
they found acceptable evidence of convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.
Arguably, one of the most significant findings relates to the predictive validity of the
OQM. Mowday et al. (1979) found that high levels of affective commitment to an
organization, among other possible causes, might predict employee turnover, absen-
teeism, and tenure. The relationship between affective commitment and performance,
however, was not as strong (Mowday et al., 1982; Mowday et al., 1979).
Mercurio 401

The OQM, and its possible predictive nature as a psychometrically sound

instrument, has underpinned much of the research on affective commitment, espe-
cially when related to measuring the antecedents and consequences of affective
commitment.

Meta-Analyses
Several researchers have performed important meta-analyses of the literature on affec-
tive commitment that have categorized research of the construct by organizing ante-
cedents, correlates, and consequences of affective commitment (Cooper-Hakim &
Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005). As
mentioned in this article’s problem statement, since the topic’s emergence in the 1960s
and 1970s, the abounding, fragmented, and sometimes conflicting theories and
research on affective commitment seem to have proved difficult for researchers to
accurately design research projects to measure and investigate the construct. By creat-
ing categories for research, meta-analyses have been an important research method in
advancing the knowledge of how affective commitment is developed and managed,
and how it affects individuals in organizations.

Primary Consequences of Affective Commitment

A majority of the research conducted on affective commitment since Mowday et al.’s
(1979) development of the OQM has focused on the consequences of both high and
low levels of affective commitment. Mowday et al. (1982) focused the analysis on
“linkages” between the employee and the organization and focused on the nature of
those linkages, specifically in relation to turnover and absenteeism as primary conse-
quences. Research has continued to focus on employee retention as a major conse-
quence of affective commitment. However, the study of positive consequences of
affective commitment has emerged in the research such as the investigation of the
effects of affective commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors and affective
commitment as a moderator of stress in the workplace. This research is helping to
broaden the scope of modern affective commitment research.

Turnover. Employee retention continues to be a major concern in the research on affec-

tive commitment. Mowday et al. (1982) stated that “highly committed employees are
by definition desirous of remaining with the organization and working toward organi-
zational goals and should hence be less likely to leave” (p. 38). Many longitudinal
studies have found significantly high, negative correlations between affective commit-
ment and turnover (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Angle & Perry, 1981; Cooper-Hakim
& Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer et al., 2002; Morrow, 2011; Mowday et al., 1979; Payne
& Huffman, 2005; Randall, 1990; Riketta, 2005; Somers, 1995). Moreover, research
has indicated that turnover is most correlative to levels of affective commitment as a
distinguished construct than that of the other behavioral and transactional commitment
constructs (Solinger et al., 2008; Somers, 1995).
402 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

Absenteeism. In addition, affective commitment has been found to be one of the pri-
mary predictors of absenteeism of employees, although correlations have been weaker
than those of employee turnover. Higher levels of affective commitment have been
shown in studies to lower absenteeism rates (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter,
& Steers, 2013; Mowday et al., 1982; Randall, 1990; Solinger et al., 2008; Somers,
1995, 2009).

Organizational citizenship behaviors. Studies have also shown that affective commit-
ment is positively correlated and predictive with exhibited organizational citizen-
ship behaviors (Liu, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002; Shore & Wayne, 1993; Williams &
Anderson, 1991). Organizational citizenship has been generally defined as the dis-
cretionary behavior of the individual to exhibit extra effort that is not recognized by
a formal rewards or evaluative system (Katz, 1964; Organ, 1988, 1997). The impli-
cations of these findings in organizations are especially important in the modern
context. In the continued age of globalization and innovation, where organizations
are attempting to maximize employee output, further investigation on the impact of
creating an emotional bond between the individual and the organization and behav-
iors is warranted.

Stress. A growing area of research into the consequences of affective commitment has
centered on the moderating effects of affective commitment on stress in the workplace
(Meyer et al., 2002; Schmidt, 2007). Schmidt (2007) found that affective commitment
may mediate stress levels in the workplace by diminishing feelings of burnout and
emotional exhaustion. The research into this consequence remains limited, yet promis-
ing, in terms of potential contributions to the management of employee well-being.

