LITERATURE REVIEW - The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence, Job Satisfaction, and Organi

The objective of this chapter is to provide a research background to the proposed dissertation study that is built around organizational commitment, specific demographic variables, emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. Thus, the chapter reviews the existing literature pertaining to these concepts and it also provides a detailed review of the literature that supports the hypothesized relationship between specific demographic variables and organizational commitment; emotional intelligence and organizational commitment;

emotional intelligence and job satisfaction; job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Finally, it will also provide a brief background of the research setting– the banking sector of The Gambia.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational Commitment concerns the extent to which an organizational member is loyal and willing to contribute to the organization. The sense of cohesion among members in the organization is the key to organizational effectiveness. Only when organizational members have a sense of belonging with the organizational mission, goals and values will they contribute all efforts to their work and the organization (Jaskyte & Lee, 2009). Salancik (1977) considered that organizational commitment was the behavior of an individual expressed in correspondence to his/ her reliance on a specific organization. To some scholars, organizational commitment can explained individual and organizational behaviors (Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996). It is also believed that organizational commitment can predict the resignation of employees (Porter et al., 1974). In light of its significance, organizational commitment has been explored as a hot issue in the literature of organizational management.

Organizational commitment has been studied in the public, private and non-profit sector and this is because the relationships between employees and their organizations have become imperative to the effective functioning of the workplace. These relationships affect not only employees but also companies (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Thus, an understanding of organizational commitment is important because it can have an influence on the conduct of public and private sector employees both in terms of performance and efficient delivery of services. This is especially so important for the banking sector which depends mostly on customers for its survival. Thus, having committed employees might help banks deliver services and exceed customer’s expectation which might in the long run bring profitability. In

line with this, organizations today are striving to become world-class organizations and compete globally (Hough & Neuland, 2001) and for organizations to become world-class organization, they need committed employees (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002). Hence, in today’s competitive world, each employee has to be committed to the organization’s objectives for the organization to perform at peak levels. In line with this, positive consequences of organizational commitment can be good attendance, participation, and low turnover and while negative consequences can be high turnover, low productivity and absenteeism. Practicing managers and behavioral scientists have been influenced by organizational commitment over the years (Mowday et al., 1982) and hence given its increased attention for the numerous positive and negative occupational impacts, these scholars have strive to understand the component of commitment forms and the antecedents of work outcomes (Allen & Meyer,1990; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).

Multiple definitions of organizational commitment are found in the literature. Below offers some of the conceptualization and definition and dimensions of the concept.

Conceptualization and Definition of Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment has been conceptualized and defined in different ways (Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990). Some researchers regard organizational commitment as a uni-dimensional construct (Blau, 1985; Kantar, 1968; Wiener, 1982). According to Kantar (1968), organizational commitment is the willingness of societal actors to give energy and loyalty to the organization. Porter et al. (1974), on the other hand view organizational commitment as involving the willingness of employees to exert higher efforts on behalf of the organization, a strong desire to stay in the organization, and the willingness to accept major goals and values of the organization. Some researchers viewed organizational commitment as a multidimensional construct (Allen & Meyer, 1997; Angle & Perry, 1981; O’Reily &

Chatman, 1986; Penley & Gould, 1988). Mowday et al. (1982) classified organizational commitment as attitudinal and behavioral. Attitudinal commitment refers to an individual’s identification with the organizational goals and willingness to work toward them, and behavioral commitment employees are viewed as committed to particular organizational behaviors rather than to an entity. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) classified organizational commitment into three forms; compliance, identification and internalization. Morrow (1993) identified more than 25 ways in which organizational commitment was conceptualized and measured. Meyer and Allen (1991) identified three forms that characterized various approaches to the conceptualizations of organizational commitment namely; affective

attachment to the organization, perceived costs associated with leaving the organization and a moral obligation to remain with the organization. Employees with affective commitment undertake actions because they want to, employees with continuance commitment engage in actions because they need to in order to avoid the cost of leaving the organization and employees with normative commitment engage in actions because they should (Allen &

Meyer, 1997). These three forms of commitment interact and employees can experience all the three forms in varying proportions. Based on the review of various definitions of organizational commitment, organizational commitment is seen as an individual’s psychological attachment to an organization or a psychological bond that connects an individual to his/ her organization. Table 2.1 outlines the common ways in which organizational commitment has been defined in the literature.

