Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: does organizational hierarchy matter?

Abstract

SummaryIn the present study we sought to clarify the functional distinctions between organization identity strength, organizational identification, and organizational commitment. Data were obtained from 10 948 employees of a large steel manufacturer. First, confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the discriminant validity of the three focal constructs. Next, drawing on research that suggests hierarchical differentiation may influence individuals' conceptual frame of reference, we examined each focal construct's measurement equivalence across three hierarchical levels (officers, n ¼ 1,056, middle-management, n ¼ 1049, workers, n ¼ 1050). Finally, multigroup structural equation modeling was used to simultaneously estimate the between-group correlations between turnover intention and organization identity strength, organizational identification, and organizational commitment. Results indicated that (a) the measures used to reflect the three focal constructs were empirically distinct, (b) the focal constructs were conceptually equivalent across hierarchical levels, and (c) the pattern of correlations with turnover intention was different for employees with management responsibilities versus workers with no management responsibility. The present findings suggest perceptions of a strong organizational identity, organizational identification, and organizational commitment may influence employees' turnover intention in unique ways, depending on their hierarchical level within the organization. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The relationship between an individual member and the employing organization has long been known to have an impact on the attitudes, behavior, and well-being of individuals. In this regard, two of the more researched constructs include organizational identification and organizational commitment, both of which were developed in an attempt to understand, predict, and influence employee behavior. Organizational identification, as the more recent of the two perspectives, examines the process whereby an individual's identity becomes psychologically intertwined with the organization's identity. Although a long-standing interest to sociologists and social psychologists, the social identity approach, subsuming both social identity theory and self-categorization theory, has only recently emerged as an important perspective in organizational behavior research (see Pratt, 1998;van Dick, 2004, for reviews). The second perspective, which encompasses organizational commitment, views the

Effectiveness of organizational efforts to lower turnover intentions: The moderating role of employee locus of control

“…Organizational tenure captures the length of the employment relationship, and those with longer tenure have been found to have lower turnover intentions (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). There is also research evidence that educational level and job level are related to withdrawal intentions (Cole & Bruch, 2006;Grawitch, Trares, & Kohler, 2007;Ng & Feldman, in press). …”

Exploring Individual Change Readiness in a Chinese Context

“…Group members tend to maintain a specific collective identity when social classification makes one group apparently different from other groups [32]. Members with the same collective identity will naturally tend to share the consciousness of this social classification within the same group but refuse to share with other groups [32].…”

“…Members with the same collective identity will naturally tend to share the consciousness of this social classification within the same group but refuse to share with other groups [32]. Collective identities always mean specific goals, values, believes, norms, interaction styles and time range [33].…”

“…Individuals at higher hierarchy level like top managers and board members have the abilities to influence the organizational policies [37,38]. The hierarchy levels influence organizational commitment, organizational identification and turnover intention [32] which are connected with perceived CR tightly. Higher hierarchy level means higher discretion [39] which often relates to higher CR [40].…”

Sources of Support for Employees in Sport Organizations

“…Though no direct evidence exists, indirect evidence indicates that the relationships between constructs could be different based on occupation. For example, previous studies have shown that the relationships Sources of Support 22 between antecedents and organizational commitment and the relationships between organizational commitment and consequences of it differ based on occupations (e.g., Chelte & Tausky, 1986;Cole & Bruch, 2006). Thirdly, the relationships among coworker support, supervisor support, and organizational support should be investigated.…”