Does the Reflection of Foci of Commitment in Job Performance Weaken as Generations Get Younger? A Comparison between Gen X and Gen Y Employees
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Job Performance
2.2. Foci of Commitment
- A powerful belief in and internalization of the organization’s goals;
- A willingness to apply significant effort for the organization;
- A clear desire to continue being a member of the organization.
2.3. The Reflection of Foci of Commitment on Job Performance
2.4. Generational Differences as a Moderator of the Relationship between Foci of Commitment and Job Performance
- Baby Boomers (BB): those born between 1946 and 1961;
- Gen X: those born between 1962 and 1979;
- Gen Y: those born between 1980 and 2000;
- Gen Z: those born between 2000 and 2020 [95].
3. Research Design
3.1. Measures
3.2. Sampling
3.3. Analysis
3.4. Measurement Validation
3.5. Hypothesis Testing
3.6. Structural Model
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Measures
References
- Almutairi, D.O. The mediating effects of organizational commitment on the relationship between transformational leadership style and job performance. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 11, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jayathilake, H.D.; Daud, D.; Eaw, H.C.; Annuar, N. Employee development and retention of generation-z employees in the post-COVID-19 workplace: A conceptual framework. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021, 28, 2343–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, N.; Dhole, V. Generation Y: Perspective, engagement, expectations, preferences and satisfactions from workplace; A study conducted in Indian context. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 26, 1378–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, B.P.; Alberto, A.; Lima, T.D.F.M.; Charrua-Santos, F.M.B. Industry 4.0: Challenges and opportunities. Rev. Produção Desenvolv. 2018, 4, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheah, S.L.-Y.; Ho, Y.-P. Commercialization performance of outbound open innovation projects in public research organizations: The roles of innovation potential and organizational capabilities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 94, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, J.P.; Paunonen, S.V.; Gellatly, I.R.; Goffin, R.D.; Jackson, D.N. Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. J. Appl. Psychol. 1989, 74, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freund, A.; Carmeli, A. An empirical assessment: Reconstructed model for five universal forms of work commitment. J. Manag. Psychol. 2003, 18, 708–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, A.K.; Maddux, W.W.; Galinsky, A.D.; Chiu, C.Y. Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. Am. Psychol. 2008, 63, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khalid, J.; Khaleel, M.; Ali, J.A.; Islam, M.S. Multiple dimensions of emotional intelligence and their impacts on organizational commitment and job performance. Int. J. Ethics Syst. 2018, 34, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y. Enhancing employee communication behaviors for sense making and sense giving in crisis situations: Strategic management approach for effective internal crisis communication. J. Commun. Manag. 2018, 22, 451–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sungu, L.J.; Weng, Q.; Hu, E.; Kitule, J.A.; Fang, Q. How does organizational commitment relate to job performance? A conservation of resource perspective. Hum. Perform. 2019, 33, 52–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koo, K.; Nyunt, G. Culturally sensitive assessment of mental health for international students. New Dir. Stud. Serv. 2020, 2020, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, H.-T.; Lin, K.-C.; Li, I.-C. The mediating effects of job satisfaction on turnover intention for long-term care nurses in Taiwan. J. Nurs. Manag. 2013, 22, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, S.E.; Arthur, M.B. The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: Examining physical and psychological mobility. J. Vocat. Behav. 2006, 69, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Adresi, A.; Darun, M.R. Determining relationship between strategic human resource management practices and organizational commitment. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2017, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Da Silva, R.C.; Dutra, J.S.; Veloso, E.F.R.; Fischer, A.L.; Trevisan, L.N. Generational perceptions and their influences on organizational commitment. Manag. Res. J. Iberoam. Acad. Manag. 2015, 17, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, D.P.; Finkelstein, L.M. Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 8, 308–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kadakia, C. The Millennial Myth: Transforming Misunderstanding into Workplace Breakthroughs; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: Oakland, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, S.; Duxbury, L. Breaking the mold: Retention strategies for generations X and Y in a prototypical accounting firm. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2020, 32, 155–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, S.A. Affective commitment of generational cohorts of Brazilian nurses. Int. J. Manpow. 2012, 33, 804–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mowday, R.T.; Steers, R.M.; Porter, L.W. The measurement of organizational commitment. J. Vocat. Behav. 1979, 14, 224–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, T.E.; Billings, S.R.; Eveleth, M.D.; Gilbert, L.N. Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 464–482. [Google Scholar]
