Developing New Engineers and Their Effect on Organizational Commitment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

One of the biggest challenges to organizations today is to motivate their workforce. Various human resource practices are, therefore yet to be formulated in light of recent research studies placing the human resource function as integral to the success of any organization (Ferris 1999). Employee development is relatively one of the most integral aspects of human resource functions today.

The importance of this practice has been supported by recent research studies suggesting that employee development is likely to affect the success of organizations because it influences employee attitudes and behavior. Employee development is, therefore important in developing the overall capabilities of both employees and employers alike.

A central focus with regards to perceived employee development is that employee development creates an environment that is sensitive to the contributions employers make towards the employability of their employees. The perceived employee development facilitates employer’s obligations in the organization to symbolize a sense of care towards employee welfare, which in turn prompts employees to work twice as hard to ensure the organization reaches high levels of success (Arthur 1994).

Considering the turbulent business environment and the rapid changes occurring across the globe with regard to organizational structures, there is an increasing need among employers to reexamine the need for continuous development among employees with regard to their skills and techniques.

Nonetheless, the perception of how an increase in employee development affects the way employees behave, and the subsequent impact on employee attitudes is not well determined. More studies, therefore, need to be undertaken to establish this relationship; like the way the organization’s climate influences personal development skills or its influence on employee attitude and behaviors (Noe & Ford, 1992, p. 345).

For purposes of this study, we will evaluate existing literature relating to the effects of employee development of new engineers on the organizational commitment in an electrical organization. Organizational commitment should be analyzed in the context of the psychological link of employee development on the employees, as well as the employers.

The aim of this study is, therefore to establish a relationship between employee development and organizational commitment in relation to employee and employer attitudes, commitments, policies, and procedures in order to provide a baseline where future research can be undertaken. This study will, however, be multifaceted.

Firstly, the relationship between employment development, the intent to leave and job satisfaction will be evaluated as essential determinants to organizational commitment. Secondly, this study will establish the intermediary role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on the intent of the new engineers to leave the organization. However, the contributions to the study will be merged from three fronts.

First it will be based on the concept of employee commitment, such as the development of organizational commitment (additionally, we will expand this attribute with external factors such as job satisfaction among the new engineers and their intent to leave; solely for the purpose of expanding our understanding on the matter) and secondly, we will base our findings from research studies done to define the relationship employee development has on the work attitudes and behaviors of the new engineers.

Thirdly, this study will include findings from other countries to represent a cross-cultural literature input. These factors withstanding, the most significant aim of this study will be to investigate the impact of employee development on organizational commitment. Generally, these findings will, therefore, analyze employee development as an antecedent of job satisfaction, the intention of employees to leave the organization and the rate of turnover as indicators of organizational commitment

Background

Companies always need to improve their human capital skills to develop a competitive advantage over other existing companies (Schuler & Macmillan 1984). In close relation, individuals also need to develop their skills for career progression. The development of human skills is nowadays perceived as a critical component in streamlining employment relationships.

There is, therefore, an eminent gap between the objectives of employees and employers. Companies, therefore, need to come up with innovative ways to retain their employees and also develop new ways to fulfill their own interests as well as the interests of the employees.

For any employer, the most common way of developing employees, especially in technical industries is through training (Nordhaug 1989). As companies sit down and ponder on ways to improve their employees, an emphasis should be made on the impact of training and development of employees as well as organizational commitment.

Considering the dynamism of the competitive labor market as well as the different interests employers and employees have, it will be very interesting to investigate the effect of employee development and its relation to organizational commitment.

The significance of employee development (especially through training) is noted to be the biggest factor to attaining competitive advantages. Research has however, long identified that the development of employees goes way beyond the development of skills and the knowledge required to effectively complete a given job or task (Tannenbaum 1991).

With close reference to management, psychology, and labor economics, the impact of employee development on employee attitude is varied and undetermined. This stretches as far as the willingness employees will have towards retaining their services to a given organization.

The importance of retaining and recruiting new employees to be competent workers is therefore very enormous and key to the success of any given company. When companies are faced with tricky and unprecedented changes, they often change their training policies and procedures in light of new developments. These changes not only have an impending impact on the attitudes of employees but also on the organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment is however, majorly perceived as a predictor of organizational behavior or the intention of the managers or other relevant stakeholders to enhance development of employees. Various studies done to determine the effectiveness of human resource practices and training initiatives have also been identified to affect organizational commitment.

