The increasing importance of organization commitment in public organizations has increased the need to identify factors that increase commitment and reduce turnover intention.
In this chapter, the researcher provides a review of previous literature relevant to this research and the relationship between the variables. Training and development, PsyCap, employee job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are conceptualized; their dimensions and empirical studies also reviewed
.
The final phase provides an overview of The Gambia Revenue Authority‘s training and development programs.Training and Development
The disorder in current organizational environment has called for a responsive and innovative workforce. One of the important ways of attaining organizational commitment is the creation of conditions for the rapid acquisition of new knowledge and skills (Brown, Boyle, & Boyle, 2002). Although this may be achieved in an ad hoc fashion with people learning from each other or simply through experience, a key factor is the quality of planned, training and development in organizations. Recently, training and development gain prominence among researchers and many definitions and interpretations can be found within the HRD literatures which are presented below.
Definitions of Training and Development
Training and development as suggested by Van Wart et al. (1993), is an application driven that aims to impart skills that are useful immediately in particular situations. McLagan (1989) defined training and development as identifying, assuring and helping to develop key competencies that enable individuals to perform current or future jobs (cited in Wan, 2007).
Swanson and Holton (2001) posits that training and development are a process of systematically developing ―work-related knowledge‖ and ―expertise‖ in employees for improving job assignments. Moreover, Akdere (2003) defined training and development practices as parameters for increasing the employees' level of self-awareness and skills to fulfil their tasks well. Wexley and Latham (1991) put more emphasis on training and term it as a planned endeavor to facilitate the learning of ―job-related behaviour‖ on the part of an organization‘s employees. They defined job-related behaviour as any knowledge and expertise acquired by an individual that can be related to organizational objectives. As a result, training has been considered as a systematic process by different practitioners in order to improve individual and organizational job performances
12
There is a common philosophy underlying Human Resource Development (HRD) which contradicts with the organizational context in which training and development interventions are applied. These common philosophies usually try to characterize the workplace in terms of being like a "family". Therefore, at its simplest, management in a fatherly fashion look after the workforce and know what's best for them. Like children in families, workers are expected to display loyalty and a willingness to fall (Sinclair & Collins, 1992).
As job security for employees now a days becoming a challenge which always raises question of employee commitment, alternatively, organizations may give opportunities for internal rotation, gradual growth, improved skills and abilities, as well as individual and professional development (employee or career development opportunities; this in return, according to Tansky and Cohen (2001), organizations may expect certain employee attitudes, including commitment which is the strength of an individual‘s identification with and involvement in a particular organization (Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982).
However, scholars have argued that organizational employee training and development initiatives are necessary interventions to ensuring employee morale and satisfaction (Jackson
& Vitberg, 1987). Since individual employees put their career into consideration in an organization, it is possible that their perceptions of career prospects in the organization for example, continual growth through training and development opportunities will have an effect on organizational commitment (Jans, 1989). In fact, the new psychological contract indicates that the employees bring in a good performance while continuously learning and adapting, which in exchange the organization gives developmental relationships, and good rewards and other necessary compensation (Hall & Mirvis, 1996). The authors further argued that greater understanding of how to provide work environments friendly to not only training and development but also provide an atmosphere that encourages managers to care for their employees.
The relationships involved in employee training and development transactions can be considered exchanges. Blau (1964) categorized two types of exchanges: economic exchanges and social exchanges. The latter (social exchange) is based on implicit obligations and trust.
Its value of the exchange is determined by the identities of the two parties involve. Both parties have their expectations about the behavior of the other party which are not necessarily based on timing or the specifics of what each party must render. If the benefit is ripped by both parties, either of them will know whether the expectations of the other have been fully met or not. Social exchanges involved reciprocity (Tansky & Cohen, 2001), and reciprocity according to Gouldner (1960) is the norm of assumption that the recipient of benefit is
13
obliged to repay the donor in one way or the other. Training and development of employees could be considered as a social exchange which is based on implicit obligations that needs trust. It gives opportunities and benefits. In showing appreciation for these opportunities and benefits, the employees may feel obliged to give back to the organization thus making them more committed to the organization (Tansky & Cohen, 2001).