- Becker, T.E. Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Acad. Manag. J. 1992, 35, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reichers, A.E. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reichers, A.E. Conflict and organizational commitments. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldwell, D.F.; Chatman, J.A.; O’Reilly, C.A. Building organizational commitment: A multifirm study. J. Occup. Psychol. 1990, 63, 245–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szyszko, N. The Effect of a Remote Working Structure on Perceived Supervisor Support and Affective Organizational Commitment. Masters’ Thesis, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Sackett, P.R.; De Vore, C.J. Counterproductive behaviors at work. In Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 145–164. [Google Scholar]
- Rajput, N.; Marwah, P.; Balli, R.; Gupta, M. Managing multigenerational workforce: Challenge for millennium managers. Int. J. Mark. Technol. 2013, 3, 132–149. [Google Scholar]
- Anwar, F.; Ahmad, U.N.U. Mediating role of organizational commitment among leadership styles and employee outcomes. an empirical evidence from telecom sector of Pakistan. J. Bus. Manag. Sci. 2012, 2, 116–151. [Google Scholar]
- Goshal, S.; Bartlett, C.A. Changing the role of top management: Beyond systems to people. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1995, 73, 86–96. [Google Scholar]
- Deadrick, D.L.; Gardner, D.G. Maximal and typical measures of job performance: An analysis of performance variability over time. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2008, 18, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fogaça, N.; Rego, M.C.B.; Melo, M.C.C.; Armond, L.P.; Coelho, F.A., Jr. Job performance analysis: Scientific studies in the main journals of management and psychology from 2006 to 2015. Perform. Improv. Q. 2018, 30, 231–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fogaça, N.; Coelho, F.A.; Paschoal, T.; Ferreira, M.C.; Torres, C.C. Relationship between Job Performance, Well-Being, Justice, and Organizational Support: A Multilevel Perspective. Ram. Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 2021, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jonge, J.; Peeters, M.C. The vital worker: Towards sustainable performance at work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cavazotte, F.; Moreno, V.; Bernardo, J., Jr. Transformational leaders and work performance: The mediating roles of identification and self-efficacy. BAR-Braz. Adm. Rev. 2013, 10, 490–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Altaf, M.; Mohd, M.S.; Abdghani, N.H. Employee brand equity: Mediating role of brand role clarity and employee brand commitment. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2019, 27, 165–175. [Google Scholar]
- Motowidlo, S.J.; Harrison, K. Job performance. In Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed.; Weiner, I., Schmitt, N.W., Highhouse, S., Eds.; John and Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 82–103. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, I.; Hur, W.M.; Kang, S. Employees’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility and job performance: A sequential mediation model. Sustainability 2016, 8, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, J.; Zhang, H.; Morrison, A.M. The impacts of corporate social responsibility on organization citizenship behavior and task performance in hospitality. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2582–2598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, D.; Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed.; John and Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Motowidlo, S.J.; Van Scotter, J.R. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1994, 79, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, T.A. Intentional Behavior; Ronald Press: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Tosi, H.L.; Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. A Theory of goal setting and task performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winefield, H.R.; Boyd, C.; Winefield, A.H. Work-family conflict and well-being in university employees. J. Psychol. 2014, 148, 683–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bozionelos, N.; Singh, S.K. The relationship of emotional intelligence with task and contextual performance: More than it meets the linear eye. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2017, 116, 206–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borman, W.C.; Motowidlo, S. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Personnel Selection in Organizations; Schmitt, N., Borman, W.C., Eds.; Psychology Faculty Publications: Tampa, FL, USA, 1993; p. 71. [Google Scholar]
