The Commitment to Organizations - Research Paper Example

? Engage in a critical discussion of whether you think that it is appropriate for organisations to require commitment from employees but not give it in return or whether you believe that commitment is a mutual exchange. 1. Introduction The success of organizations within their industry is usually evaluated by referring to the level at which organizational goals have been achieved. At this point, the commitment of employees to their organization’s needs seems to have a critical value; in organizations where employees are highly committed to organizational goals, high perspectives exist in regard to the organizational development. The various aspects of commitment, as an element of modern organizations, are reviewed in this paper. Particular emphasis is given on the issue whether commitment is a mutual exchange or not, so that a clear answer is given to the following question: is it appropriate for organisations to require commitment from employees but not give it in return? The literature developed in regard to this subject has been reviewed. Most researchers seem to emphasize on the need for high employee commitment to the organization in order for the organizational success to be secured. It has been also revealed that most organizations demand from their employees to be committed to the organization’s needs without giving commitment in return. The lack of resources for providing such support seems to be the most common reason for the above phenomenon. Even under these terms, organizations could not justify their decision not to be committed to their employees, especially when they demand by their employees to be committed to organization’s needs. 2. Commitment to organizations – characteristics and role 2.1 Description of commitment The identification of the role of commitment within modern organizations requires the understanding of the context of commitment, i.e. of its elements and characteristics, as developed in organizations of different sectors. Harper (2008) noted that organizational commitment could be described as ‘the commitment to an action that is consistent to the stated goals of the organization’ (Harper 2008, p.7). According to this view, organizational commitment need to meet a key criterion, meaning the promotion of the goals of the organization. Supporting organizational initiatives (plans or actions) which are not linked to the organization’s goals, cannot be characterized as commitment but rather as support to the personal interests and aims of specific members of the organization. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) noted that ‘commitment is the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization’ (Mowday, Porter and Steers 1982, cited by Allen and Wilburn, 2002, p.24). From a different point of view, Artley (2008) notes that commitment cannot be considered as equal to loyalty. Of course, those employees who are committed to their organization are also considered as being loyal to the particular organization, but not the vice versa. This view is aligned with that of Becker (1960), one of the first researchers who studied organizational commitment. According to Becker (1960), organizational commitment ‘is based on consistent behaviour’ (Becker 1960, cited by Artley 2008, p.9), i.e. the behaviour of employees that is aligned with organizational goals. Organizational commitment, in the above context, is not developed randomly; rather, employees become committed to the organization after linking their personal interests (such as pension plans or other benefits) with specific organizational activities (Becker 1960, p.32, cited by Artley 2008, p.10). From this point of view, organizational commitment is a mutual exchange, an issue that is discussed further in section 2.3 below. At the same time, Downs and Allyson (2004) note that organizational commitment is not depended on informal communication, as one could possibly expect, but rather on the formal communication developed within organizations (Downs and Allyson 2004, p.72). Summarizing the views discussed in this section, organizational commitment could be described as the engagement of employees to organizational activities that are aligned with organizational goals and which are based on communication and cooperation between employees in different organizational departments. 2.2 Is commitment synonymous with engagement? According to the issues highlighted above, organizational commitment is related to different elements of the organization. For example, Downs and Allyson (2004) have identified a strong relationship between commitment and formal communication; still these two concepts are differentiated addressing different organizational needs. A common problem when studying organizational commitment is the identification of this concept’s relationship with engagement. In order to understand the relationship between commitment and engagement, as referring to the organizational environment, it would be necessary to explain the role of commitment within each organization; also, the context of engagement, as an organizational concept should be analyzed; then, the relationship between commitment and engagement, would be made clear. Cohen (2003) emphasizes on the importance of commitment in ‘predicting organizational turnover’ (Cohen 2003, p.18). It is explained that organizations where commitment is high, ‘absenteeism is low while employee performance is high’ (Cohen 2003, p.18), as compared to organizations where the commitment of employees is low and where employee performance is kept at low levels. At the next level, Cohen (2003) supports that organizational commitment helps to understand the potentials of employees to focus on the achievement of organizational goals and to remain loyal to the organization. In any case, it seems that the commitment of employees to the organization is influenced by certain ‘extraneous factors, such as income, and internal factors, such as interpersonal relations’ (Cohen 2003, p.19). In other words, organizational commitment reflects the level at which employees are able to set appropriate priorities and to understand the importance of organizational needs, as opposed to their, personal, interests. Thus, in organizations where employee performance is high, it is assumed that organizational commitment is at satisfactory levels, and vice versa. Engagement is a term widely used in organizations, usually for reflecting the level at which employees are loyal to their organization. Engagement is a term narrower than commitment; in fact, according to Allen and Wilburn (2002) engagement is, along with interpersonal relations, one of the key elements of organizational commitment. Cook (2008) describes employee engagement as ‘the passion and the energy that employees have to give for helping their organization to succeed’ (Cook 2008, p.3). From a similar point of view, Kahn (1990) describes employee engagement as ‘the harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles’ (Kahn 1990, p.694, cited by Cartwright and Cooper 2009, p.161); it is assumed that employee engagement shows the readiness of employees to participate in any initiative promoting organizational goals; the actual participation of employees in these initiatives is possibly out of the scope of employee engagement. In other words, employee engagement reflects the psychology of employees, meaning their willingness to support their organization, and not the physical efforts of employees in supporting organizational goals. At this point, employee engagement is differentiated from organizational commitment, which refers both to employees’ willingness and physical efforts for promoting the goals of their organization. The above view is further verified by the definition of employee engagement as developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002); in the context of the specific definition, employee engagement is ‘a work-related state of mind that is characterized by dedication and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al. 2002, cited by Burke and Cooper 2009, p.51). 