It is arguable that organizations need to attain flexibility and skill interchangeability from a trainable, responsive workforce (Jarratt & Coates, 1995). How to acquire and maintain such a workforce remains the question. The conventional psychological contract that gave employees security in exchange for commitment is becoming a thing of the past. As employees are increasingly getting aware that job security is no longer included in employment contract, they may live in fear of being laid off. Why should these workers be committed to the organization (Tansky & Cohen, 2001). Meanwhile, workers may remain with the same company; they need to be trained and developed to move into new jobs (Tansky & Cohen, 2001). Among human resource practices that may lead to employee commitment is continuous training and development (London, 1989). London further described employee training and development as a long-term personal and professional growth of individuals; this fall within the domain of human resource development, which refers to organized learning experiences provided by the employer to enhance performance and personal growth of employees (Nadler & Nadler, 1989).
Some organizations refer to their employee training and development programs as career development programs since they help employees to build skills that are necessary to move to other jobs in the organization, thus leading to commitment. According to Gutteridge, Leibowitz, and Shore (1993), organizational leaders believed that the following significant results can be produced because of organizational development efforts: enhanced employee commitment, enhanced employee skills and morale, employee empowerment, improved HR planning and selection, and greater strategic advantage. Training and development are also refers to as a set of systematic and planned activities designed by an organization to provide its members with the opportunities to learn necessary skills to meet current and future job demands (Gutteridge, Leibowitz, and Shore ,1993).
Theories of Training and Development
It should be noted that for effective leaning and development, in a learning environment, motivation provides the incentive that propels trainees to devote to learning activities, and
14
intrinsic factors are critical success factor of learning. The self–determination theory proposes that for one to be motivated and to function at optimal level, a set of psychological needs must be met. These needs are relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Relatedness relates to association and sense of belonging with others. This association and belonging provide the required emotional security that individuals need to actively explore and effectively deal with their worlds. The rationale behind the self-determination theory from a learning perspective is that a strong sense of relatedness better positions trainees to take on challenges, set positive goals, and establish high expectations that motivate them. Furthermore, relatedness needs provide a motivating force for developing social regulations and adapting to interpersonal circumstances (Andrew & Martin, 2009)
The theory of reasoned action argued those trainees‘ reactions to technology use tends to affect performance of users. The theory was proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen in 1985. The assumption is based on the rationale that a person‘s decision to engage in a specific behavior is based on his or her own will, which is determined by organized thoughts. The theory highlights that under a great extent an individual‘s behavior can be reasonably assessed from his or her behavioral intention, which is decided by behavioral attitude and subjective norm.
A person‘s attitude towards behavior is determined by salient beliefs about consequences of engaging in the behavior in addition to evaluating those consequences. In the same vein, if employees willfully react favorably to training, their learning and transfer of transfer and commitment will take place (Chi, 2011).
Kirkpatrick (1998), also mentioned that for the employees who are train to successfully adopt what they learn in a training programme on to the job. It is significant to provide help, encouragement, and rewards. He mention intrinsic (inwards feelings of satisfaction, pride and happiness) and extrinsic (coming from the outside such as praise, freedom and recognition) rewards as being very important for learning and commitment of employee being train. Also, employee who enthusiasm and oriented towards learning are proposed to be more trainable and will tend to be likely to stay in the organization. Training and development did not only have significant impact on the employee only but also on the organization (Kraiger, Mclinder
& Casper, 2004).
In conclusion, there is a great deal of positive outcomes that can be deriving from training and development both at the employee and organizational levels as indicated in the literature.
Thus, from the literature review the concept of organization training and development as perceive by employee can be viewed in various dimension. This research adopts the dimensions proposed by Bartlett (2001) on employee access to training and development (on-
15
the-job or formal training). Other variables that are assess and included in the study to determine training are based on frequency of participation in training events (Tharenou &
Conroy, 1994). How much training they receive that enhance behavioural change and increase organizational commitment, the perceived support of training from colleagues and support from management ―Motivation to learn from training‖ developed by Noe and Schmitt (1986), and other item adopted from Noe and Wilk, (1993) benefits of training scale.