- Greenslade, J.H.; Jimmieson, N.L. Distinguishing between task and contextual performance for nurses: Development of a job performance scale. J. Adv. Nurs. 2007, 58, 602–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboagye, A.K.; Dai, B.; Bakpa, E.K. The effect of risk communication on the nurses’ task and contextual performance in disease outbreak control in Ghana: Application of the cause model. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2020, 35, 922–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dess, G.G.; Robinson, R.B., Jr. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatraman, N.; Ramanujam, V. Measurement of business economic performance: An examination of method convergence. J. Manag. 1987, 13, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dollinger, M.J.; Golden, P.A. Interorganizational and collective strategies in small firms: Environmental effects and performance. J. Manag. 1992, 18, 695–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, T.C. Research notes and communications strategic planning as competitive advantage. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delaney, J.T.; Huselid, M.A. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 949–969. [Google Scholar]
- Dawes, J. The relationship between subjective and objective company performance measures in market orientation research: Further empirical evidence. Mark. Bull. 1999, 10, 65–75. [Google Scholar]
- Wall, T.D.; Michie, J.; Patterson, M.; Wood, S.J.; Sheehan, M.; Clegg, C.W.; West, M. On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Pers. Psychol. 2004, 57, 95–118. [Google Scholar]
- Richard, O.C.; Wu, P.; Chadwick, K. The impact of entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance: The role of CEO position tenure and industry tenure. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009, 20, 1078–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anjum, M.A.; Ahmed, S.J.; Karim, J. Do psychological capabilities really matter? The combined effects of psychological capital and peace of mind on work centrality and in-role performance. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2014, 8, 502–520. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbs, A.; Pretorius, L.; Jewkes, R. Test-retest stability of self-reported violence against women measures: Results from the stepping stones and creating futures pilot. Glob. Health Action 2019, 12, 1671663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheah, C.S.; Chong, V.S.W.; Yeo, S.F.; Pee, K.W. An empirical study on factors affecting organizational commitment among generation X. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 219, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Allen, N.J.; Meyer, J.P. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. J. Vocat. Behav. 1996, 49, 252–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, L.W.; Richard, M.S.; Richard, T.M.; Paul, V.B. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. J. Appl. Psychol. 1974, 59, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angle, H.L.; Perry, J.L. An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 1981, 26, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, H.S. Notes on the concept of commitment. Am. J. Sociol. 1960, 66, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salancik, G.R.; Pfeffer, J.A. Social information processing approach to job attitude sand task design. Adm. Sci. Q. 1978, 23, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanter, M.R. Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1968, 33, 499–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etzioni, A. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, on Power, Involvement and Their Correlates; The Free Press of Glencoe: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Mowday, R.T.; Porter, L.W.; Steers, R.M. Employee Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- O’Reilly, C.A.; Chatman, J. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 492–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penley, E.L.; Gould, S. Etzioni’s model of organizational involvement: A perspective for understanding commitment to organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 1988, 9, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiener, Y. Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1982, 7, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, N.J.; Meyer, P.J. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 1990, 63, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salancik, R.G. Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In New Directions in Organizational Behavior; Stawand, B., Salancik, G., Eds.; St. Clair Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1977; pp. 1–54. [Google Scholar]
- Valeau, P.; Willems, J.; Parak, H. The effect of attitudinal and behavioral commitment on the internal assessment of organizational effectiveness: A multi-level analysis. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2016, 27, 2913–2936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polatci, S.; Demirer, M.C. Örgütlerde bağlılık odakları: Kuramsal bir bakış. J. Organ. Behav. Rev. 2019, 1, 34–52. [Google Scholar]
- Swailes, S. Organizational commitment: A critique of the construct and measures. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2002, 4, 155–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nwibere, B.M.; Olu-Daniels, S.O. Trust and employees’ commitment to supervisor: The Nigerian experience. Eur. J. Bus. and Manag. 2014, 6, 121–133. [Google Scholar]
- Akram, A.; Kamran, M.; Iqbal, M.S.; Habibah, U.; Ishaq, M.A. The impact of supervisory justice and perceived Supervisor support on organizational citizenship behavior and commitment to supervisor: The mediating role of trust. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1493902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, D.; Casimir, G.; Djurkovic, N.; Yang, L. The concurrent effects of workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and satisfaction with co-workers on affective commitment among schoolteachers in China. Int. J. Conflict Manag. 2006, 17, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çöl, G. Örgütsel bağlılık kavramı ve benzer kavramlarla ilişkisi. Güç Endüstri İlişkileri İnsan Kaynakları Derg. 2004, 6, 233. [Google Scholar]
