The effects of HRM practices and antecedents on organizational commitment among university employees

Abstract

The effects of HRM practices and antecedents on organizational commitment among university employees Smeenk, S.G.A.; Eisinga, R.N.; Teelken, J.C.; Doorewaard, J.A.C.M. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Abstract This paper examines which factors affect organizational commitment among Dutch university employees in two faculties with different academic identities (separatist versus hegemonist, Stiles, 2004). The analyses of Web survey data reveal that in the separatist faculty decentralization, compensation, training/development, positional tenure and career mobility have significant effects. Age, organizational tenure, level of autonomy, working hours, social involvement and personal importance significantly affect the employees' organizational commitment in the hegemonist faculty. Participation, social interactions and job level are factors that are important in both faculties. The findings indicate that the set of factors affecting the organizational commitment of employees differs between the separatist and hegemonist faculties. The findings empirically support the argument that different configurations or 'bundles' of HRM practices (Delery and Doty, 1996;Guest, 1997) are suited for organizations with different identities. Explanations for the observed relationships, implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

Organizational Commitment and Rewards in Vietnam, with Comparison between University Graduates and Others

“…8 2017 most relevant to their current jobs were able to attain more positive commitment outcomes and had less of intention to quit (Burke, 1995). Some findings from empirical work on employees in the West are supportive of a link between training provision and OC (Bartlett, 2001;Owens, 2006;Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997) but some other studies found insignificant relation (Shore & Barksdate, 1998) or significant but negative relation (Smeenk, Eisinga, Teelken, & Doorewaard, 2006). The reasons of such mixed results may partly be because of market imperfection in which a company is not always successful to employ a person whose skill is compatible to what the company needs.…”

Managerialism, Organizational Commitment, and Quality of Job Performances among European University Employees

“…This judgment is challenged by others who argue that managerialism works against its own intentions of efficient and effective quality improvement (see Bryson 2004;Davies and Thomas 2002;Thornhill et al 1996;Trow 1994b). The latter situation is what we call a 'managerialism contradiction' (Smeenk et al 2006) and the purpose of this paper is to examine its possible existence by testing two lines of reasoning. In the first one, managerialism is suggested to have a direct effect on the quality of performances ('direct effect argumentation').…”

Do we work hard or are we just great? The effects of organizational pride due to effort and ability on proactive behavior

“…Finally, although university employees are the prototype of knowledge workers and organizational commitment is a particularly interesting research area for university employees (Smeenk et al 2006), additional research in other areas of knowledge work such as for example professional service companies is necessary to extend the generalizability of our findings. In these organizations, indirect managerial control such as instilling pride is assumed to be particularly important because it is more difficult to control employees' outcomes and quality of work (Alvesson and Willmott 2002).…”