Primary Antecedents of Affective Commitment

Due to the empirical links made between affective commitment and turnover, absen-
teeism, organizational citizenship behaviors, and stress, the study of the antecedents of
affective commitment has surged (Meyer et al., 2002). It has been well-documented,
through meta-analyses, that the primary antecedents of affective commitment are
demographic variables, individual differences, work experiences, and investments
(Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002;
Riketta, 2005). However, studies have shown that the most strongly correlated ante-
cedent of affective commitment continues to be work experience variables (Meyer
et al., 2002).

Work experiences. In a summary on what is known about the management and

development of affective commitment, Morrow (2011) found that research has
shown empirical evidence that socialization, high-commitment human resource
(HR) practices, and interpersonal relationships have a role in positively correlat-
ing to high levels of affective commitment. Research has also demonstrated that
HR practices that are grounded in the theories of organizational commitment can
Mercurio 403

positively shape employee attitudes related to affective commitment to organiza-

tions (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Morrow, 2011; Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Sun et al.,
2007; Whitener, 2001).
The literature has shown that the key high-commitment HR practices that affect
levels of affective commitment can be categorized as recruitment and selection,
socialization, mentoring and social networking, and training and development
(N. J. Allen & Meyer, 1990; Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007;
Chatman, & O’Reilly, 1990; Hellman & McMillin, 1994; Nyhan, 1999; Payne &
Huffman, 2005; Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Whitener, 2001). In addition to research
linking specific HR practices to affective commitment, there has also been increas-
ing research on the impact of individuals’ perceptions of those practices on affec-
tive commitment.

Perceived organizational support. As Bartlett (2001) found, individual perceptions of

organizational practices appear to have an effect on levels of affective commitment.
Numerous studies corroborate the finding that employees’ perceptions of, access to,
and involvement with organizational practices seem to affect an individual’s level of
affective commitment (e.g., D. G. Allen & Shanock, 2013; Eisenberger, Fasolo, &
Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton, & Swart, 2005; Rhoades,
Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Whitener, 2001). This literature also suggests two vari-
ables related to the positive perceptions of organizational practices: perceived organi-
zational support and trust.

Trust. Perceptions of organizational practices can also be manifested and measured in

terms of trust within an organization. Specifically, Nyhan (1999) posited that trust can
be distinguished as interpersonal trust and systemic trust. Nyhan found in a review of
the literature that interventions focused on trust typically come in the form of building
systemic trust (top-down). However, Nyhan’s study of more than 600 employees in the
public sector found that trust within interpersonal relationships was more correlative
to levels of affective commitment than systemic trust. This study suggests the need for
organizations to focus on bottom-up interventions to build trust and therefore support
the development of affective commitment.

Findings
The findings below respond to the purpose of this article: to review the affective
organizational commitment scholarly literature within the broader context of organi-
zational commitment to argue that affective commitment is a core essence of orga-
nizational commitment. Three significant findings of this review are (a) affective
commitment seems to serve as a historical and theoretical base for organizational
commitment theories, (b) affective commitment may more strongly influence work
behaviors than other components or proposed forms of commitment, and (c) affec-
tive commitment may be reasonably considered a core essence of organizational
commitment.
404 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

Affective Commitment as the Historical and Theoretical Base of

Commitment
Based on this review, the earliest studies and conceptualizations of organizational
commitment focused on commitment as an attitude of cohesion to, or emotional
involvement and connection with, an organization (Buchanan, 1974; Kanter, 1968;
Mowday et al., 1979; Sheldon, 1971). For example, within the development of the
predominate and psychometrically sound instrument measuring organizational com-
mitment, the OQM, Mowday et al. (1979) defined organizational commitment as “a
construct that is global, reflecting a general affective response to the organization as
a whole” (p. 226). Kanter (1968) defined organizational commitment as the “ . . .
attachment to social relationships which absorb the individual’s fund of affectivity”
(p. 501), and Sheldon (1971) defined commitment as “ . . . an attitude or orientation
toward an organization which links or attaches the identity of the person to the orga-
nization” (p. 143).
These historical and theoretical roots of commitment are important when synthesiz-
ing and understanding this large body of research. Although many conceptualizations
since the 1960s and 1970s have depicted commitment as equally weighted compo-
nents (affective, normative, continuance), the attitudinal, affective construct of com-
mitment has remained central and constant through a wide diversity of the theorizing
and multidimensional conceptualizations of organizational commitment (e.g., Cooper-
Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991;
Meyer et al., 2002). Moreover, empirical studies have situated affective commitment
as more correlative to changes in work behaviors than other theorized components of
commitment, further distinguishing the construct. This is significant and may signal a
need to return to defining commitment based on the attitudinal or affective measure,
much as the early scholars hypothesized at the outset of organizational commitment
research.