Organizational Commitment

The consequential impact employee development has on organizational commitment has been an interesting topic for most managers and researchers alike. Organizational commitment is primarily defined as the ‘psychological link between an employee and his or her organization that makes it less likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization” (Allen & Meyer 1996, p. 252).

There is enough research advanced to analyze the relationship of organizational commitment on various variables such as work absenteeism or turnover to provide a baseline for a comprehensive analysis on this topic.

One of the contemporary definitions of organizational commitment in the scientific definition is the three-model theory advanced by Meyer and Allen (1991), which will be comprehensively borrowed for the purposes of this study. The model advances the fact that both affective and continuous process of employee development represents the different states in the psychological makeup that has an impact in the way new employees will improve their commitment in the organization (Whitener 2001).

Essentially, Meyer and Allen (1991) attest that “Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to do so. Employees whose primary link the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so” (p. 67).

Implicitly, the research and commitment managers make towards the discussions and research on employee development should be undertaken in the context of an affirmative commitment. It is, however, essential to note that many models have been developed to analyze the relationship between commitment and their appropriate measures.

However, most importantly, it is crucial to note that affirmative commitment is the most essential form of commitment managers would want but of equal importance is the fact that managers would strive to instill it as they develop new engineers.

Perceived Investments in Employee Development

The most prominent factor to the increasing need for employee development arose from the realization by many organizations that companies were greatly reliant on their human resource. The perceived investment in employee development represents and increasing show of commitment on the part of employers with a ripple effect on the motivational level and employee commitment on the part of the employees (Ichniowski 1997).

Research studies have identified that throughout all types of companies and organizations, (such as non-profit business entities, automobile companies, steel companies and the likes), the investment in employee development has a sure guarantee of increased productivity and improved financial performance in the long run.

Experts have further affirmed that half of all improved productivity among companies between the period of 1929 and 1982 were attributed to employee development. Studies done by Michael Porter have also identified that companies which engage in employee development bear the strongest competitive advantages in developed markets (Porter 1990).

As previously observed, the concept of employee development revolves around the idea of equipping employees with substantial skills and knowledge to undertake new tasks. Generally, this has been identified to prepare employees for new job offerings and adequately enable them to meet the criteria for new job requirements.

This initiative falls under the criteria of human resource, which majorly reflects the programs and organized learning experiences set to improve the value of employees and their personal growth. Investments in employee development, therefore, provides organizations with a competitive edge through continuous development that seeks to equip new and existing employees with skills and techniques that’ll help them take up new labor challenges.

Perceived investments in employee development is best analyzed on the part of employees but is best reflected through the employer’s increased commitment towards equipping its employees to rise through the internal or external organizational ranks. Thus, within the context of empowering employees to scale up the career ladder, employees are bound to increase their organizational commitment through devotion of personal effort for personal and professional growth (Wayne 1997).

Studies done by some American scholars identify that increased commitment in employee development improves organizational commitment, employee retention, employee empowerment and consequently an achievement of strategic success (Wayne 1997). This, therefore, means that regardless of whether employee development is an informal or formal process, it remains a vital part in determining the productivity of a company or organization.

Employee Development and Different Types of Organizational Commitment

Research studies have shown that employees often form different notions about their employers, depending on the treatment they get in the organization with regards to the policies and procedures in place (Eisenberger 1986). In other words, they develop some human-like attributes like bad, good, inconsiderate and such like variables to describe their employers.

Essentially, these studies affirmed the fact that a positive resonance from employers with regard to employee development is likely to increase high-quality exchanges between employers and employees. This way, they create some sense of obligation on the part of employees to reciprocate the effort; which in turn rubs on the organization in beneficial ways; say, through increased productivity (Settoon 1996).

A perceived form of employee development, therefore, represents the employee’s perspective towards the manner in which the company is treating them and its commitment towards improving their marketability in both the internal and external work set-ups.