- Hui, C.; Lee, C.; Rousseau, D. Psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harris, G.E.; Cameron, J.E. Multiple dimensions of organizational identification and commitment as predictors of turnover intentions and psychological well-being. Can. J. Behav. Sci. Rev. Can. Sci. Comport. 2005, 37, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riketta, M. Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2002, 23, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, J.; Dhar, R.L. Factors influencing job performance of nursing staff: Mediating role of affective commitment. Pers. Rev. 2016, 45, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mannheim, K. The problem of generations. In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge; Kecskemeti, P., Ed.; Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1952; pp. 276–320. [Google Scholar]
- Noble, S.M.; Schewe, C.D. Cohort segmentation: An exploration of its validity. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 979–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twenge, J.M. The age of anxiety? The birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952–1993. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 79, 1007–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dencker, J.C.; Joshi, A.; Martocchio, J.J. Employee benefits as context for intergenerational conflict. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2007, 17, 208–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, D.P.; Badger, J.M.; Fraser, R.L.; Severt, J.B.; Gade, P.A. Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. J. Bus. Psychol. 2012, 27, 375–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyons, S.T.; Schweitzer, L.; Ng, E. How have careers changed? An investigation of changing career patterns across four generations. J. Manag. Psychol. 2015, 30, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, M.; Bhal, K.T.; Ansari, M.A. Relational age and leader–member exchange: Mediating role of perceived trust. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2020, 12, 563–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolnhofer-Derecskei, A.; Reicher, R.Z.; Szeghegyi, A. The X and Y generations’ characteristics comparison. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2018, 14, 2017–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, E.S.; Schweitzer, L.; Lyons, S.T. New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stark, E.; Poppler, P. Considering heterogeneity within assumed homogenous generational cohorts. Manag. Res. Rev. 2018, 41, 74–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rani, N.; Samuel, A.A. Reducing transphobia: Comparing the efficacy of direct and indirect contact. Ind. Commer. Train. 2019, 51, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyons, S.; Kuron, L. Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 35, S139–S157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akdemir, A.; Konakay, G.; Demirkaya, H. Y kuşağının kariyer algısı, kariyer değişimi ve liderlik tarzı beklentilerinin araştırılması. Ekon. Yönetim Araştırmaları Derg. 2013, 2, 11–42. [Google Scholar]
- Demirkaya, H.; Akdemir, A.; Karaman, E.; Atan, Ö. Kuşakların yönetim politikası beklentilerinin araştırılması. İşletme Araştırmaları Derg. 2015, 7, 186–204. [Google Scholar]
- Kupperschmidt, B.R. Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management. Health Care Manag. 2000, 19, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farr-Wharton, G.; Foth, M.; Choi, J.H.-J. Identifying factors that promote consumer behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. J. Consum. Behav. 2014, 13, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bell, N.S.; Narz, M. Meeting the challenges of age diversity in the workplace. CPA J. 2007, 77, 56–59. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, S.L. Worlds in collision. J. Organ. Excel. 2006, 25, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palese, A.; Pantali, G.; Saiani, L. The management of a multigenerational nursing team with differing qualifications. Health Care Manag. 2006, 25, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Twenge, J.M.; Konrath, S.; Foster, J.D.; Campbell, W.K.; Bushman, B.J. Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. J. Pers. 2008, 76, 875–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lub, X.; Bijvank, M.; Bal, P.; Blomme, R.; Schalk, R. Different or alike? Exploring the psychological contract and commitment of different generations of hospitality workers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 24, 553–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Twenge, J.M.; Campbell, S.M.; Hoffman, B.J.; Lance, C.E. Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 1117–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.C.; Quattropani, J.; Seo, D.; Lim, H.S. The Moderating effects of employee generation on workplace retention during the Covid-19 pandemic. QRBD 2021, 8, 41–58. [Google Scholar]