Affective Commitment and Work Behaviors

In numerous studies, synthesized by important meta-analyses, the construct of affec-
tive commitment was repeatedly found to have a significantly higher correlative
relationship with the key consequences of organizational commitment than the
behavioral or transactional constructs and conceptualizations of organizational com-
mitment (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer
et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005). Specifically, affective commitment correlated more
strongly with absence (affective = −.15, normative = .05, continuance = .06), perfor-
mance (affective = .16, normative = .06, continuance = −.07), and organizational
citizenship behaviors (affective = .32, normative = .24, continuance = −.01) than
continuance commitment and normative commitment. In addition, affective com-
mitment correlated with the widest range of behavioral variables such as assisting
fellow employees, working longer hours, information sharing, and supervisors’
evaluations of performance (Solinger et al., 2008).
Mercurio 405

Therefore, it may be hypothesized through this review that, as the most influential
form of commitment, affective commitment may mediate and affect employee behav-
ior and reactions to transactions with the organization.

Affective Commitment as a Core Essence of Organizational

Commitment
Thus, through this review and synthesis, affective commitment may reasonably be
considered what Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) called for as a core essence of organi-
zational commitment. At the outset of this article, a core essence was defined as an
enduring, indispensable, and central characteristic of the organizational commitment
construct that distinguishes it from other constructs. Through this review of the litera-
ture, affective commitment was found to be an enduring, demonstrably indispensable,
and central characteristic of organizational commitment.

Conceptual Model
As a result of this study, and to depict its findings, a new conceptual model of affective
commitment as the core essence of organizational commitment is proposed (Figure 1).
The model depicts the synthesis of this review of the literature. Affective commitment
is represented as the center core and source that most strongly affects individual
behaviors and feelings, shapes individual perceptions, and may mediate the individu-
al’s reactions to organizational transactions. In addition, the complementary relation-
ships between transactions, behaviors, perceptions, and feelings included in Meyer
and Allen’s (1991) three-component model are depicted through bi-directional arrows
between these concepts. The dashed, returning arrows to affective commitment from
major concepts also include the assertion that affective commitment can be further
enhanced through a pattern of behaviors, transactions, perceptions, and feelings
(Meyer & Allen, 1991). However, it is important to note that as a result of this review,
the model depicts affective commitment as the primary influencer and source of the
subsequent components.

Implications
Defining affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment has
important implications for both practitioners and researchers. Affective commitment
has been generally defined as the emotional attachment to the organization. Jaros et al.
(1993) defined affective commitment as “the degree to which an individual is psycho-
logically attached to an employing organization through feelings such as loyalty,
affection, warmth, belongingness, fondness, pleasure, and so on” (p. 954). Meyer and
Allen (1991) defined it as “the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification
with, and involvement in the organization” (p. 67). Given that high levels of affective
commitment affect employee behaviors, the major question, then, for practitioners is,
“How does the organization strategically plan for, and facilitate an emotional bond
406 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

Individual Behaviors
Tenure, turnover,
absenteeism,
performance,
organizational
citizenship

affects

Organizational
Individual Perceptions (Affective)
Perceptions of HR shapes
Commitment
practices, transactions, Emotional attachment
organizational support to the organization
Transactions/Investments
mediates
Benefits, rewards, time,
effort, salary

affects

Individual Feelings
Trust, cohesion, stress

Figure 1. Concept map of affective commitment as the core essence of organizational

commitment.
Note. HR = human resource.

between the employee and the organization?” The primary question for researchers is,
“What are the predictors and causes of high levels of affective commitment?”

Implications for Researchers

Researchers must seek to answer the question, “What are the predictors of high levels
of affective commitment?” To inform practitioners, there is a need for scholars to
undertake empirical research studies with predictive validity that link certain organi-
zational interventions and practices with high levels of affective commitment. Morrow
(2011) stated that “researchers are fond of saying more longitudinal studies on a given
topic are needed. Sadly, this admonition applies to the relatively mature construct of
affective commitment” (p. 31). Specifically, new antecedents need to be identified in
the modern environment in which organizations operate. Research that studies the
effects of potentially new antecedents of affective commitment such as social identi-
ties, new media, social media, and technology is also needed. Current practices in
organizations that focus on emotional attachment specifically should be researched.
These types of inquiries could lead to a model of optimal, empirically researched prac-
tices to inform practitioners seeking to enhance employee retention and productivity
by focusing on affective commitment.

