This study presents a new approach to assessing commitment reflecting the Klein, Molloy, and Brinsfield (2012) reconceptualization. Klein et al. recast the construct to address issues hindering commitment scholarship, but their claims cannot be tested with existing measures. This paper presents a 4-item measure consistent with the Klein et al. conceptual definition, a measure intended to be unidimensional and applicable across all workplace targets. Our purpose is to present the development of and provide initial validity evidence for this new commitment measure and to compare it to existing alternative measures. Hypotheses around these objectives were tested with data gathered across 5 samples yielding 2,487 participants representing a wide range of jobs, organizations, and industries. Each sample examined a unique set of variables and targets that together provide a comprehensive test of this new measure relative to 8 different targets, several constructs within the nomological network, and 4 prior commitment measures. Results support our hypotheses regarding (a) the measure's properties and structure, (b) convergence and divergence with prior measures of commitment and other constructs in the nomological network, and (c) advantages over prior measures. These findings support the validity of this new approach to assessing commitment, laying the foundation for future research to address critiques of the commitment construct; better examine the multiple commitments individuals simultaneously hold; and bring consistency, synergy, and integration to commitment scholarship across workplace targets. The conceptual, methodological, and practical benefits of the measure are discussed, along with study limitations and future research opportunities.

No abstract

To reassess and enhance our understanding of employee commitments in contemporary organizations, we conducted a mixed-method study. In open-ended surveys, we asked employees (N = 712) to explain why they are committed to various work-related targets (organization, coworker, organizational goal, and occupation).We content analyzed the responses and derived 15 distinct explanations for those commitments. We then compared these explanations to extant commitment models and examined how explanations varied across commitment targets. Finally, we examined the relationship between these explanations and commitment strength. Our findings indicate that many factors in extant commitment models are still relevant (e.g., Social Exchange), but other aspects of those models were not mentioned by participants (e.g., competition) or mentioned very infrequently (e.g., No Choice). Perhaps most importantly, some current explanations (e.g., Altruism) are not represented in extant models. In addition, some explanations were provided more or less often for different commitment targets. For example, Social Exchange was provided more frequently for coworker commitment but less frequently than expected by chance for organizational goal commitment. Finally, explanations differentially related to commitment strength, with stronger commitment associated with Social Exchange than with Financial Exchange. The implications of these findings for theory and human resource management practice are discussed.

No abstract

The work‐family literature examines the degree to which work and family roles can be segmented or integrated by an individual. In the family firm, the requirement that work and family roles be integrated creates tension for family employees, particularly those who prefer higher degrees of segmentation between the roles. Integrating family firm with family relations research, this article explores potential difficulties experienced by family employees in making transitions from their family role to work role and the potential for family employees to engage in deviant behavior due to unresolved conflict and ambiguity from work‐family role integration. These difficulties, we argue, are in part due to problems in separating role expectations when they come from indistinct sources; that is, when the boss and father, for example, are the same person. We explain how the tensions between work and family can create a cycle of deviance in the family and family firm domains.