Organizational Commitment and Person-Environment Fit in Six Western Countries

Abstract

The connection between work environment and organizational commitment (OC) is investigated and compared across six western countries, using data from the 1997 International Social Survey Program (ISSP). Differences in work environment are examined on two levels: (1) with reference to theoretical literature and empirical findings in comparative research and (2) with reference to how individuals perceive their workplace situation in relation to their personal evaluations of different workplace features (person-environment fit). Although no connection between work environment and OC is found when countries are compared on the basis of literature on the differences in the organization of production, the connection proves to be salient with respect to individual and group levels. The result suggests that the most important factor for OC in all countries is a job that the individual finds interesting. A control for job satisfaction makes it clear that the effect of finding the work interesting is independent of satisfaction with work. Other similarities and differences between the countries are also identified and discussed. New avenues for further comparative research are suggested.During the latter part of the 20th century, organizational responses and attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment and their possible links to organizational behaviour received increasing attention from behavioural and social scientists. During the same period, the importance of work and organizational factors as determinants for the outcome of both organizational attitudes and behaviour were emphasized, as never before, by scientists, managers and politicians. The fruitfulness of comparative research designs that include cultural and institutional differences as important factors was also advocated (e.g. Kalleberg 1988).There are quite a few recent studies in which work and organizational circumstances (on the basis of participation, work autonomy, quality of work tasks and so on) have been compared across western capitalist countries (OECD 1999: 178-221;Dobbin and Boychuk 1999; Gooderham et al. 1999;Gallie 2000;Gill and Krieger 2000). These studies indicate some substantial country differences regarding organizational environment. However, there is no complementary up-to-date study that investigates the mechanism between Organization Studies 26(2): 249-270

Person–environment fit.

“…The second approach, termed molecular, assesses the perceived discrepancy between P and E (i.e., does your job supply you with more, exactly the right amount, or less of something than you need?). Few studies in PE fit use this approach (for an exception, see Hult, 2005), but it is popular in discrepancy theories of job satisfaction (e.g., Lance, Mallard, & Michalos, 1995;Rice, McFarlin, & Bennett, 1989) and stress (Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976;Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970). This approach is consistent with perceived fit and likely reflects the conceptualization of fit as commensurate compatibility.…”

Age, Policy Changes and Work Orientation: Comparing Changes in Commitment to Paid Work in Four European Countries

“…The second dependent variable in this study is therefore 'organisational commitment'. This type of commitment includes a non-financial aspect in that it has been shown that the expressed level of commitment is governed by perceived work content in the respondents' job, rather than by perceived economical incentives (Hult 2005). There is no reason to expect policy changes in retirement systems to affect peoples organisational commitment in all age groups since the development of this attitude is mainly governed by circumstances in the particular organisation.…”

The Impact of Family and Job Content on Swedish Seafarers’ Occupational Commitment – A Gendered Issue?

“…This approach has been applied in a multitude of studies on work related attitudes (e.g. Hackman and Lawler 1971, Mottaz, 1988, Hult 2005, 2012b.…”