Implications for Practitioners

As practitioners look to building commitment as both a business and talent manage-
ment strategy, it is important to focus on what practices are in place to secure
Mercurio 407

an emotional bond to the organization. Although many organizations may focus on

benefits, salaries, positions, and career advancement structures as a means of building
commitment, they may be overlooking what research has found to be a possible ante-
cedent to these elements: the affective, emotional bond employees have with their
organizations. Research has identified key practices that organizations should investi-
gate and plan for. These practices have been termed “high commitment” HR practices
(Kehoe & Wright, 2010). Moreover, the planning of HR practices with development
of affective commitment in mind seems critical to retaining talent.

High-Commitment HR Practices
Research has demonstrated that HR practices that are grounded in the theories of
organizational commitment can positively shape employee attitudes related to affec-
tive commitment to organizations (Kehoe & Wright, 2010; Morrow, 2011; Paré &
Tremblay, 2007; Whitener, 2001). In addition, researchers have found that HR prac-
tices that focus on commitment positively affect employee perceptions of the orga-
nization, which can result in higher levels of affective commitment as well as
increased organizational trust (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Kinnie et al., 2005; Nyhan,
1999; Sun et al., 2007). The ability for employees to feel involved and aware of HR
practices has also been found to contribute to elevating affective commitment levels
(Morrow, 2011).

Recruitment, Selection, and Socialization

Researchers have found that developing and managing affective commitment begins
at the point of recruitment and within initial entry experiences in an organization.
Caldwell et al. (1990) built upon research on recruitment and socialization and found
that when organizations use techniques such as rigorous and careful recruitment and
selection and design initial experiences that encourage new members to learn about
and accept the values of a new organization, commitment is positively affected. In
addition, socialization practices that focus on organizational values and include posi-
tive role modeling at the management level had an effect on new members’ affective
commitment to the organization (Caldwell et al., 1990; O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1981).
In conjunction with socialization practices that feature a high investment in organi-
zational values and positive role modeling, Hellman and McMillin (1994) found that
organizations that provide socialization experiences in which newcomers are able to
define their role in the organization and become familiar with its norms quicker
resulted in higher levels of affective commitment. Allen and Meyer (1990) also found
that newcomer socialization experiences in which anxiety was alleviated through the
presence of a defined structure and process correlated positively with commitment to
the organization. In addition, researchers have found that such newcomer socialization
experiences have the ability to embed newcomers in their organizations (Bauer et al.,
2007). Saks and Ashforth (1997) utilized Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) framework
of socialization to find that reducing uncertainty and anxiety affect newcomers’
408 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

affective commitment to organizations and ultimately facilitate the process of embed-

ding newcomers in the organization’s culture and value systems.
In a practice manual titled “Employee Engagement and Commitment” published by
the Society for Human Resource Management, Vance (2006) offered managers key
ingredients for employee engagement and commitment. These ingredients enact the
theoretical literature previously discussed and represent a focus on values-based
recruitment strategies, commitment-oriented hiring processes, and onboarding train-
ing that builds self-efficacy, self-esteem, and commitment as key variables for manag-
ers when structuring organizational practices to create the conditions necessary for
high affective commitment levels (Vance, 2006).
Based upon the synthesis of current available literature, organizations that recruit
and select intensively and have an intentionally structured newcomer socialization plan
that focuses on the education of organizational values and norms, anxiety-reduction and
job role clarification, and positive role modeling may be creating the conditions neces-
sary for developing positive affective commitment levels among their employees.

