The practical side of job attitudes arises from the comprehensive works on societal attitudes. An attitude is a psychosomatic propensity that is articulated by the assessment of a certain object with some degree of credit or discredit. Therefore, the idea of assessment is a uniting topic in attitudes study. One issue that is subject to the attitudes research is that people may elaborate an estimation of an almost unlimited number of objects.
Some of these attitudes may seem insignificant, no less than in a universal psychological meaning, or maybe appropriately partitioned that they are only of specific interest. Considering this variety of attitude objects, it is established to consider job attitudes as a central and fundamental characteristic of societal attitudes.
The summary of key issues that Swailes raises
Swailes, in his 2002 research, reviewed the basic ideas of organizational commitment and focused on the difference between commitment and allegiance (Swailes, 2002). Whereas the connection between conversational and organizational management is equally well recognized, the consequences concerning the probable connection between organizational commitment and performance are more uncertain and designate only a feeble affiliation. This is expressly so when autonomous performance measure procedures are used instead of idiosyncratic self-assessment (Swailes, 2002).
Commitment has been observed as having an emotional protraction or behavioral foundation curtailing from required socioeconomic and interactive bonds correspondingly. The concept of a person’s commitment can switch between these foundations over time in reply to what happened during labor and non-labor events. Committing attitudes may lead to behavior that, successively, emphasizes attitudes in a self-supporting sequence (Swailes, 2002). According to Swailes, high commitment from workers is presumed to be beneficial for the companies, providing a variety of tactics for organizational persistence.
He also states that before the committee study field was completely understood, organizations responded to the turbulent corporate atmosphere and transformed the rational limitations within which commitment had been examined before (Swailes, 2002). The majority of research on commitment has been outshined by anxieties about how to elicit and sustain high commitment in the innovative scheme for employee relations. There is a critical disadvantage in these conceptualizations that centers upon the difference between the fundamentals of commitment and the portrayal of commitment itself.
One of the main issues of measurement of organizational commitment is the cohort of individuals who cannot quit their job simply because it is difficult for them to accept the fact that they have to. They may fine-tune their insights to follow the necessities of their duty. In this situation, the use of the word “commitment” obviously associates commitment with incapability to resign. Consistent with Swailes, albeit commitment has a modest structure, it is believed that it has been misguided by investigators who became worried about its roots and upshots, but neglected the straightforward question of what it essentially is.
Riketta’s view of organizational commitment
The concept proposed by Riketta reflects that the two utmost commonly studied job attitudes are job consummation, demarcated as a perceptive assessment of one’s job as relatively encouraging or adverse, and attitudinal organizational commitment, well-defined as the comparative asset of a personality’s identification with a connection to a certain organization (Riketta, 2008).
With the use of meta-critical deterioration analysis and its limited emphasis on research with recurrent measurements, this meta-critical analysis performed a more laborious test of fundamental associations between job attitudes and job performance than prior studies on these links (Riketta, 2008). No major fluctuations in the work setting, for instance, an organizational synthesis or modification in the assignment of the partakers, arose between the measurement waves. The statistics were examined at the discrete level rather than at the cluster level.
This measure was comprised, as most hypotheses on the job attitude–performance relation alludes to specific personal processes and because these relationships are not equivalent to cluster-level parallels (Riketta, 2008). The outcomes provide some backing for the common statement that job attitudes impact worker’s performance as the effect was feeble but noteworthy.
The upshot was substantial for both job consummation and commitment. The effect inclined to be sturdier for smaller time intervals between measurements and commitment before consummation. Practically no noteworthy indication for the converse causal direction arose. This verdict proposes that job attitudes are more liable to stimulate performance than vice versa (Riketta, 2008).
Harrison’s view of organizational commitment
In their study, Harrison, Newman, and Roth state that notwithstanding the conceptual and pragmatic differences, it is obvious that job satisfaction and organizational commitment have hypothetical and practical shared aims. Both satisfaction and commitment are broad-based on prearranged actions (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). It is rational to consider job satisfaction and commitment to be the two definite reproductions of a universal attitude, as each is an ultimate appraisal of an individual’s work experiences.
Harrison, Newman, and Roth argue that they can hypothesize both job satisfaction and organizational commitment as signifying the cause of general job attitude (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). To examine the compatibility belief, and consequently evaluate the impact of the general job attitude on the estimate of the job performance concept, they used the models of relations between specific job attitudes and conduct to a meta-critic environment of associations among definite job attitudes and actions that have regularly emerged in previous research.
It is realistic to devise job satisfaction and organizational commitment not as exceptional prognosticators of definite performance measures or predispositions, but as interpreters of an overall reply that contains the complete engagement with, or influence of advantageous hard work on, one’s job role (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006).
The comparison of Harrison’s and Riketta’s views to Swailes’
All the authors agree on the fact that job attitude plays a huge role in the job environment and is beneficial or, contrarily, detrimental to the company. The difference between the three studies is provided by the versatility of the applied methodologies. Nonetheless, the key difference between the two viewpoints lies in the fact that Harrison and Riketta state that job attitudes influence employee’s performance and not vice versa, but Swailes believes that it is the job background that has a dominant impact on the working process and worker’s proficiency. Swailes also raises the question of emotional context as of a reasonable measurement norm of job attitude and overall contentment of an employee.
Conclusion
The studies reviewed in this paper dwelled on some hypothetical inquiries that earlier pragmatic research has left unreciprocated. The paper dwells on the evidence that was obtained during the experiments and explains the purpose of the tests. The research provides extended insight into the interrelation and compatibility of job attitudes and behavior.
The major point of the three studies is the assessment of the operationalization of organizational commitment. Despite the dissimilarities in the viewpoints and methodologies, the conducted studies are consistent and point out major points regarding the conceptualization and measurement of organizational commitment.
References
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How Important Are Job Attitudes? Meta-Analytic Comparisons of Integrative Behavioral Outcomes and Time Sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325. DOI:10.5465/amj.2006.20786077
Riketta, M. (2008). The Causal Relation Between Job Attitudes and Performance: A Meta-analysis of Panel Studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472-481. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.472
Swailes, S. (2002). Organizational Commitment: A Critique of the Construct and Measures. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 155-178. DOI:10.1111/1468-2370.00082