Psychological Capital
The metaphor of the psychological capital has emerged in recent organizational psychology literature. The motives for this sudden popularity are perhaps twofold. First, the concept addressed the importance of ‗‗who you are‘‘ beyond the concept of economic capital (what you have), human capital (what you know), and social (who you know). The other reason is that the relationships people have with their employing organisations are undergoing rapid, and sometimes far-reaching, changes. The PsyCap provides means of examining how such changes are perceived by those most directly affected and gives some indication of the effects such changes may have on their attitudes and behaviour. PsyCap is derived from positive organization behaviour basis and criteria (Luthans & Youssef, 2007;
Luthans et al., 2004) as a way of examining and exploring the study and application of positively oriented human resources strengths and psychological capacities that can be ascertained by measuring, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today‘s workplace (Luthans, 2008).
According to Larson &Luthans (2006), PsyCap during the late 1990s emerged with a renewed emphasis on what is right with people, rather than the almost total preoccupation psychology has had over the years with what is wrong with people. The composite construct of PsyCap has been defined as
―an individual‘s positive psychological state of development characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success‖ (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007, p. 3).
As organizations seek ways to help employees navigate the ever-challenging work environment, they increasingly are recognizing the importance of positivity and concentrating
16
on developing employee strengths, rather than dwelling on the negative and trying to fix employee vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
Moreover, positive psychology has a great potential for influencing the efficiency and performance of the human resource. Originally, Law Wong, and Mobley, (1998) proposed a conceptual framework for establishing how PsyCap is a multidimensional approach; they conclude that PsyCap is influenced by organizational environment and that influences several positive and negative outcomes in the organization. Citing from Luthans (2001) different organizational phenomena have impact on the employee, specifically on the characteristics that assemble their PsyCap (See Figure 2.1). Accordingly, high PsyCap employees observe and contribute to the organization, while low PsyCap employee absence from work vice versa.
According to Luthans (2008), PsyCap has developed mainly since 2005 and therefore all findings should be considered as preliminary and need further research. Thus, PsyCap indicates the state of employees ‗s positive expressive status during the process of advancement in the organisation and it aids individual‘s to recognize their responsibility as well as withstands positive insight of well-being. PsyCap is categorized by four topographies and they are Hope, Resilience, optimism, and efficacy and they are elucidates as follows:
Hope draw from the work of positive psychology and was defined as ‗‗positive motivational state that was based on an interactively derived sense of successful a) agency (goal-oriented energy) and b) pathways (Planning to meet goals)‘‘ (Snyder, Irving, &
Anderson, 1991, p.287).
Resilience is another component of PsyCap and it is compose with three constituents, including organisations principles that employees can deal with challenges in the organisational environment, similarly, employees with high resilience capacity might not only rebuild from the complications, but also accomplish tasks, and find significant value during work (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Moreover, Luthans and Youssef (2004), define resilience as ‗‗the capacity to bounce back from adversity, uncertainty, failure, or even positive but seemingly overwhelming changes‘‘ P.152).
Optimism is another very important dimension of PsyCap applied and its definition derived from attribution theory in terms of employee‘s experiences of negative and positives happenings (Seligman,1999). Thus, optimism helps employees to achived objectives of the Organisation.
17
Self-Efficacy is defined as ‗‗one‘s convention about employees abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific tasks within a given context‘‘ (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998, p.66). Employees with self- efficacy are prepared to be more committed on tasks and are likely to take demanding tasks. Likewise, they generally continue to the end no matter how many hindrances they meet in the work environment (Luthans &Youssef, 2004).
Figure 2.1.Pychological Capital Model. Adapted from ‘‘An Integrated Model of PsyCap in the Workplace‘‘ by Luthans, F. (2008), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work.
Available at http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Psychological_capital. Copyright 2008 by NTT Resonant Inc.
Organizational Commitment
Commitment phenomena have been widely investigated because it affects individual attitudes and behaviour towards the workplace (Dockel, 2003). Many definitions of
Hope Optimism
Self-Efficacy Supportive Organization
al Climate
PsyCap Positive
Organizational Emotion Resiliency
Positive
Organizational Outcomes
Work Performance Work Commitment Work Satisfaction Positive
organisational change
Negative Organizational Outcomes Cynicism
Work Absenteeism
18
organization commitment exist due to the fact that many researchers define it their own way to suit their investigation purposes. Kanter (1968) viewed commitment as the willingness of social actor to give energy and loyalty to the organization. Sheldom (1998) too define it as being positive evaluation of organization and the organizations goals.