Thus, according to the motivational process of social exchange theory and the traditional norm with regard to reciprocity, it is evidently clear that employees who believe they are well taken care of by their employers, positively resonate with positive attitudes and behaviors commensurate with the level of devotion the employer has towards their employability (Gutteridge 1993).

It is therefore clear that commitment; whether affective or continuance is directly related to the level of employee development managers devote towards their workers. Both levels of organizational commitment (affective and continuous) all have a significant impact on the way companies or organizations function.

The affective component of employee commitment to the organization directly refers to the level of emotional attachment an employee would feel towards an organization while the continual commitment reflects the feelings employees have towards the organization and is primarily affected by the way employees feel attached or detached to the organization due to extraneous factors such as pension programs or the commitment of employers towards ensuring they have their families well taken care of (as opposed to a general assumption that the employers consider their needs).

There have been several studies that have tried to establish the relationship between affirmative commitment and employee development. Some studies done on American accountants identified that the level of affirmative commitment directly increased with increased training (Gutteridge 1993).

In other international studies, it was established that pre-departure expatriate training positively impacted the expatriate affective environment through the perception that organizations which undertake employee development appeared more committed towards the employability of their workers. This elicited a sharp reciprocal reaction of employee commitment towards the organization (Gutteridge 1993).

In other studies done on expatriate training and its apparent effect on organizational commitment, it was concluded that there was a positive relationship between the two variables. It was also established that the perception of the employees towards career-related motivational practices, greatly improved the psychological attachment of the employee to the organization.

This was with reference to investments in training and development. It established that the conclusions were an indicative factor to the personified commitment employers shows their employees. In turn, employees showed gratitude through increased levels of loyalty.

Other studies identified the fact that continuance commitment to organizations and companies is a manifestation of increased costs related to leaving the organization. Auxiliary studies identified employees who pay a considerable amount of their time towards mastering job skills that cannot be easily duplicated in other organizations essentially increased their organizational and continuous commitment to their current organization (Wallace 1997).

Studies done in Saudi Arabia almost confirm the same observations because employees there identified that an increase in employee development greatly increased the perception that employees are more secure in their jobs and ultimately increasing job satisfaction, implying that continuous commitment was increased (Bhuian and Shahidulislam 1996).

Training

Training is the most basic and preferable way most electrical companies would use to develop new engineers. Additionally, it is also a perfect way new engineers can learn the job (Noe 1999). The management of employee skills is an unavoidable practice in today’s business environment and employee development is likely to be spurred as management perfects the practice.

It is important to note that employee development is multifaceted and also extends beyond the skills gained by an individual or even the improvement in the productivity of the employee (Benson 2002). There are various models that have been developed to evaluate the role training has on various organizations.

The first example is the human development theory, which has been majorly advanced by economists, implying that training as a mechanism of employee development is a form of investment (Smith and Hayton 1999). The human capital theory has also advanced the fact that training is essentially a method to improve the productivity of the organization.

However, this theory identifies the fact that training should be advanced on two fronts; on specific and general fronts (Smith and Hayton 1999). However, in the late 19^th century, the neo capitalistic theory advanced the fact that training and employee development was essentially meant to improve the flexibility and adaptability of employees as well as improve their affiliation to innovative practices.

The second example relates to the human resource theory, which advances the fact that training and employee development are steered towards improving the level of commitment employees have towards the organization (Smith and Hayton 1999). This theory was initially advanced by the Harvard business school in the 80s.

Training in this theory is advanced as one of the primary tools of managing various human resource functions which if applied together with other principles, effectively induce the four core facets of human resource, which are commitment, competence, congruence and cost-effectiveness (Smith and Hayton 1999).

The third example was developed in the United States of America (USA) and Britain. It advanced the fact that with regard to training and high-performance organizations, skill trajectory of organizations is always polarized (Smith and Hayton 1999). This theory identifies that this is the main reason why many organizations become highly skilled while others lag behind in the same respect.

This implies that human resource departments have to impose a number of bundles with regard to polices and procedures for organizations to achieve improved performance. Training and employee development are obviously cited as common variables in the bundle.

The most common method used in training is a controlled management criterion where organizations can elicit an unwritten reciprocal boost in organizational commitment, including other important aspects to employee attributes like performance, attitude, behavior and the likes. Nonetheless, one of the most important reciprocal boost in employee development is Job satisfaction.