Table 2.1.

Definitions of Organizational Commitment

Author/s Definitions of organizational Commitment

Kanter (1968) Organizational commitment may be defined as the process through which individual interests become attached to the carrying out of socially organized patterns of behavior which are seen as fulfilling those interests, as expressing the nature and needs of those persons.

Porter et al (1974) Organizational commitment is the strength of an Individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization, characterized by three psychological factors; desire to remain in the

organization, willingness to exert considerable effort on its behalf, and belief in and acceptance of its goals and values.

___________________________________________________________________________

(continued)

Table 2.1 (continued)

Author/s Definitions of organizational Commitment

Meyer & Allen (1991) Identified three distinct forms in the definition of organization commitment as an effective

attachment to the organization -

affective commitment, commitment as a perceived cost associated with leaving the organization – continuance commitment and commitment as an obligation to remain in the organization – normative commitment.

__________________________________________________________________________

Dimensions of Organizational Commitment

While there is some general consensus that commitment is a force that binds an individual to the organization, there is disagreement regarding the dimensionality of organizational commitment. The most widely researched multidimensional form of organizational commitment is the one developed by Meyer and Allen (1991). Penley and Gould (1988) have also proposed a three dimensional model of organizational commitment that includes moral, calculative and alienative forms of commitment. Moral commitment refers to the acceptance of and identification with organizational goals. Calculative commitment on the other hand is an outcome of the benefits that an employee receives, whereas alienative commitment is a product of lack of alternatives. Delobbe and Vandenberghe (2000) classified organizational commitment into four types and this include internationalization, compliance, affective and calculative. Internationalization refers to the attachment to the organization’s goals based on a perceived congruence between the individual’s values and those of the organization. Continuance commitment is a result of abiding by organizational expectations in lieu of rewards. Affective and calculative, the other two types of commitment were adopted from Meyer & Allen’s (1991) model.

The tasks of identifying the major dimensions of organizational commitment is complicated on account of the use of different terminology to refer to the same concept or the use of different concepts to refer to the same terminology. For instance, Penley and Gould

(1988), Angle and Perry (1981) used the terms, moral commitment and value commitment to refer to the same concept, namely a sense of identification with the organization. On the other hand, the term moral commitment has been used by Penley and Gould (1988) and Jaros, Jermier, Koehler and Sincich (1993) to refer to identification and internalization respectively.

Delobbe and Vandenberghe (2000) even question whether internalization and identification are distinguishable dimensions of commitment.

A closer assessment of different dimensions of organizational commitment suggests that these dimensions can be classified into two main groups. The first group refers to an affective or psychological bonding that binds an employee to his/her organization. The primary drivers of commitment are identification with the organizations goals and values, congruence between individual and organizational goals, and internationalization of organizational values and mission. The second group refers to an exchange based view of commitment, where the commitment of an employee is based on economic reasons. Organizational commitment accrues on account of extrinsic rewards, or costs associated with leaving the organization.

Table 2.2 outlines how different dimensions of organizational commitment as identified in different multidimensional forms can be classified into those two groups. These two groups are affective or psychological commitment and exchange based view of commitment.