- Azzam, M.A.; Harsono, M. Organizational commitment and loyalty: A millennial generation perspective in Indonesia. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 1371–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasti, S.A.; Can, O. Affective and normative commitment to organization, supervisor, and coworkers: Do collectivist values matter? J. Vocat. Behav. 2008, 73, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sieger, P.; Zellweger, T.; Nason, R.S.; Clinton, E. Portfolio entrepreneurship in family firms: A resource-based perspective. Strat. Entrep. J. 2011, 5, 327–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, S.A.; Svyantek, D.J. Person–organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter. J. Vocat. Behav. 1999, 55, 254–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jawahar, I.M.; Carr, D. Conscientiousness and contextual performance: The compensatory effects of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 330–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with observable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool for business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.; Newsted, P. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least square. Stat. Strateg. Small Sample Res. 1999, 1, 307–341. [Google Scholar]
- Kleijnen, M.; de Ruyter, K.; Wetzels, M. An assessment of value creation in mobile service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. J. Retail. 2007, 83, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory 3E; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handb. Market Res. 2017, 26, 1–40. [Google Scholar]
- Howell, J.M.; Avolio, B.J. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W.; Marcolin, B.L.; Newsted, P.R. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a monte carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 2003, 14, 189–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chin, W.W. PLS-Graph User’s Guide; CT Bauer College of Business University of Houston: Houston, TX, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.-M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling; Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Westerman, J.W.; Yamamura, J.H. Generational preferences for work environment fit: Effects on employee outcomes. Career Dev. Int. 2007, 12, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, S.; Xie, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Warner, M. New generation employees’ preferences towards leadership style in China. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2018, 24, 437–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pyöriä, P.; Ojala, S.; Saari, T.; Järvinen, K.-M. The millennial generation. SAGE Open 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Graziano, A.M.; Michael, L.R. Research Methods: A Process of Inquiry/Anthony, 3rd ed.; HarperCollins College Publishers: Longman, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tjosvold, D.; Tang, M.M.L.; West, M. Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group Organ. Manag. 2004, 29, 540–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, G.S.; Maxwell, S.E.; Wiener, R.L.; Boynton, K.S.; Rooney, W.M. Is a behavioral measure the best estimate of behavioral parameters? Perhaps not. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1980, 4, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variables | ccw | cp | co | cs | tp |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ccw | 0.821 | ||||
cp | 0.221 | 0.755 | |||
co | 0.487 | 0.285 | 0.828 | ||
cs | 0.474 | 0.248 | 0.479 | 0.787 | |
tp | 0.135 | 0.814 | 0.267 | 0.148 | 0.790 |
CR | 0.912 | 0.902 | 0.897 | 0.864 | 0.930 |
AVE | 0.674 | 0.570 | 0.686 | 0.619 | 0.624 |
α | 0.879 | 0.873 | 0.857 | 0.800 | 0.915 |
Relationships | Path Coefficient (β) | Subhypotheses | Subresults | Hypotheses | Results | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cs | → | tp | 0.126 * | H1a | Supported | H1 | Partially supported |
ccw | → | tp | 0.002 | H1b | Not Supported | ||
co | → | tp | 0.233 ** | H1c | Supported | ||
cs | → | cp | 0.114 * | H2a | Supported | H2 | Partially supported |
ccw | → | cp | 0.066 | H2b | Not Supported | ||
co | → | cp | 0.193 ** | H2c | Supported | ||
Cs *g | → | tp | −0.118 * | H3a | Supported | H3 | Marginally supported |
Ccw *g | → | tp | 0.001 | H3b | Not Supported | ||
Co *g | → | tp | 0.09 | H3c | Not Supported | ||
Cs *g | → | cp | −0.178 ** | H4a | Supported | H4 | Marginally supported |
Ccw *g | → | cp | 0.008 | H4b | Not Supported | ||
Co *g | → | cp | 0.108 | H4c | Not Supported |
Fit Measures | Endogenous Constructs | Main Effect Model | Final Model |
---|---|---|---|
R2 | tp | 0.072 | 0.076 |
cp | 0.101 | 0.131 | |
SRMR | 0.082 | 0.078 | |
NFI | 0.773 | 0.809 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Çelik, A.A.; Kılıç, M.; Altındağ, E.; Öngel, V.; Günsel, A. Does the Reflection of Foci of Commitment in Job Performance Weaken as Generations Get Younger? A Comparison between Gen X and Gen Y Employees. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169271
Çelik AA, Kılıç M, Altındağ E, Öngel V, Günsel A. Does the Reflection of Foci of Commitment in Job Performance Weaken as Generations Get Younger? A Comparison between Gen X and Gen Y Employees. Sustainability. 2021; 13(16):9271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169271
Chicago/Turabian StyleÇelik, Ahmet Alkan, Mert Kılıç, Erkut Altındağ, Volkan Öngel, and Ayşe Günsel. 2021. "Does the Reflection of Foci of Commitment in Job Performance Weaken as Generations Get Younger? A Comparison between Gen X and Gen Y Employees" Sustainability 13, no. 16: 9271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169271