Employment Development and Job Satisfaction

The level to which employees strive to support their workers have a direct impact on the way employees perceive their job and the way they balance work and family responsibilities. Positive perceptions by employees that their employers are helping them tackle their individual problems, therefore, have a significant impact on work satisfaction.

This kind of support needs to be witnessed at all levels of management and throughout the organization because it would be fruitless, for instance, to support employees through policies and procedures while the organizational culture does not support such kind of structure. It is, therefore important to note that job satisfaction as a measure of organizational commitment should be evaluated from job outcomes instead of the objective characteristics of the organization.

With regards to the electrical company seeking to engage its new engineers in employee development, the level of organizational commitment can, therefore, be evaluated from the level of job satisfaction employees will exhibit. That said, some scholars have pointed out that employee development, unless multifaceted and effective, cannot improve organizational commitment in isolation.

This is true because if management engages in employee development from one perspective only, some of its new employees may be disgruntled on another front and probably never exhibit the high level of organizational commitment management would expect of them.

However, job satisfaction is a possible factor in organizational commitment that is directly attributed to employment development if it is motivated from all fronts. When an electrical company engages in the development of new engineers, it indirectly affects the way employees perceive different aspects of the job. Most likely, employee development affects this relationship positively, but job satisfaction can be affected either negatively or positively.

For several reasons, job satisfaction can be improved in a number of ways. In the first place, new engineers may perceive the organization as a custodian of their future career growth. Secondly, the new engineers will not fail to see the role of employee development in equipping them with new skills (which they essentially never had in the first place). Skills acquired by the new engineers will also be beneficial to them in the general job market (Feldman 1996).

It is obviously clear that if the company makes the new engineers feel they are increasing their employability, they are bound to experience higher levels of job satisfaction. In addition, the new engineers will have a better perception of the company and thereby increase the overall positive feeling towards the employer, consequently improving job satisfaction.

Studies have been done to affirm the fact that employees experience an increase in job satisfaction if the company they are working for invests enough in them. These conclusions were derived from a case study citing two multinational organizations (Scarpello & Campbell 1983). Other studies have affirmed the fact that employee development in form of training improves the overall level of job satisfaction in the long run (Naumann 1993).

Job satisfaction, therefore, comes from the fact that employees feel satisfied with their work if they are under the impression that their employees care about their well-being. Based on these empirical studies, it is correct to conclude that there is a positive relationship between the employee development and job satisfaction.

Intent to Leave

Employee turnover is a huge determinant of organizational costs in any organization. Turnover is however affected by many factors, but a key factor is the level of organizational commitment employees have towards the organization and the level of employee development to determine that.

The costs of employee turnover are diverse and may range from poor employee morale (for remaining employees), opportunity costs, selections and training of new employees, among others. These costs are often heavily felt when an organization loses its best employees and tries to replace them accordingly. It is therefore important to establish the relation between employee development and employee turnover.

The intent to leave an organization has been identified through continuous research as the last among the cognitive process of having the most immediate causal effect on employee turnover (Bedeian 1991). The rate of turnover is expected to increase as employees have the pressing intent to leave the organization. It is vital to establish the relationship between investigating the importance of employee intent to leave and determining an employee’s turnover characteristics.

Employee development and training are therefore bound to have a direct impact on company turnover (Colarelli & Montei 1996). Predictably, employee development is bound to decrease the intent of employees to leave the organization and also increase employee organizational commitment. This is true because of a number of reasons. Firstly, employees often engage in social talks, which enable them evaluate their circumstances with other companies which either offer better or worse employee terms.

In this case, scenario where the company is investing in employee development, the new engineers are likely to feel appreciated by the organization because employee development will increase the value of the company in their eyes, consequently increasing the likelihood of the new engineers to be attached to the organization. Secondly, low intent to leave the organization or increased organizational commitment has been identified as a strategy by employees to thank the organization for caring for their needs.

Such efforts made by the organization may include the development or updating of new skills, such that employees do not grow obsolete in the labor market. Researchers such as Kalleberg and Rognes (2000) have attested to this fact and note that employee development has a negative relation with employee turnover. Other studies undertaken in America have also observed that turnover has a negative correlation with training.