Table 2.2

Two Main Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment

Author/s Affective or Psychological Commitment Penley & Gould (1988) Moral Commitment

Angle & Perry (1981) Value Commitment O’Reilly & Chatman (1981) Internalization

Meyer & Allen (1991) Affective commitment Penley & Gould (1988) Calculative Commitment Penley & Gould (1988) Alienative Commitment Angle & Perry (1981) Commitment to stay Delobbe & Vandenberghe (2000) Compliance commitment Meyer & Allen (1991) Continuance commitment

______________________________________________________________________

Thus, having discussed the various definitions and dimensions of organizational commitment and according to Scholl (1981), the way organizational commitment is defined depends on the approach to commitment that one is adhering to and hence in line with the purposes of this research, Meyer and Allen’s (1991) organizational commitment scale was chosen for this study. These three forms are stated below are:

Affective Commitment- This refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement in the organization. Employees who are affectively committed to the organization will probably carry on working for it because they want to (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Individuals who are dedicated to an emotional level usually remain with the organization because they see their individual employment relationship as being in harmony with the goals and values of the organization for which they are currently working. Affective commitment development involves identification with the organization and internalization of organizational principles and standards (Beck & Wilson, 2000).

Continuance Commitment - This refers to the commitment based on the cost that the employee associates with leaving the organization. It is important to note that because of the individual’s awareness of the cost and threats linked to leaving the organization, continuance commitment is considered to be calculative (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Individuals with continuance commitment remain with a specific organization because of the money they as employees earn as a result of the time spent in the organization, and not because they want to.

This differs from affective commitment, where individuals remain with an organization because they want to and because they are familiar with the organization and its principles.

Normative Commitment - This refers to the employee’s feelings of obligation to stay with the organization. The normative element is seen as the commitment individuals consider morally appropriate regarding their remaining with a specific organization, irrespective of how much status, improvement or fulfillment the organization provides the individual over the years (March & Mannari, 1977).

In general, employee’s with affective commitment remain in the organization because they want to, those with strong continuance commitment because they need to, and those with strong normative commitment because they feel they ought to do so.

With a working definition of organizational commitment, the next important step is to look at some previous empirical studies that have been done on the antecedents of organizational commitment and the variables under this study.

Previous Empirical Studies on Organizational Commitment

This section discusses researched antecedents of organizational commitment and it also offers some previous studies on the relationship between some demographic variables and organizational commitment.

Researched Antecedents of Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment antecedents can be related to the job or personal characteristics. Thus, numerous studies have explored the relationship between organizational commitment and variables that have been hypothesized as its antecedents. Steers (1977) classified these variables into three main groups: personal characteristics; job characteristics and work experiences. Mowday et al. (1982) proposed role stressors as the fourth group of antecedents to organizational commitment. Personal characteristics comprise of “variables that define the individual” (Steers, 1977, p.47). The most researched personal characteristics include age, gender, personality and education. The job characteristics that are related with organizational commitment are job challenge, job scope and job variety. The aspects of job characteristics that have been empirically examined include: job scope, skill variety, task autonomy, task independence and job level. Mattieu & Zajac (1990) found low correlation between skill variety, task autonomy, task independence, job level and organizational commitment. Another related aspect of job that has been extensively researched include role stressors such as role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload. Mathieu & Zajac (1990) found that role related characteristics were negatively correlated with organizational commitment. Since the late 1980s, another focus on research on organizational commitment has been on determining the effect of work experiences on commitment. The aspects of work experience that have been empirically examined include leadership, communication, organizational support, organizational justice and human resource practices. Meyer et al.

(2002) in their meta-analysis found significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and affective commitment. In the same vein, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found a significant positive correlation between leadership variables such as leader consideration, leader initiated structures, participative leadership, leader communication and organizational commitment. In addition, the research that has examined the relationship between perceptions of organizational support and organizational support has found positive relationship between them. Meyer et al. (2002) in their meta-analysis found strong positive correlation between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment. Meyer et al. (2002) found significant positive correlation between interactional justice and procedural justice and

organizational commitment.

Moreover, in accordance with the first purpose of this study and to provide a basis for the first proposed hypotheses, previous empirical studies between specific demographic variables on organizational commitment must be considered. Hence, below provides some previous empirical research on these relationships.

Demographic Variables and Organizational Commitment

The demographic variables that were included in this research are gender; age; marital status; level of education and organizational tenure. There are contradictory findings in the relevant literature with regards to the significant differences demographic variables have on organizational commitment. For instance, some research on gender drew results that women are more committed to their organization than men (Angle & Perry; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

It seems that women have to overcome more barriers to be part of the organization and therefore their membership is more important to them (Grusky, 1966). In contrast, other studies found men employees are more committed to their organization than their female counterparts (Graddick & Farr, 1983; Knoke, 1988; Lacy, Bokemeier, & Shepard, 1983).

