Page 37 - ASBIRES-2017_Preceedings
P. 37
Dharamasooriya, Ekanayake & Appuhamy
organization. Porter et al. (1974) further behavior is visible when organizational
describes organizational commitment as “an members are committed to existing groups
attachment to the organization, characterized within the organization”. Therefore,
by an intention to remain in it; an organizational commitment is a state of
identification with the values and goals of being, in which organizational members are
the organization; and a willingness to exert bound by their actions and beliefs that
extra effort on its behalf”. Individuals sustain their activities and their own
consider the extent to which their own involvement in the organization (Miller &
values and goals relate to that of the Lee, 2001).
organization as part of organizational 3 METHODOLOGY
commitment; therefore it is considered to be
the linkage between the individual employee The primary data of the study were
and the organization. Another perspective collected using a questionnaire, which
on organizational commitment is the consisted of 5-ponit Likert scale questions.
“exchanged-based definition” or "side-bet" This scale is define as follows. 1-Strongly
theory (Becker, 1960; Alluto, Hrebiniak & disagree, 2-Disagree, 3- Neither agree nor
Alonso, 1973). disagree, 4-Agree, and 5-Strongly agree.
This questionnaire mainly consisted of two
This theory holds that individuals are
committed to the organization as far as they sections. First section is about demographic
hold their positions, irrespective of the information of employees. Second section
stressful conditions they experience. gathers information about organizational
Mowday et al. (1982) support the “side-bet” commitment. There are three parts in section
theory by describing organizational two. Each consisted of 8, 5-ponit Likert
commitment as a behavior "relating to the scale questions to measure the affective,
process by which individuals become locked continuance and normative commitment of
into a certain organization and how they employees.
deal with this problem".
Let X denotes mean value of answers
This behavioral aspect of organizational to the set of questions under each of these
commitment is explained through three commitments, where 1 ≤ ≤ 5. Then
calculative and normative commitments. the level of organizational commitment was
Cohen (2003) states that “commitment is a measured according to the following
force that binds an individual to a course of decision rule.
action of relevance to one or more targets”.
This general description of commitment If 1 ≤ X ≤ 2.33, the organizational
relates to the definition of organizational commitment of non-managerial employees
commitment by Arnold (2005) namely that is low.
it is “the relative strength of an individual’s
identification with and involvement in an If 2.34 ≤ X ≤ 3.66, the organizational
organization”. Miller (2003) also states that commitment of non-managerial employees
organizational commitment is “a state in is moderate.
which an employee identifies a particular
organization and its goals, and wishes to If 3.67 ≤ X ≤ 5, the organizational
maintain membership in the organization”. commitment of non-managerial employees
Organizational commitment is therefore the is high.
degree in which an employee is willing to
maintain membership due to interest and Source: (Author developed)
association with the organization’s goals and The internal consistency of the
values. Reichers (1985) is of the opinion questionnaire was tested using Cronbach’s
that “organizational commitment as alpha test. Secondary data of monthly
27