The new engineers undergoing different forms of employee development are, therefore likely to experience a high level of success, satisfaction, and an increased sense of commitment to the organization that is set to tremendously reduce their intent to leave.

This conclusion has been backed up by a number of studies confirming that job satisfaction and affective commitment have a directly inverse correlation with employee turnover, regardless of whether it was unintended or intended. These findings have also been resonated in researches done on employees in Singapore, which arrived at the same conclusions.

In essence, when employees invest in employee development, employees are bound to have high levels of confidence and satisfaction which consequently makes them develop a high sense of loyalty and productivity in the organization. Thus, it is correct to note that with all factors constant, when employees are satisfied with their jobs, they are less likely to leave the organization because they will eventually develop an emotional attachment to it.

Affective commitment describes the employee’s intention not to leave the organization and continuous commitment describes the intention employees have to stay with the organization for long. This equilibrium is often destabilized when employees feel the cost of leaving is the same as that of staying or when the cost of staying in the organization is higher than the costs of termination (Suliman and Iles 2000). However, if the company engages in employee development, there is minimal chance the equilibrium will be destabilized.

An investment in employee development is therefore potentially a strategy to increase the perceived costs of leaving the organization while reducing the cost of staying. In addition, the company is likely to boost its chances of retaining its employees for long. This observation is true despite the eminent danger of employees leaving the organization to be employed in other companies, out of improved skills.

This is especially true because even if the employees leave their initial places of work for another job elsewhere, they run the risk of experiencing obsolescence from another organization, which may not necessarily have a positive impact on their careers (Ghoshal 1999). This, therefore, reduces their intent to leave.

Findings

It is clear from the above analysis depicting a positive correlation between employee development and organizational commitment that the electrical company will experience a positive impact on organizational commitment because employee development has been noted to have a positive impact on affective and continual development (Meyer 2000). These factors are derived from the fact that employee development and the perceived benefits will improve employee motivation.

The study has analyzed the works of various authors who have also analyzed several variables to conceptualize the construct of employee development. For purposes of future studies, these independent or dependent variables need to be analyzed with regard to how they affect each other.

The affective attribute to organizational commitment is directly affected by access to employee development programs while the effect of job satisfaction acts in moderation. The awareness of rules and procedures, employee motivational levels and the quality of management are identified as the basic factors between organizational commitment and employee development (Ahmad & Bakar 2003).

Conclusion

Conclusions derived from this study have serious implications on the electrical company. Increased investment in employees is bound to improve the level of morale among the new engineers and increase the organizational commitment by urging them to stay on. Implicitly, this means that the organization needs to give more attention to investment and planning of company activities to increase organizational commitment and also increase the level of job satisfaction among new engineers.

It is evidently clear that the relationship between employee development and organizational commitment is positive because with increased employee development, there is a subsequent increase in organizational commitment. This study also establishes that the biggest influential factor in organizational commitment is the perceived access to employee development.

Accordingly, the perceived benefits of employee development, organizational environment to employee development, employer support to employee development and the overall social support of employees have been identified to be the biggest determinants of organizational commitment. It is therefore a challenge to the electrical company to improve these variables so that employee commitment can be further enhanced.

However, empirical studies done on this relationship still needs to be further explored because the relationship is rather premature. These findings confirm previous research findings advancing the fact that human resource functions such as training and employee development have the greatest impact on affective commitment, especially when it is assumed that employees are primarily affected by the fact that employers take care of their employment needs. The availability of employee development programs will, therefore, boost affective and continuous commitment in the long run.

The theory behind these findings is that when employees perceive the employee development program as one that takes care of their needs, they are likely to reciprocate the same level of devotion through affective and continuous commitment.

If the company’s main aim is to attain a competitive advantage over its competitors, then employee development is the way to go. It is not enough that this investment improves employee skills through the provision of benefits such as the acquisition of skills or career progression because they are also bound to improve company productivity.

In fact, employee development creates a form of dynamic relationship, consequently beneficial to the organization because employees become more motivated to work due to high levels of job satisfaction and increased commitment towards the organization.