Mattieu and Hamel (1989) support this in their study on professional employees. In general, some researchers found that gender had no significant difference on organizational commitment (Blau & Boal, 1989; Cohen & Lowenberg, 1990) while others found that gender had a significant difference on organizational commitment (Mowday et al., 1982; Rowden, 2000). However, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, few studies if any have been conducted in Africa particularly in The Gambia on whether gender would not make significance difference on organizational commitment. Hence, gender would make no significant difference was tested in this study.

Moreover, some scholars in the organizational behavior field considered age to make a significant difference on organizational commitment. In line with this, most studies shows that age has a significant difference on organizational commitment (Mattieu & Zajac, 1990;

Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993).The reason might be that older workers are contented with their job and also current job attractiveness and attachment increases as the employee ages due to fewer other employment options (Mowday et al., 1982) and older employees might realize that leaving might cost them more than staying (Parasuraman & Nachman, 1987) and hence this might justified their stay with the organization. In contrast, some studies found age make no significant difference on organizational commitment (Cohen & Lowenberg, 1990).

In light of the later evidence, age would make no significance difference on organizational commitment was tested in this study.

Likewise, some scholars in the organizational behavior field considered marital status to have a significant difference on organizational commitment. Hence, the findings reported by Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972), Morrow (1993), and Wiedmer (2006) shows that married people were more committed to the organization than unmarried people. The reason might be because married people have more financial and family responsibilities and need more stability and security in their jobs; and therefore they are likely to be more committed to their current organization than their unmarried counterparts. On the contrary, Cohen and Lowenberg (1990) in the findings found that marital status make no significant difference on organizational commitment. In light of the later evidence, marital status would make no significance difference on organizational commitment was tested in this study.

Another demographic variable which has attracted a great deal of attention is level of education. There are conflicting findings which regards to whether level of education does make any significant difference on organizational commitment. For instance, Lacy et al.

(1983) found that highly educated people were more committed to the organization. In contrast, educational level has also been reported to make no significant difference on organizational commitment (Mattieu and Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982). It has been argued that this inverse relationship might be that highly educated individuals have higher expectations that might not be met by the organization. Hence, in light of the later studies, marital status would make no significance difference on organizational commitment was tested in this study.

Moreover, there are inconsistent findings in the literature which regards to whether organizational tenure makes any significant difference on organizational commitment.

However, some researchers indicate that organizational tenure has a significant difference on organizational commitment (Mattieu & Hamel, 1989; Mattieu & Zajac, 1990, Meyer & Allen, 1997). The reason is because as Meyer & Allen (1997) states that, as an individual’s length of service with a particular organization increases, he/she may develop an emotional attachment with the organization that makes it difficult to switch jobs. They further stated that another reason might be a simple reflection of the point that uncommitted employees leave an organization and only those with a high commitment remain. Contradictory to these findings, is Cohen and Lowenberg (1990) study who found that organizational tenure does not make a significant difference on organizational commitment. Thus, in light of later view, organizational tenure would make no significant difference on organizational commitment was tested in this study.

It is important to note that the above five demographic variables constituted the first

hypothesis in this study.

Emotional Intelligence

One area of emotion research that has involved significant and heated debate is emotional intelligence. The relevance of emotional intelligence to various aspects of human endeavor has become subject of investigation in the last two decades. It has been postulated for instance that to succeed in life will require more than innate intelligence or what is called intelligence Quotient – IQ (Goleman, 1995).Recent research on emotional intelligence has examined its relationship to team conflict (Jordan &Troth,2004) and leadership (Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002). Despite this empirical research, there is still considerable discussion regarding what constitutes the emotional intelligence construct. Below provides an

在文檔中 The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment in the Banking Sector in The Gambia (頁 21-44)