2.3 Is commitment a mutual exchange? Commitment is a critical element of organizational environment, having the power to significantly affect organizational performance. Still, commitment is not highly developed within modern organizations, mostly because of the following reason: employees do not feel that their organization is committed to them; as a result, they also avoid being committed to the organization (Sarlak 2010). Gibson (1999) note that commitment cannot promote organizational performance unless it is mutual; it is explained that in most cases commitment is developed only by one side, usually by employees’ side, a fact that lead to severe organizational turbulences, even in the long term (Gibson 1999). Slugoski (2008) claims that commitment can be a mutual exchange only in organizations where employees are highly valued; in these organizations employee satisfaction tends to be high, a fact that keeps organizational performance at high levels. In any case, in order for commitment to be a mutual exchange it is necessary for the following conditions to exist: a) the organizational environment (internal and external) need to be supportive towards the initiatives of employees, encouraging the participation of employees in key organizational activities, b) employees’ attitudes towards organizational commitment need to be positive, meaning that employees need to have the willingness to support organizational goals; the perceptions of employees on organizational goals and their willingness to support these goals can be diagnosed early, even in the hiring process (Daft and Marcic 2010). 2.5 Is it appropriate for organizations to ask employees to be committed to organization’s needs without giving it in return? The achievement of organizational goals is the key priority for organizations in all sectors. Moreover, it has been proved that organizational goals cannot be achieved unless employees support them. However, often, organizations ask their employees to be committed to organization’s needs without giving it in return. This phenomenon has been extensively studies in the literature. According to Cooper (2003) organizations are often unable to be committed to their employees, even if the latter are committed to them, because of the following fact: conditions in the internal and external organizational environment tend to change continuously; organizations are often unable to follow the market’s trends, especially in regard to the increase of wages or the decrease of working hours, as a result of changes on government’s priorities. This means that organizations become unable to be committed to their employees. On the other hand, it is more difficult for organizations to be committed to their employees than the opposite. Employees have specific needs; they can prioritize their needs, as aligned with the organizational goals, and propose appropriate plans of action. On the other hand, organizations have to deal with a wide range of needs and perceptions, meaning the needs and perceptions of all its stakeholders, including employees and customers. For most organizations it would be quite difficult to deal effectively with the needs of all their stakeholders, i.e. to be committed to their stakeholders. Still, such target would be feasible if an appropriate plan would be introduced (Snell and Bohlander 2012). In other words, the lack of organization’s commitment towards its stakeholders, including its employees, reveals not the lack of adequate organizational resources but rather the lack of willingness for dealing with the particular issue. Moreover, according to Millward (2005) the lack of organization’s commitment to its employees can severely harm employee satisfaction leading to the decrease of organizational performance. On the other hand, if employees are not committed to the organization, this fact can harm organizational performance but not severely, especially if the problem lasts for a limited period of time (Millward 2005). Based on this fact, it can be stated that an organization should not ask its employees to be committed to organizational needs in case that the organization does not give commitment in return. The effects of such practice would be severe for the organization, both in the short and the long term, in the context described above. 3. Conclusion The responses of employees to critical organizational issues cannot be precisely estimated in advance. In fact, each employee is likely to perceive differently organizational needs setting different priorities in regard to his role within his organization. In any case, employees have a key role in the development of organizational plans but, commonly, they do not have the power to support their rights within the organization. Moreover, it has been proved that employee commitment can highly affect organizational performance. It is for this reason that most organizations ask from their employees to be committed to organizational needs. At the same time, it has been revealed that not all organizations are committed to their employees, a practice that can be characterized as inappropriate and unethical taking into consideration the following fact: no organization can survive without the support of its employees, meaning that employees have a key role in the achievement of organizational goals. From this point of view, organizations should focus on the needs of their employees as a priority, a strategy that could secure the standardization of organizational performance. When the needs of employees are disregarded, the specific practice negatively affects the employer-employee relationship, leading to delays or cancellations of organizational plans. References Allen, D., Wilburn, M. (2002) Linking customer and employee satisfaction to the bottom line: a comprehensive guide to establishing the impact of customer and employee satisfaction on critical business outcomes. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press. Artley, J. (2008) The impact of leadership practices on Generation X employee commitment in the health insurance industry. London: ProQuest. Burke, R., Cooper, C. (2009) The Peak Performing Organization. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Cartwright, S., Cooper, C. (2009) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Well-Being. Oxford Handbooks Online. Cohen, A. (2003) Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach. London: Routledge. Cook, S. (2008) The Essential Guide to Employee Engagement: Better Business Performance Through Staff Satisfaction. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Cooper, C. (2003) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Daft, R., Marcic, D. (2010) Understanding Management. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Downs, C., Allyson, A. (2004) Assessing organizational communication: strategic communication audits. New York: Guilford Press. Gibson, J. (1991) International organizations, constitutional law, and human rights. New York: ABC-CLIO. Harper, D. (2008) An examination of relationships among employee commitment, the implementation of software-based technological change processes, and project success. London: ProQuest. Millward, L. (2005) Understanding occupational and organizational psychology. London: SAGE. Sarlak, M. (2010) The New Faces of Organizations in the 21st Century: A Management and Business Reference Book. Toronto: NAISIT Publishers. Slugoski, E. (2008) Employee retention: Demographic comparisons of job embeddedness, job alternatives, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. London: ProQuest. Snell, S., Bohlander, G. (2012) Managing Human Resources. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Read More