Finally, it is important to note that many functions relating to employability are quickly gaining ground with respect to the changing working landscape. In light of an uncertain business environment characterized by mergers, layoffs and downsizing, the importance of employee commitment cannot be overemphasized.

However, none of the research cited in this study is conclusive enough to depict a straightforward relationship between employee development and organizational commitment, though indicative findings are encouraging and advance the fact that organizational commitment is likely boosted through employee development.

References

Ahmad, K. & Bakar, R., (2003) The Association between Training And Organizational Commitment among White-Collar Workers in Malaysia. International Journal of Training and development, 7, p. 3.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P., (1996) Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment: An Examination of Construct Validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, pp. 252-276.

Arthur, J. B., (1994) Effects of Human Resource System on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp. 670–87.

Bedeian, A., (1991) Career Commitment and Expected Utility of Present Job as Predictors of Turnover Intentions and Turnover Behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, pp. 331–43.

Benson, G. S., (2002) Beyond Skill Development: The Effects of Training And Development on the Attitudes and Retention of Employees. California: University of Southern California.

Bhuian, S. N. & Shahidulislam, M., (1996) Continuance Commitment and Extrinsic Job Satisfaction among a Novel Multicultural Expatriate Workforce. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 32, pp. 1–9.

Colarelli, S. M. & Montei, M.S., (1996) Some Contextual Influences on Training Utilization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, pp. 306–23.

Eisenberger, R., (1986) Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, pp. 500–7.

Feldman, D. C., (1996) Managing Careers in Downsizing Firms. Human Resource Management, 35 (2), pp. 145–61.

Ferris, G. R., (1999) Human Resources Management: Some New Directions. Journal of Management, 25, pp. 385–415.

Ghoshal, S., (1999) A New Manifesto for Management. Sloan Management Review, 40, pp. 9–20.

Gutteridge, T. G., (1993) When Careers Flower, Organizations Flourish. Training and Development Journal, 47, pp. 24–9.

Ichniowski, C., (1997) The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity. American Economic Review, 87, pp. 291–313.

Kalleberg, A. L. & Rognes, J., (2000) Employment Relations in Norway: Some Dimensions and Correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, pp. 315–35.

Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J., (1991). A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61-89.

Meyer, J., (2000) HRM Practices and Organizational Commitment: Test of a Mediation Model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17 (4), pp. 319-31.

Naumann, E., (1993) Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction and Commitment among Expatriate Managers. Group and Organization Management, 18, pp. 153–87.

Noe, R. A. & Ford, J. K., (1992) Emerging Issues and New Directions for Training Research: Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Noe, R., (1999) Employee Training and Development. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Nordhaug, O., (1989) Reward Functions of Personnel Training. Human Relations, 42 (5), pp. 373-88.

Porter, M., (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.

Scarpello, V. & Campbell, J. P., (1983) Job Satisfaction and the Fit between Individual Needs and Organizational Reward. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, pp. 315–29.

Schuler, R. S. & Macmillan, I. C., (1984) Gaining Competitive Advantage through Human Resource Practices. Human Resource Management, 23 (3), pp. 241-255.

Settoon, R.P., (1996) Social Exchange in Organizations: Perceived Organizational Support, Leader–Member Exchange, and Employee Reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), pp. 219–27.

Smith, A. & Hayton, G., (1999) What Drives Enterprise Training? Evidence From Australia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10 (2), pp. 251-272.

Suliman, A. & Iles, P., (2000) Is Continuance Commitment Beneficial to Organizations? Commitment–Performance Relationship: A New Look. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15 (5), pp. 407–26.

Tannenbaum, S. L., (1991) Meeting Trainees’ Expectations: The Influence of Training Fulfilment in the Development of Commitment, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, pp. 759-769.

Wallace, J. E., (1997) Becker’s Side-Bet Theory of Commitment Revisited: It Is Time for a Moratorium or a Resurrection? Human Relations, 50, pp. 727–49.

Wayne, S.J., (1997) Perceived Organizational Support and Leader- Member Exchange: A Social Exchange Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, pp. 82–111.

Whitener, E. M., (2001) Do “High Commitment” Human Resource Practices Affect Employee Commitment? A Cross-Level Analysis Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Journal of Management, 27, pp. 515–35.

Click Here To Order Now!