Mentoring and Social Networking

An important variable in creating the conditions necessary to support the affective
commitment of employees in organizations is examining the contexts and interper-
sonal relationships in which HR practices take place (Morrow, 2011). One specific
area of research has centered around the effects of mentoring relationships on organi-
zational commitment levels (Nyhan, 1999; Payne & Huffman, 2005). There have been
empirical studies that have shown mentoring relationships have a positive effect on
affective commitment. Payne and Huffman (2005) theorized, based on the literature,
that there are three probable explanations for this effect: (a) mentoring helps employ-
ees personally identify with the organization, (b) mentoring assists with stress man-
agement, and (c) positive role modeling and relationships may foster better attitudes
about work. Specifically, Payne and Huffman found that mentees who had mentors in
a supervisory capacity reported higher levels of affective commitment to the organiza-
tion. Therefore, the nature and intentionality of the relationship are important for prac-
tical considerations (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000).
More specifically, Craig, Allen, Reid, Riemenschneider, and Armstrong (2013)
found that employees who engaged in psychosocial mentoring (i.e., a relationship
focused on intrinsic motivation) and had a positive mentoring experience reported
higher levels of affective commitment to the organization. In addition to one-on-one
relationships, utilizing social exchange theory as a base, researchers have also exam-
ined the effects of friendship and social networks on affective commitment levels
among employees (Brass, 1995; Morrison, 2002). Morrison (2002) found that employ-
ees with social networks beyond their functional work units reported higher levels of
affective commitment to the larger organization.
The emerging research of both formal and informal interpersonal relationships as
antecedents to developing and managing affective commitment represents an area for
future research and application to practice.
Mercurio 409

Training and Development

Research related to investigating the empirical links between training and develop-
ment initiatives and affective commitment levels, specifically, is limited and in its
early stages in comparison with the literature available on the practices of recruitment,
socialization, and interpersonal relationships (Bartlett, 2001). Vance (2006) indicated
training and development is a key ingredient in fostering affective commitment and
theorized that the investment in training and development that builds knowledge and
skill translates into self-efficacy, self-esteem, and therefore employee commitment.
This theory, however, remains relatively unexamined by modern researchers.
Bartlett (2001) utilized the three-component model of commitment to examine the
relationship between training and commitment levels within the health care field, spe-
cifically. Although he did not uncover positive results related to the levels of affective
commitment among employees based on the structure of training, Bartlett found that
perceived access to training was a significant variable in affecting employees’ levels
of affective commitment to the organization. A review of the literature indicates that
the investigation of the relationship of training structure and organizational learning
design on levels of affective commitment represents a gap in the literature, and a
potentially fruitful area for scholars to examine.

Conclusion
The objective of this review was to respond to Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) call for
the identification of a core essence of organizational commitment research. Within the
last 14 years, scholars studying commitment have still not come to an agreement as to
the nature of organizational commitment and how it develops. This fragmentation cre-
ates a problem in a time when practitioners are looking toward organizational commit-
ment interventions to attract and retain talent and improve performance. With
organizational commitment research remaining confounding and fragmented, further
clarification of what commitment is and how it develops is warranted to guide future
research and evidence-based practice. Through a review of the competing and over-
lapping theoretical frameworks on organizational commitment and the empirical
research on the consequences of organizational commitment, the construct of affective
commitment seems to be at the core of organizational commitment (Solinger et al.,
2008) and an important focus for future research and practice.
Affective commitment, first termed by Meyer and Allen (1984), refers to the emo-
tional attachment of an individual to the organization. The reviewed research indicates
that affective commitment is more predictive of major organizational consequences
such as turnover, absenteeism, and organizational citizenship behaviors than the theo-
rized behavioral or transactional constructs of organizational commitment. This has
important implications for both researchers and practitioners. First, researchers may
utilize the conceptualization offered in this article to guide future research and longi-
tudinal studies on the antecedents of affective commitment, specifically. Second, prac-
titioners may use this article to begin examining how their organization focuses on
410 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

fostering an emotional bond between the individual and the organization within exist-
ing and newly developed HR practices.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Aguirre, D., Post, L., & Hewlett, S. A. (2009). The talent innovation imperative. Strategy+
Business, 56, 39-49.
Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership, empow-
erment and engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community
health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in Health Services, 24, 228-237.
Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as
key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new
employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 350-369.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal anal-
ysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management
Journal, 33, 847-858.
Alvino, L. (2014, 29 September). Engage your employees or lose billions. Forbes Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2014/09/29/engage-your-employ-
ees-or-lose-billions/
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes
in public organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19, 256-277.
Bartlett, K. R. (2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A
study in the health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 335-352.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, out-
comes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707-721.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology,
66, 32-40.
Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review
and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 645-663.
Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13(1), 39-79.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in
work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Building organizational commitment: A multifirm
study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245-261.
Mercurio 411