Through the years Buchanan (1974), define commitment as being a bond between an employee and an employer. Porter, steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974) discussed three major components of commitment as being a strong belief in and acceptance of organization‘s goals, willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a definite desire to maintain organizational membership. Bateman and Strasser (1984) stated that the reasons of studying organizations commitment were generally related to employee behaviors and performance, effectiveness, attitudinal, affective, and cognitive construct such as job satisfaction, characteristics of employee such their age and the number years they spend in the organizations. Bateman and Strasser (1984) further stated that organization commitment had been operationally defined as multidimensional in nature, involving and employee‘s loyalty to the organization, willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, degree of goals and value congruency with the organization, and desire to maintain membership.
Furthermore organization commitments are a significant construct in predicting organization performance and intention to quit (Mathieu & Zajac. 1990; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Summaries of the definitions highlighted are taken from organizational commitments literature:
Table 2.1
Definitions of Organizational Commitment
Author Definitions
Organizational Commitment
Kanter (1968) viewed commitment as the willingness of social actor to give energy and loyalty to the organization
Burchana (1974), commitment as being a bond between an employee and an employer
Mowday and Boulian (1974)
View commitment as being a strong belief in and acceptance of organization‘s goals, willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a definite desire to maintain organizational membership Allen& Meyer (1990) The employee psychological state that
attached him/her to the organizations
19
This research agreeing with Meyer & Herscovitch, (2001) and Dockel (2003) that commitment influences attitude autonomously of other drives or behavior and, might lead to the persistence in a course of action even in the face of conflicting interest and attitudes.
Therefore, it can results in employees exhibiting behaviors which might be in contrast with their own interest. In this vain employees uphold the values and goals of the organization and upon achievement; they receive reward which eventually transforms into certain type of commitment. As Dockel (2003), puts it,‗‗ most social behavior is predicted on the individual expectation that one‘s actions with respect to others will results in some kind of commensurate return‘‘ (p.31). According to Robinson (1996), Employee constantly gauge whether the organization has met the employees‘ perpetual belief of what they are entitle to have in the organization. Additional Robinson noted that ‗‗when employees feel that their employers have failed to fulfill their obligations, the employees tend to reduce their obligation by showing withdrawal behavior…decreased level of commitment and turnover‘‘
(Dockel, 2003, p. 42)
Previous organizational commitment researchers have classified commitment into different constructs. These examine the various perspectives studied and documented and how they are expressed within the setting of the organization. Mowday, Porter, and steers (1982) divided commitment into attitudinal commitment and behavioral commitment.
Attitudinal commitment specifically, represents the degree of loyalty an individual had for an organization. This commitment emphasized an individual‘s identification and involvement in the organization. However, behavioral commitment reflected the process which individuals linked them to an organization and also it also focused on the actions of the individuals.
Other previous researcher like Etzioni (1961) examined commitment into three perspectives Moral (which is the acceptance of organizational goals), calculative (employees receiving inducements to match contributions) and Alienate (represents an affective attachment to the organization.
This study looks at the organizational commitment from the perspective of Meyer and Allen‘s (1991) three component model namely, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. This model is widely adopted in most organizational commitment studies and their measurement scale widely used. The three component model are further explain below and their applications in previous studies
Affective Commitment
20
Affective commitment is defined as the emotional bond, identification, and involvement that employees have with an organization (Meyer& Allen, 1993; O‘Reily & Chatman, 1986).
It is a state of mind that develops when an employee becomes involved in, recognizes the value-relevance of his attachment with an organization or course of action. Earlier in 1990s, Allen and Meyer (1993) had defined affective commitment as an employee‘s emotional
It is a state of mind that develops when an employee becomes involved in, recognizes the value-relevance of his attachment with an organization or course of action. Earlier in 1990s, Allen and Meyer (1993) had defined affective commitment as an employee‘s emotional