Clifton, J. (2014, 8 October). Why being engaged at work isn’t as simple as being happy. Gallup:
The Chairman’s Blog. Retrieved from http://thechairmansblog.gallup.com/2014/10/why-
being-engaged-at-work-isnt-as.html
Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 336-354.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39-52.
Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an
integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259.
Craig, C. A., Allen, M. W., Reid, M. F., Riemenschneider, C. K., & Armstrong, D. J. (2013).
The impact of career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring on affective organizational
commitment, job involvement, and turnover intention. Administration & Society, 45,
949-973.
Davies, W. (2015, 6 June). All the happy workers. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/all-the-happy-workers/394907/
Dychtwald, K., Erickson, T. J., & Morison, R. (2013). Workforce crisis: How to beat the coming
shortage of skills and talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support
and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
51-59.
Fischer, R., & Mansell, A. (2009). Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach.
Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1339-1358.
Fornes, S. L., Rocco, T. S., & Wollard, K. K. (2008). Workplace commitment: A conceptual
model developed from integrative review of the research. Human Resource Development
Review, 7, 339-357.
Gibb, S. (2011). Human resource development. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gouldner, H. P. (1960). Dimensions of organizational commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 4, 468-490.
Hellman, C. M., & McMillin, W. L. (1994). Newcomer socialization and affective commitment.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 261-262.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of
organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555-573.
Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affec-
tive, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural
equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951-995.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mecha-
nisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral science, 9,
131-146.
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of high-performance human resource prac-
tices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39, 366-391.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2005). Satisfaction with HR
practices and commitment to the organisation: Why one size does not fit all. Human
Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 9-29.
Liu, Y. (2009). Perceived organizational support and expatriate organizational citizenship
behavior: The mediating role of affective commitment towards the parent company.
Personnel Review, 38, 307-319.
412 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

Lowry, R. J. (1973). AH Maslow: An intellectual portrait. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
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: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates,
and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during
socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149-1160.
Morrow, P. C. (2011). Managing organizational commitment: Insights from longitudinal
research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 18-35.
Mowday, R. T. (1999). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 8, 387-401.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages:
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational com-
mitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (2013). Employee-organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic Press.
Nyhan, R. C. (1999). Increasing affective organizational commitment in public organizations:
The key role of interpersonal trust. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3),
58-70.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Caldwell, D. F. (1981). The commitment and job tenure of new employ-
ees: Some evidence of postdecisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26,
597-616.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach-
ment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. New
York, NY: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 85-97.
Pangarkar, A., & Kirkwood, T. (2013). Four ways to gain employees commitment. Association
for Talent Development. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/Publications/Newsletters/
ASTD-Links/ASTD-Links-Articles/2013/03/Four-Ways-to-Gain-Employees-
Commitment
Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices,
procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information tech-
nology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32, 326-357.
Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentor-
ing on organizational commitment and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 48,
158-168.
Mercurio 413

Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. (1976). Organizational commitment and manage-
rial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15,
87-98.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of
mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy
of Management Journal, 43, 1177-1194.
Randall, D. M. (1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological
investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361-378.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:
The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
825-836.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 358-384.
Risher, H. (2014). The high cost of federal workplace depression. Government Executive.
Retrieved from http://www.govexec.com/management/2014/10/secret-service-woes-show-
high-cost-poor-morale/96305/
Ritzer, G., & Trice, H. M. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker’s side-bet theory.
Social Forces, 47, 475-478.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past
and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234-279.
Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In
B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1-54).
Chicago, IL: St. Clair-Press.
Schmidt, K. H. (2007). Organizational commitment: A further moderator in the relationship
between work stress and strain? International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 26-40.
Sheldon, M. E. (1971). Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment
to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 143-150.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of
affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774-780.
Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of
organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70-83.
Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination
of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49-58.
Somers, M. J. (2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative commit-
ment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 75-81.
Stazyk, E. C., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). Understanding affective organizational
commitment: The importance of institutional context. The American Review of Public
Administration, 41, 603-624.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citi-
zenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 558-577.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367.
Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding, measur-
ing and increasing engagement in your organization. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.
414 Human Resource Development Review 14(4)

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.
Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee
commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of
Management, 27, 515-535.
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management
Review, 7, 418-428.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601-617.

Author Biography
Zachary A. Mercurio is a PhD student in the Organizational Learning, Performance, and Change
program at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO.