Master’s thesis strategy (2014-2015, semester 2) Master of Business Administration
Supervisor: Dr. F.M. Bridoux
Student: R. Poortstra 10047042
The influence of relational models on organizational
citizenship behaviour through organizational commitment
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Redmar Poortstra who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating
it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
This study set out to explore relational models theory in the field of behavioural instrumental stakeholder theory. It tested in what way the four different relational models (i.e., communal sharing, equality matching, authority ranking, and market pricing) affect OCB, both directly and indirectly through organizational commitment. It made a distinction between OCB towards colleagues (OCB-I) and towards the organization (OCB-O). Moreover, it distinguished between three dimensions of organizational commitment, namely affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment.
The results of the online survey study (N= 203) revealed that the communal sharing and equality matching model positively affect both OCB-I and OCB-O. Authority ranking and market pricing appear to have no direct effect on OCB-I or OCB-O. Moreover, communal sharing has an indirect effect through affective organizational commitment on OCB-O and an indirect effect through normative organizational commitment on OCB-I. Equality matching seems to have an indirect effect through affective organizational commitment on both OCB-I and OCB-O. It also has an indirect effect through normative commitment on OCB-I. An unexpected finding is that the relationship between authority ranking and OCB (-I and -O) is fully mediated by normative organizational commitment.
This research makes two important contributions to existing literature. First, it empirically tested the effects of relational models on a firm performance indicator (i.e., OCB). This is important to behavioural instrumental stakeholder theorists who call for more realistic assumptions about human nature and are interested in antecedents of firm performance. Second, the role of organizational commitment is empirically tested, which unravels a mechanism through which the relational models affect OCB. It gives more clarity to researchers who are interested in the effects of organization – stakeholder relationships and to managers who want to induce OCB among their employees.
Index
INTRODUCTION ... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
STAKEHOLDER THEORY ... 8
RELATIONAL MODELS ... 9
THE FOUR RELATIONAL MODELS ... 10
MARKET PRICING ... 10
AUTHORITY RANKING ... 11
EQUALITY MATCHING ... 11
COMMUNAL SHARING ... 12
RELATIONAL MODELS AND ECONOMIC ORGANIZATIONS ... 12
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR ... 13
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ... 15
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 17
COMMUNAL SHARING AND OCB ... 18
COMMUNAL SHARING, OCB AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ... 19
EQUALITY MATCHING AND OCB ... 21
EQUALITY MATCHING, OCB AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ... 23
AUTHORITY RANKING AND OCB ... 24
AUTHORITY RANKING, OCB AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ... 26
MARKET PRICING AND OCB ... 27
MARKET PRICING, OCB AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ... 29
METHODOLOGY ... 31 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 32 SAMPLE ... 32 VARIABLES ... 34 RELATIONAL MODELS ... 34 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ... 36
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR ... 40
CONTROL VARIABLES ... 41
RESULTS ... 43
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ... 43
HYPOTHESIS TESTING ... 47
COMMUNAL SHARING AND OCB ... 47
COMMUNAL SHARING AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AS MEDIATOR ... 48
EQUALITY MATCHING AND OCB ... 51
AUTHORITY RANKING AND OCB ... 54
AUTHORITY RANKING AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AS MEDIATOR ... 56
MARKET PRICING AND OCB ... 57
MARKET PRICING AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AS MEDIATOR ... 59
DISCUSSION ... 61
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY ... 62
DIRECT EFFECTS ... 63
INDIRECT EFFECTS ... 66
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRACTICE ... 71
LIMITATIONS AND AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 72
CONCLUSION ... 75
LITERATURE ... 77
Table of content
Figure 1 – Conceptual model.………..31
Table 1 – Rotated principal component analysis of the four relational models………..37
Table 2 – Rotated principal component analysis of organizational commitment……...39
Table 3 – Rotated principal component analysis of OCB………...…….41
Table 4 – Descriptive statistics and correlations, missing cases deleted list wise…………...44
Table 5 – Hierarchical regression analysis for the direct effect of CS on OCB…………...49
Table 6 – Direct (and indirect) effects of CS on OCB………50
Table 7 – Regression results for significant mediators in the CS/OCB relationship………...51
Table 8 – Hierarchical regression analysis for the direct effect of EM on OCB………...…..52
Table 9 – Direct (and indirect) effects of EM on OCB………..…….…54
Table 10 – Regression results for significant mediators in the EM/OCB relationship……...54
Table 11 – Hierarchical regression analysis for the direct effect AR on OCB………...55
Table 12 – Direct (and indirect) effects of authority ranking on OCB………..….58
Table 13 – Regression results for significant mediators in the AR/OCB relationship…...…58
Table 14 – Hierarchical regression analysis for the direct effect MP on OCB………...59
Table 15 – Direct (and indirect) effects of market pricing on OCB………...….61
Table 16 – The supported and unsupported hypotheses in this study………...…..60
Appendix table 1 – Rotated PCA of the 32 items that measure 4 relational models………...95
Introduction
Instrumental stakeholder theory deals with the question of how to manage stakeholders in a way that their behaviour positively affects the firm’s performance (Bosse, Phillips & Harrison, 2009; Harrison, Bosse & Phillips, 2010; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014) In this empirical paper, one particular group of stakeholders is investigated, namely employees. Employees are one of the primary stakeholders of a company, since they are the closest associated with and most affected by the organization’s actions and goals (Harrison et al., 2010). However, employees as such are not a homogeneous group. Each employee has his or her own preferences and needs (Felin & Foss, 2005; Foss, 2007). Behavioural stakeholder theory addresses these individual differences by trying to ground theory into realistic assumptions about human nature (Bosse et al., 2009; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014). In doing so, behavioural theorists have categorized individual stakeholders (e.g.,, employees) in two types: self-regarding and reciprocal individuals (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014).
However, stakeholders rarely operate alone in an organization, instead they form interactions with each other and with the organization. According to Fiske (1992), as any human interaction, interactions between the stakeholder and the organization can take four different forms (i.e.,, communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching and market pricing). This author describes these four forms in his relational models theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992, 2012; Haslam, 2004). If behavioural stakeholder theorists want to ground theory into more realistic assumptions about human nature they should look at social interactions as well, relational models theory can play a part in this.
Some researchers have already attempted to link relational models theory to the study of stakeholder relations with the organization (e.g., Sheppard & Tuchinsky, 1996; Connelly & Folger, 2004; Mossholder et al., 2011; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming). However, these papers are mainly theoretical. The field lacks empirical studies that investigate the link
between relational models theory and stakeholder – firm relationships. This study tries to address this gap by empirically investigating the effects of the four different relational models on the employee’s behaviour.
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a form of employee behaviour that helps the organization achieve its goals. More precisely, it is a voluntary behaviour that is beneficial to the organization and the people within, while not formally prescribed by the job (Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Organ, 1997; Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, & Johnson, 2011). OCB is important because, in order to create value for the firm, employees’ behaviour should be in line with the organization’s goals, even when direct control and rewards are absent (Organ, 1988). Several authors have found positive linkages between OCB and organizational performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Therefore, this study uses OCB as a measure of employees’ contribution to value creation to test for the effect of relational models on organizational performance. Furthermore, this study investigates mechanisms through which relational models are likely to affect OCB.
According to the reasoned action theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), attitudes are predictors of behaviour. The theory implies that in order to study individual behaviour, one should first look at the attitudes that an individual holds. Studies on OCB revealed several attitudes that result in OCB, e.g., job satisfaction, trust and/or organizational commitment (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Eatough et al. 2011; Zeinabadi & Salehi, 2011). Amongst these attitudes, organizational commitment shows the highest correlation with OCB (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Mathieu & Zajac 1990; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Schappe, 1998). Therefore, in this study organizational commitment, which is defined as: “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in an organization” (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979, p. 226), is investigated as an antecedent of OCB.
Attitudes are in turn results of salient beliefs or information (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). An attitude is the tendency to respond in an evaluative manner to a person, object or situation (Ajzen, 2005). An employee’s perception about the relational model that dominates the relationship between him or her and the organization might be such a belief. Until now, relational models have not been linked to organizational commitment and OCB. This study aims to contribute to the academic literature on behavioural instrumental stakeholder theory by empirically testing for causal relationships between the relational models, organizational commitment, and OCB.
To sum up, the academic contributions of this paper are twofold. First, I investigate the effects of Fiske’s (1992) four relational models on employee behaviour, as in OCB. This is particularly relevant to behavioural instrumental stakeholder theorists, who call for realistic assumptions about human nature. Second, I empirically test for the mediating role of organizational commitment in the effect of the four relational models on organizational OCB. In doing so, I attempt to reveal one of the mechanisms through which relational models affect OCB. This last contribution is relevant to academics because to my knowledge, it has not been empirically tested before. Moreover, it might be practically relevant to managers who want to induce OCB among employees.
In the next section, the literature on stakeholder theory, relational models theory, OCB, reasoned action theory and organizational commitment is reviewed. Afterwards, the concepts are linked to each other in the theoretical framework, resulting in several hypotheses. A method section in which the research design is explicated follows the hypotheses. Next, the findings of this study are presented in the result section. This paper concludes with a discussion of the findings, suggestions for further research and some practical implications.
Literature review
In the following section I first give an overview about the current state in the stakeholder literature. Second, the relational model theory is explicated and the four different relational models are presented. After this, it should be clear why relational models are useful to the field of behavioural stakeholder theory. Third, after introducing the reasoned action theory, the concepts of OCB and organizational commitment are reviewed. The three concepts together will form the hypotheses that are presented in the theoretical framework section.
Stakeholder theory
According to stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), firms should be concerned with all stakeholders rather than focussing exclusively on shareholders (Phillips, 2003; Freeman, Wicks & Parmar, 2004; Jones & Felps, 2013). The interests of all stakeholders should be incorporated into the firms’ practices (Freeman, 2001). In the stakeholder approach, firms are expected to manage their relationships with stakeholders actively (Freeman, 2001). The instrumental stream in stakeholder theory focuses on what type of management practices lead to firm performance outcomes (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jones, 1995). Recently scholars in the behavioural approach to instrumental stakeholder theory have begun to investigate the reasons that underlie stakeholder contributions to organizational effectiveness (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming).
Several authors investigated how stakeholder - firm relationships are established. Some researchers have focused on what firms can do to frame the relationship, examining the effect of different management practices on the relationship (e.g., Jones, 1995; Mossholder et al., 2011; Jones & Felps, 2013). Other authors have examined characteristics of stakeholders as influencers of the relationship (Bosse et al., 2009; Harrison et al., 2010; Bridoux &
Stoelhorst, forthcoming). This paper does not examine antecedents of a stakeholder-firm relationship. Instead, this study investigates the effects of the relationship between the firm and the employee (i.e., stakeholder) as perceived by the employee. To examine this, the relationship between the firm and the employee is categorized in the four relational models (Fiske, 1991). To my knowledge, effects of a stakeholder – firm relationship have not been researched before in combination with relational models theory (Fiske, 1991). This study aims to fill this gap. It should be noted that normally social relationships only occur between people. Nonetheless, people tend interact with collectives (i.e., organizations) as if it were people (Fiske, 1991; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). Therefore it is possible for a social relationship between a person and an organization to occur. In the next section the relational models theory (Fiske, 1991) will be presented that categorizes these social relationships.
Relational Models
According to Fiske’s (1991) relational models theory, relational models are schemata that enable individuals to anticipate and relate to others. In other words, Fiske’s relational models theory is about social relations, mostly between humans (Connely & Folger, 2004) but also between humans and collectives (i.e., organizations) (Fiske, 1991) when people humanize these collectives (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). Thanks to the relational models, individuals can plan their actions and understand the actions of others (Haslam, 2004). Moreover, Individuals can coordinate and evaluate joint actions (Haslam, 2004). The relational models trigger different behaviours in social interactions. This is because people use the models to relate themselves to others (or to collectives, i.e., organizations) and decide what behaviours are appropriate and what actions are not (Rai & Fiske, 2011).
Fiske (1991) derives four different models from an extensive review of the literature in the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology and theology (Connely & Folger, 2004; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming). The theory’s most fundamental prediction is that the four relational models are elementary and exhaustive (Fiske, 1992). By this Fiske means that all social relations can be explained by one of the four models, or a combination of some of them. There are no relations that use another model and there are no social relations that use none of the models (Fiske, 1992). Ever since the introduction of the theory in Fiske’s (1991) book “Structures of social life”, empirical support from different research domains is accumulating (see Haslam, 2004 for an overview). Therefore it seems safe to say that Fiske’s relational model theory is widely accepted in contemporary literature on social relations.
The relational model theory further predicts that in any society or domain there is rarely one unique model, though often one model is the dominant one (Fiske 1992; Fiske & Tetlock, 1997; Connely & Folger, 2004; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). Moreover, members of the same social system often agree on which model to implement (Fiske, 1992). Once agreed, people define moral and ethical standards based on the models, e.g., rules, procedures, behaviours and policies in an organization (Connely & Folger, 2004). In the next section the four models will be presented and discussed.
The four relational models Market pricing
If a social relation is modelled according to market pricing (MP), all relevant features and aspects of the relation are reduced to a single value (Fiske 1991, 1992, 2012; Haslam, 2004; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). One could think of our economy as a domain in which market pricing is the dominant model. In this domain, money is the central metric for (almost)
all features. In the market pricing model, individuals use their reason to rate different aspects. Because of the single central metric, different features in a domain can be compared to each other. People facing a behavioural choice are self-interested (Fiske, 1991, 1992; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming) thus tend to make a cost-benefit analysis (Fiske 1991; Murninghan, 1994; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010) and have means-ends considerations (Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon, 2011). Individuals strive for at least equal (Fiske, 1992) but rather a higher pay-offs than the counterparts in the relationship (Fiske, 1992; Murninghan, 1994).
Authority ranking
In a domain that is characterized by authority ranking (AR), social relations are asymmetric and linearly ordered along some hierarchical social dimension (Fiske, 1991, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). For example, boss vs. subordinate relationships might be ordered along status. In AR relationships, individuals with a higher status enjoy privileges and prestige (Fiske, 1992). They get respect and loyalty (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010) from lower status’ individuals who in turn enjoy protection (Fiske, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010), care (Fiske, 1992), and/or security (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010) from the higher status’ individual. The power difference between individuals also implies that individuals with more power are entitled to a larger share of the resources. The other individuals respect this and there is no need to balance this difference (Fiske, 1992).
Equality matching
The need for balance is the primary concern in an equality matching (EM) relationship (Fiske 1991, 1992; Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). Even more, equality matching relationships are characterized by one for one correspondence (Fiske, 1991, 1992; Robinson et al., 1994; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010) and are
long-termed (Robinson et al., 1994). Unlike in the MP model, the one for one correspondence is along one value. If an individual receives a unit, he or she should give back the same unit (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). For example, if a person gets a ride from someone this person should repay him or her with a similar service (i.e., a ride). This is in contrast to the MP model, in which the one giving the ride might be paid in another feature (i.e., money). In EM there is a social obligation to return the “favour” and to take turns (Mossholder et al., 2011).
Communal sharing
The fourth and last relational model is communal sharing (CS). This relationship is relying on unity and undifferentiated collective identity (Fiske, 1991, 1992; Haslam, 2004; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). People in a group who have a communal sharing relation perceive each other as equivalent (Fiske, 1992) and share feelings of solidarity (Mossholder et al., 2011). Kindness and altruism are the social norms (Fiske, 1991, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010), which implies that the welfare of others is placed above self-concerns (Fiske & Haslam, 2005). Unlike in the case of AR, with CS all individuals are equivalent for the consumption of resources (Fiske, 1992), they take what they need and contribute according to their abilities (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). The intimate ties between group members (Lickel, Hamilton & Sherman, 2001; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010) are related to a focus on what the group members have in common and what differentiates them from another group (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010).
Relational models and economic organizations
The relational model theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992, 2012; Haslam, 2004) is mostly used in sociological and anthropological research, often to study societies. However, some research
links the relational model theory to organizations. For example, Mossholder et al. (2011) link the four relational models to HR practices and investigate the effects of these practices on helping behaviour. Other researchers aim to use relational model theory to understand normative appropriate behaviour of leaders (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). Both studies focus on actors that influence the relationship. This paper however, takes the relationship as the starting point and investigates what effects the different relational models have. To my knowledge, there is no empirical work in stakeholder theory that has focused on effects of relational models on firm performance. Furthermore the usage of relational models theory in stakeholder research is utterly scarce. This paper aims to fill these gaps by empirically testing the effects of relational models on a firm performance indicator. OCB will be presented as a measure to assess firm performance.
Organizational citizenship behaviour
OCB is considered here as a valid measure to assess organizational performance because empirical studies showed that the construct is positively linked to multiple objective organizational performance measures such as productivity, efficiency, cost savings, and profitability (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Dennis Organ (1988) first introduced the concept of OCB in his book, the good soldier syndrome. He defined OCB as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Immediately this definition faced criticism (e.g., Morrison, 1990). Nine years after his book, after reviewing the literature, Organ (1997) revised the original definition of OCB to “contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance” (Organ, 1997, p, 91). An employee giving a helping hand to a co-worker might be seen as an example of OCB, since
this act supports the social context of task performance (Organ, 1997). This new definition appears to hold several advantages over the old one (see Podsakoff et al., 2009). The most important one is that this definition “avoids some of the difficulty with viewing OCBs as discretionary behaviour for which an individual might not receive formal rewards” (Podsakoff et al., 2009, p. 122).
OCB consists of multiple dimensions (Organ 1988, 1997; Williamson & Anderson, 1991). First, Organ (1988) presented OCB as consisting of five dimensions (i.e., altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship). However, the author later added peacekeeping and cheerleading, which makes it a seven-factor construct (Organ, 1990). Another conceptualization stems from Williamson and Anderson (1991), the authors state that OCB can be separated along a target dimension; if the target of OCB is an individual the authors speak of OCB-I, if the target is the organization as a whole the authors talk about OCB-O. The seven dimensions of Organ (1988, 1990) can be included in the conceptualization of Williamson and Anderson (1991). Altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping and cheerleading behaviours are all aimed at helping another individual and van thus be categorized in the OCB-I dimension. While the other three dimensions of Organ (1988, 1990), conscientiousness, civic virtue and sportsmanship, can be included in the OCB-O category (Podsakoff et al., 2009). In this study the conceptualization of Williamson and Anderson (1991) is favoured over the one by Organ (1988, 1990) because of two reasons. First, a wide body of literature uses this conceptualization (e.g., Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson, 2009; Podsakoff et al., 2009) and second, because even “Organ (1997, pp. 94-95) himself seems to be favourably disposed to this approach” (Podsakoff et al., 2009, p. 124)
OCB and relational models theory are linked indirectly in the way that OCB is affected by management practices and management practices are closely related to relational models (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming). Moreover, OCB is linked to relational models
theory because both OCB-I and OCB-O are behaviours performed by an individual in an organization, and according to the reasoned action theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), behaviours might be influenced by information or beliefs (such as the belief about the relational models). The relational models affect OCB because relational models result in attitudes that in turn result in OCB. These attitudes are thus the mechanisms through which OCB is affected by relational models. Organizational commitment is such an attitude and is explicated below.
Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is an attitude (Porter , Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974) that is widely linked to OCB (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Schappe, 1998; Uçanok & Karabatı, 2013). Organizational commitment has been defined as a psychological link between the employee and the organization that makes it less likely the employee will voluntarily leave the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996). I consider this definition to be somewhat problematic because of the focus on leaving the organization. I believe that there are many steps in between being committed to something and walking away from it. For example, neglecting or giving voice, as is found in studies on job dissatisfaction (e.g., Farrell, 1983). For this reason, the definition by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) is favoured over the definition by Allen and Meyer (1996). Mowday et al. (1979) define organizational commitment as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in an organization” (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226). The construct explains the attachment between the employee and the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1997). It can be perceived of as an attitude that the employee holds towards his or her organization (Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977; Uçanok & Karabati, 2013).
components (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The first component is affective organizational commitment; it is defined as positive feelings of attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Uçanok & Karabati, 2013). The second dimension is continuance commitment, this is related to the costs of leaving the organization. Individuals can be committed to their organization simply because they have no alternatives to work elsewhere (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Uçanok & Karabati, 2013). The third component is normative commitment; in this case a person might feel obliged to stay with the organization because of personal values (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Uçanok & Karabati, 2013). Affective commitment has shown to be more positively related to organizational effectiveness than continuance commitment, whilst normative commitment has been less investigated and there is no certainty about the effects on organizations (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Wasti, 2002). However research by Coetzee (2005), seems to propose that normative commitment is the least positively related to organizational commitment.
Organizational commitment and OCB are related, not only because the former precedes the latter according to reasoned action theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), but also because the two constructs are related to the same domain (work). For this reason, it has been the topic of studies for more than 30 years. In 1982, even before the term OCB was introduced, Mowday et al. (1982) found that individuals who were committed to their organization where willing to give something in order to make a contribution to the organization’s well being. Later on, other researchers found in a double study that some aspects of organizational commitment showed a positive relationship with pro-social behaviour in organizations (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Although the term OCB was never used in these papers, the investigated behaviours show important similarities with OCB (Schappe, 1998; Uçanok & Karabatı, 2013). Organ and Ryan (1995) conducted a meta-analysis and did find support for organizational commitment as an antecedent for OCB. Later,
Schappe (1998) conducted a survey amongst 130 employees and investigated whether job satisfaction, procedural justice, and organizational commitment influenced OCB. The author suggested that only organizational commitment had a significant relationship with OCB. Because of this compiling evidence, it is expected that organizational commitment holds a positive relationship with OCB.
Because relational models are related to OCB (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming) but OCB works via the mechanism of organizational commitment, it is expected that organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between OCB and the relational models. Reasoned action theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) forms the main link between OCB, organizational commitment and relational models but there are also other linkages.
To sum up, this thesis investigates whether the relational model that a stakeholder uses to frame his/her relationship with the organization, which is captured according to relational models theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992, 2012; Haslam, 2004), influences OCB, and whether this influence works via an organizational committed attitude (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Mowday et al., 1982; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Schappe, 1998; Uçanok & Karabatı, 2013). To put formally:
RQ: How do the four different relational models affect OCB, both directly and
indirectly through organizational commitment?
Theoretical framework
In the following section, I will first build arguments with the focus on the direct effect of a relational model on OCB-I and OCB-O. I will then discuss whether this effect is mediated by respectively affective organizational commitment, continuance organizational commitment, and normative organizational commitment. This structure will be held constant
for each of the four relational models. I will first present the communal sharing model, followed by the equality matching model, then the authority ranking, and at last I will discuss the expected effects of the market pricing model on OCB-I and OCB-O. The arguments in these paragraphs are mainly building upon theoretical reasoning since empirical evidence is scarce when it comes to relational models in combination with OCB and/or organizational commitment.
Communal sharing and OCB
In organizations that rely on the communal sharing model, employees will perform OCB targeted at other individuals (OCB-I) because they share feelings of solidarity with that individual (Mossholder et al., 2011) and because the welfare of others is placed above self-concerns (Fiske & Haslam, 2005). Thus even when the OCB means that less time can be spend on their own tasks, they will still perform it. Besides, in CS relationships, kindness and altruism are the social norms (Fiske, 1991, 1992, Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). This implies that employees do not have to be afraid that the other party will take advantage of their OCB.
OCB targeted at the organization will also be performed. OCB-O is a behaviour that benefits the organization and contributes to its goals (Williamson & Anderson, 1991). In organizations that rely on the communal sharing model, employees contribute to the common goal according to their abilities (Giessner & Quequebeke, 2010). These two statements indicate that in an organization that relies on a communal sharing model, employees will perform OCB-O according to their abilities. Moreover, the organization is the unity that defines the members of the group, it is the one thing that all employees have in common and what differentiates them from another group. Individuals in a communal sharing model have a strong focus on commonalities and things that differentiate them from other groups (Giessner
& Quaquebeke, 2010). Therefore, it is important to them that the organization keeps on going in future times. OCB-O is a means to achieve this goal (Williamson & Anderson, 1991). The above-mentioned arguments lead to the following two hypotheses:
H1a: The more employees perceive their organization to rely on the communal
sharing model, the more OCB-I they perform.
H1b: The more employees perceive their organization to rely on the communal
sharing model, the more OCB-O they perform.
Communal sharing, OCB and organizational commitment
Researchers that describe a communal sharing relationship use words like; altruism (Fiske, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010), kindness (Fiske, 1992), intimacy (Lickel, et al., 2001), solidarity (Mossholder et al., 2011), love, and care (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). These positive words already indicate a close link to affective organizational commitment, which is about positive feelings of attachment (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Uçanok & Karabati, 2013). Even more, the one-for-all and all-for-one mentality that the group members hold (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010) shows strong attachment to the group.
Another link between the two constructs is that Fiske (1992) describes a group that relies on communal sharing as equivalent and undifferentiated. When someone is part of a group with these characteristics, the person must have a strong identification with the group since he or she believes they are all the same as he or she is. Moreover, the group members are involved in the group because of the feelings of solidarity (Mossholder et al., 2011) and because they place the welfare of others above their self-concerns (Fiske & Haslam, 2005). These arguments lead us to believe that affective organizational commitment is the attitude that mediates the relationship between the communal sharing model and OCB. This OCB can either be targeted at fellow group members because of the one for one correspondence (i.e.,
OCB-I), or to the group as a whole since it is important that the group keeps on surviving in later times (i.e., OCB-O). To put formally:
H1c: affective organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
communal sharing and OCB-I and between communal sharing and OCB-O
Even more, I expect that continuance organizational commitment mediates the relationship between communal sharing and OCB-I and between communal sharing and OCB-O. Continuance organizational commitment is about the perceived costs of leaving. Mostly these costs are physical assets like money in a pension plan or it is the unavailability of alternatives. Nonetheless, there are also other costs such as the disruption of personal relationships (Becker, 1960). According to Meyer and Allen (1991) anything that an employee can perceive as a cost of leaving the organization can build up continuance organizational commitment. As mentioned before, in a communal sharing model, there is a strong focus on what group members have in common and on what differentiates them from another group (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). One of the main things that the group has in common is that they all work for the same organization and strive towards the same goal. The bounded group of people (Fiske, 1992) have intimate ties (Lickel et al., 2001), which a person will loose if he/she decides to leave the organization and his/her co-workers. The loss of this can be perceived of as a cost of leaving and will thus result in continuance organizational commitment. The continuance organizational commitment results in turn in behaviour that is favourable to members of the bounded group (i.e., OCB-I) and behaviour that is favourable to the group as a whole (OCB-O). Thus it is hypothesized that:
H1d: Continuance organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
Next to the perceived costs of leaving, the employees of an organization that relies on a communal sharing model share strong values. For example, the appropriate behaviour is to put the welfare of others above self-concerns (Fiske & Haslam, 2005). Another example of a group value is that everybody contributes to the group goal according to his or her abilities (Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). These values are internalized through the process of socialization (Wiener, 1982). Once they are internalized a person does not want to lose them because this means that he/she loses a part of his identity. It is thus important to stay with the group that has the same values. This is even true when there might be more attractive opportunities (in terms of money) if the employee moves somewhere else (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Thus the values that stem from a communal sharing model result in normative organizational commitment. This attitude will result in behaviour that is in line with the values of both co-workers, and the organization. It will thus result in respectively OCB-I and OCB-O. To put formally:
H1e: Normative organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
communal sharing and OCB-I and between communal sharing and OCB-O
Equality matching and OCB
When employees perceive their relationship with the organization to rely on an equality matching model, they perceive themselves as an equal partner in the relationship with the organization. Especially OCB’s targeted at other individuals in the organization (OCB-I) are likely to occur in the equality matching model. This is because in an equality matching relationship, individuals feel a social obligation to take turns in the actions they perform (Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon, 2011). When someone performs OCB-I towards a co-worker in an equality matching relationship, he/she can assume that the co-co-worker will return the favour (Fiske, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010; Mossholder et al., 2011). When
individuals rely on an equality matching model, they believe that in the long-term, the relationship will be balanced (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994). Because of the balance, they can be sure that they will one day get OCB in return. The risk of putting effort in something like OCB without getting anything in return is thereby very small and thus I expect that individuals will perform OCB-I if they perceive the organization to rely on the equality matching model.
OCB-O will also be more often performed in an equality matching relationship. This is expected for two reasons. First, since keeping balance is the primary need in an equality matching relationship (Fiske, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010; Mossholder et al., 2011), employees will only perform OCB if they expect to get OCB back later. Factually an organization is unable to perform OCB since it is behaviour and organizations cannot behave. Nonetheless, as was stated before individuals tend to interact with organizations (i.e., collectives) as if it were individuals (Fiske, 1991; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). Therefore, individuals can expect to get OCB back from the organization and thus to keep the relationship balanced.
An alternative explanation is that individuals in an economic organization are less concerned with getting the same thing back as that they give as was stated by Fiske (1991). According to monetary theory (Clower, 1967), in the economy it is the standard to trade goods or services for money. It might be that this is also the case for OCB in organizations since organizations are part of the economy. If so, employees will perform OCB-O because they expect that the organization will restore the balance with money in the long term. Either way, I expect that the more employees perceive their organization to rely on the equality matching model, the more OCB-O they will perform. Together with the arguments for OCB-I it leads to the following hypotheses:
model, the more OCB-I they perform.
H2b: The more employees perceive their organization to rely on the equality matching
model, the more OCB-O they perform.
Equality matching, OCB and organizational commitment
In an equality matching model, employees are equal partners who organize tasks together and have an equal say in a decision making process (Fiske, 1992; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming). Individuals in an equality matching relationship derive their identity from relationships that focus on balance (Fiske, 1992). It is important for these persons to perform tasks that keep the relationship balanced or that restore the balance. There is no need to be involved in the organization or feel attached to it because the main thing people in an EM relationship care about is keeping the relationship balanced (Fiske, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010; Mossholder et al., 2011). Thus affective organizational commitment does not seem to play a role in the relationship between equality matching and OCB-I, and between equality matching and OCB-O.
Neither does continuance organization commitment play a role in the relationship between equality matching and OCB. Costs of leaving are at the core of continuance organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Uçanok & Karabati, 2013). However, individuals that rely on an equality matching model are not interested in costs of leaving, they are interested in keeping balance (Fiske, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010; Mossholder et al., 2011). Because of these balance concerns, employees will not leave the organization before the relationship between them is balanced and once the relationship is in total balance, they will not leave the organization because this will destroy the balance. Thus, just as affective organizational commitment, continuance organizational commitment does not mediate the relationship between equality matching and OCB-I and not between equality
matching and OCB-O. The third organizational commitment component however does play a role.
When employees join an organization that relies on an equality matching model, they learn through socialization the right way to behave (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This influences the normative commitment of the employees towards the organization and towards other individuals. In the case of an equality matching model, they will learn that they are all equal and that when an unit is received a unit should be returned (Fiske, 1992; Giessner & Quequebeke, 2010). Their personal values align with the social obligation (Mossholder et al., 2011) to return the favour. This mechanism will result in OCB-I because employees learn that when they perform OCB-I, they can expect it back later. In a similar way, when they receive OCB-I they know that it is expected of them to return the OCB-I. The same mechanism however, will also result in more OCB-O because the employee learns from co-workers that the organization can also act as a person (Fiske, 1991; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Sluss & Ashforth, 2008) and thus perform OCB. So in order to keep the relationship balanced, they should also perform OCB-O. Similarly the employee will perceive that the organization sometimes performs OCB, thus they will feel the need to return this favour. In conclusion, the normative commitment in an equality matching model, results in more OCB-I and more OCB-O. Put formally:
H2c: Normative organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
equality matching and OCB-I and between equality matching and OCB-O.
Authority ranking and OCB
When employees regard their relationship with the organization as an authority ranking relation, they respect the authority of their superior and will do what is asked. However, they will also ask for things like security or care taking in return (Fiske, 1991,
1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). Security in an organization can imply job security or the secure feeling that when a subordinate makes a mistake, the superior will take care of it. Doing what is asked by the organization can be perceived of as in-role behaviour, whilst OCB is an extra-role behaviour (Williams & Anderson, 1991; Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, & Johnson, 2011). However, according to Fiske (1991) and Bridoux and Stoelhorst (forthcoming) subordinates in an authority ranking relationship help the superior to gain higher pay-offs. In this light it might be expected that subordinates will go a little out of their way to perform OCB when they expect that it is needed to secure a higher pay-off for their superior. Performing OCB-I can be aimed directly towards the superior but also towards team members with the same superior so that the superior will benefit from the group effort. I thus expect that employees in an authority ranking relationship will perform OCB-I.
As stated before organizations cannot behave. Nonetheless, people tend to interact with organizations as if it were people (Fiske, 1991; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Even more, subordinates tend to identify themselves with the relationship they have with their superior manager, this identification spills over to the relationship they have with the organization (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). This suggests that people see their superior and their organization often as one of the same. If a subordinate sees the organization as his or her superior, he/she will do the same things as if it were a superior person. Following the previous argumentation, it means that the subordinate will perform OCB when he/she thinks that the organization will get a higher pay-off in that way. Thus next to OCB-I, I also do expect that employees in an authority ranking relationship will perform OCB-O. These expectations lead to the following hypotheses:
H3a: The more employees perceive their organization to rely on the authority ranking
model, the more OCB-I they perform.
model, the more OCB-O they perform.
Authority ranking, OCB and organizational commitment
When assuming that employees interact with their organization as if it was a superior co-worker, we can conclude that employees in an AR domain do have concerns (i.e., loyalty and respect) for both their organization and the people within. These feelings of loyalty and respect are closely related to the affective organizational commitment component (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Loyalty and respect can be regarded as positive feelings that the employee holds towards the superior and thus the organization. Even more, according to Fiske (1991), actors in an authority ranking relationship are linearly ordered along a hierarchical social dimension. The actors understand the relations with others- and identify themselves, along their hierarchical status. This status is assigned by the organization, thus people understand their relationships because of the organization and identify themselves with that organization. This reasoning leads us to expect that affective organizational commitment mediates the relationship between authority ranking and I and between authority ranking and OCB-O.
The relationship is also mediated by continuance organizational commitment. The hierarchical status that the employee enjoys can be lost when he/she leaves the organization. Because, in another organization there can be another social dimension on which the hierarchy is ordered or the new organization will not recognize the old status nor give the employee the same status. This risk of losing status can be perceived of as a cost of leaving the organization. Thus the more an employee perceives his organization to rely on an authority ranking model, the more continuance organizational committed the employee is. While this argument is stronger for people who are higher up in the hierarchy who might loose more status, individuals on the bottom of the hierarchy might also loose their low status
and thus leaving bears also costs for them.
The third organizational commitment component is normative organizational commitment. This component is about the personal values of the employee. Personal values might have been developed before an employee joins the organization or afterwards, trough socialization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The relational model cannot affect the values before the person joins an organization. However, when the employee does join the organization, culture can affect personal values through socialization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). However, the authority ranking model is a typical model for an hierarchical organization and these organizations often lack a strong culture (Martin, 2001). Therefore, it is expected that normative organizational commitment has no significant influence on the relationship between authority ranking and OCB-I and between authority ranking and OCB-O. Thus it is argued here that the relationship between authority ranking and OCB-I and between authority ranking and OCB-O is mediated by affective- and continuance organizational commitment. Formally stated:
H3c: Affective organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
authority ranking and OCB-I and between authority ranking and OCB-O.
H3d: Continuance organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
authority ranking and OCB-I and between authority ranking and OCB-O.
Market pricing and OCB
Individuals in a market pricing relationship are primarily concerned with themselves (Fiske, 1992; Haslam, 2001; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming). They want to optimize personal outcomes, therefore before performing behaviour such as OCB, people will first make a cost-benefit analysis about the behaviour (Fiske 1991; Murninghan, 1994; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). Only when the costs of the behaviour are lower then the benefits of OCB,
the act will be performed. This is because individuals in a MP relationship strive for at least equal, but favourably higher returns (Fiske, 1992; Murninghan, 1994).
OCB-O is a behaviour that is favourable to the organization but is not formally rewarded (i.e., in terms of money) (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Of course, an organization might also informally reward (i.e., compliments) an employee but an individual does not take this into consideration because in a market pricing relationship, all features are expressed in terms of money (Fiske 1991, 1992, 2012; Haslam, 2004; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). Thus by definition, the benefits of the OCB-O in terms of money are zero. The costs of OCB-O vary. But doing something other than what you are paid for, at the minimum distracts energy and/or time from that job. Since you do less of what you get paid for, you get paid less (assuming that in a market pricing model you get paid for performance) and thus the act of OCB will cost you money. In conclusion, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Therefore, it is predicted that the more individuals see their relationship with their organization as a market pricing relationship, the less they will perform OCB-O.
The same reasoning can be applied to OCB-I. When making a cost-benefit analysis, the benefits in terms of money are zero while it will cost at least some money since it distracts time from the job that you are being paid for. Benefits of OCB-I can be for example gratitude of the person you are helping. But as mentioned above, in a MP relationship, only money counts (Fiske 1991, 1992, 2012; Haslam, 2004; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010) and since it is unlikely that a co-worker pays you for the help, the cost-benefit analysis is unfavourable to the individual. Therefore it is expected that the more individuals perceive the relation with their organization as a market pricing relationship, the less they will perform OCB-I. Put formally:
H4a: The more employees perceive their organization to rely on the market pricing
H4b: The more employees perceive their organization to rely on the market pricing
model, the less OCB-O they perform.
Market pricing, OCB and organizational commitment
The negative effect of the market pricing model on both OCB-I and OCB-O is not a direct effect. As mentioned above, behaviours such as OCB are preceded by attitudes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). There is a positive relationship between the attitude of organizational commitment and the behaviour OCB (I and O). It is argued here that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between market pricing and both OCB-I and OCB-O. As said before, people in a market pricing relationship are self-interested (Fiske, 1992; Haslam, 2004; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming). This implies that they are only committed to themselves and not to anyone else, such as the organization or their co-workers. Individuals in a market pricing relationship are thinking in an economically rational way (Fiske, 1991, 1992; Giessner & Quaquebeke, 2010). Therefore, emotions such as positive feelings of attachment or identification with the organization will be suppressed in a market pricing model. The same reasoning applies to personal values, these are also suppressed in a market pricing model because of the rational thinking actors. Since positive feelings are related to affective organizational commitment and values are related to normative organizational commitment, I expect that the more an organization relies on the market pricing model, the less affectively committed and normatively committed employees are.
Continuance organizational commitment does also play a role in the relationship between the market pricing relationship and OCB-I and between the market pricing relationship and OCB-O. Continuance commitment is about the costs of leaving. When employees perceive their organization to rely on a market pricing model, they will make the cost-benefit analysis and use their ratio to see whether the organization pays them enough or
another organization can pay them more. Other costs of leaving are investments made in the organization that only pay out if the employee stays with the organization. These could be all kind of things but in the market pricing model, only monetary investments count. An example of such an investment is a pension. However, pensions are nowadays often tied to a person’s career, irrespective of the organization where the person is employed (Kanter, 1989). Just like the pension example, monetary investments are in general easily replaced by another organization. Therefore it seems safe to assume that an employee has many alternative employers that can offer him/her money and pay back his or her investments. Because of the alternative employment possibilities employees will feel less continuance organizational commitment and thus perform less OCB-I and less OCB-O.
H4c: Affective organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
market pricing and OCB-I and between market pricing and OCB-O.
H4d: Normative organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
market pricing and OCB-I and between market pricing and OCB-O.
H4e: Continuance organizational commitment will mediate the relationship between
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Methodology
In the following section, first the research design will be outlined. Afterwards the sample is discussed. Next, the variables that are central to this study are operationalized and finally the control variables will be described.
Research design
Since this study is explanatory, it was chosen to perform a survey study. A Survey study is a suitable method to gather large amounts of standardized data that can be used to test hypotheses. Moreover, it provides easy to analyze and easy to interpret results (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). In order to test the hypotheses in this study, an online survey study was conducted. An online survey has the extra advantage that it is cost-friendly and quicker than offline surveys (Saunders et al., 2012). Nonetheless, a limitation of the online survey is that it is known to have a relatively high drop out rate and besides respondents must be familiar with the use of computers (Saunders et al., 2012). Overall, for this study the benefits seem to outweigh the disadvantages and the online survey is therefore the right research design to test the hypotheses. The survey was assembled with Dutch scales because my personal network consists primarily out of Dutch speaking people and these people are approached to be respondents. The complete survey in Dutch can be found in appendix 1.
Sample
The survey was distributed through Facebook and e-mail to family, friends and others in the personal network of the researcher and two fellow students. This convenience sampling technique limits the generalizability of the results (Saunders et al., 2012). However, because of time and money constraints I consider it to be the best choice for this thesis. The population for which this study wants to make predictions consists of working people in the Netherlands. Because the relationship between employees and their organizations is investigated, I chose to include only participants who work more than 24 hours (3 working days). Since, respondents who work less than 3 days a week with their organization may not develop a steady relationship that is needed for this investigation. This requirement was mentioned in the e-mails and Facebook posts and it was also controlled for in the survey itself.
From the 272 respondents that started the questionnaire, 244 respondents completed it. The dropout rate of 10.3% is considered normal for an opt-in survey design in which people are free to participate but also free to quit whenever they want. Frick, Baechtinger and Reips (1999) for example found the same dropout rate in their web-based survey. Moreover, 21 respondents had to be excluded because they worked less than 24 hours a week. In total, data from 203 respondents was qualified for analysis (N=203). 42.9% of these respondents were male (57.1% female). The youngest respondent that filled out the survey was 19 years of age whilst the oldest was 65 (M=33, SD=12.22). Although respondents came from all educational backgrounds, most people finished an educational program at HBO or university (79.3%). In the Dutch working population the average educational level is MBO/HBO (CBS, 2014). This means that people in the sample group are on average higher educated than the Dutch working population. A possible explanation is that it is caused by the convenience sampling technique; the personal networks of the researcher and the two fellow students consist mostly of highly educated people.
Next to the general demographics, organizational statistics are relevant to this study since it explores the relationship between employees and their organizations. 20% of the respondents worked in organizations with 1 till 15 employees, 36% works in a organization with 16 till 250 employees and 42% of the respondents worked in an organization with more than 250 employees. Respondents reported an average organizational tenure of 2 to 3 years (M=2.7, SD=1.26), the respondent that scored the lowest on organizational tenure worked between 0 till 6 months with the organization (N=28) while the highest scoring respondents worked over 10 years with the organization (N=31). On average respondents worked 4 days a week within the walls of their organization, this is important because if it were lower it might have affected the judgements of respondents about their organizational culture. Respondents reported a wide variety of job roles, the most people where researcher, engineer, teacher or
specialist (N=44), followed by respondents who are manager (N=36).
Variables
There are three variables in this study. First the operationalization of the relational
models variable with its four components will be described. Second the organizational commitment variable with its three dimensions will be discussed. Third the OCB variable with
its two components will be operationalized.
Relational models
As far as I know, there are no quantitative studies that measure relational models in a business environment. Therefore, there is no measurement available that can be borrowed from earlier research. As an alternative, Cameron and Quinn’s (2005) Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument formed the basis for the assessment of the relational models variable. However, this instrument assessed organizational cultures while in this study, the relationships between employees and organizations are investigated. For this reason the instrument had to be adjusted so that it would measure relational models. Two strategy scholars who are familiar with relational models theory did this. The adjusted measurement scale was then pretested in Mturk, an online respondent database. Accordingly some adjustments were made based on the feedback from the pre-test. Afterwards, the scale had to be translated into Dutch. A fellow student and I did this separately. Then we compared the translations and came up with a single Dutch 32-item scale. Next it was checked by the two strategy scholars again who made some small corrections. Finally, a Dutch 32-item scale was ready to assess relational models, see table 1. Respondents had to indicate on six-point scales (Likert: 1 (Totally not like my organization) to 6 (Totally like my organization)), to what extent they felt that the 32 statements described their organizations. The statements were
shown randomly to prevent any possible biases. Respondents who scored high on the items did perceive their organization in the same way as it was described in the statement.
Based on the Eigenvalues, the principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that the 32 items measured 7 components, explaining 61.5% of the relational models variable (see appendix table 1, in appendix 2). This differs from the expected four relational models. Theory about relational models (e.g., Fiske, 1992; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, forthcoming) clearly indicates four possible relational models. Therefore, I forced the PCA to extract only four dimensions. The total variance in relational models that is explained by the four dimensions is 50.8%. However, when looking at the rotated component matrix, there are still some items loading on several dimensions. As a result I chose to delete all items about organizational success and about the division of resources. The four dimensions now each contain six items. The dimensions are transformed into new scales to form new variables. Below, each of these variables is described in more detail.
The first dimension of the relational model variable that was tested with a PCA was
communal sharing (CS). Eigenvalues showed that this variable consists of only one
dimension (Eigenvalue = 2.98). Even more, the scree plot indicated a clear inflection point after the first dimension. The component explains 49.6% of the variance in CS. The Chronbach’s alpha for the scale of all six items is .79, which indicates good internal consistency. If the third item, “A main task of managers is to mobilise a collective sense of mission”, would be deleted it could even be .80. However, the 0.005 increase in reliability is considered too small to be important. Thus, I chose to keep all six items in the scale that measures CS, the six-item scale can be found in table 1. The second variable is authority
ranking (AR). Again, only 1 Eigenvalue was higher than 1 (Eigenvalue = 2.79), suggesting
that there is only one dimension. Moreover, the scree plot indicates an inflection point after the first dimension. This single dimension explains 46.5% of the variance in AR. Thus on the
basis of the PCA all six items can be included in the scale that measures AR. A reliability analysis showed that the scale has good internal consistency (α= .77). The reliability cannot be improved by deleting an item. The six-item scale that measures AR can be seen in table 1.
The third variable is equality matching (EM). The PCA showed that the EM scale in this study consists of only one dimension (Eigenvalue = 2.93), that explains 48.8% in the variance for EM. The reliability analysis showed a Chronbach’s alpha of .79, which suggests good internal consistency. The Chronbach’s alpha could not be improved by deleting an item, therefore all six items are included in the EM scale (see table 1). The final variable is market
pricing (MP). The PCA unravels that also the last variable consists out of only one dimension
(Eigenvalue = 3.33) that explains 55.4% of the variance in MP. The reliability analysis shows that the scale has good internal consistency (α= .84), which cannot be improved by deleting an item. (see table 1 for the MP scale). All relational model scales were constructed by averaging the respondent’s score on the items of that scale. Respondents who scored high on any of the four relational model scales perceive their organization to rely on the relational model for that scale. For example: when a respondent scored high on the MP scale, it means that he or she perceives the organization to rely on a market pricing model.
Organizational commitment
The organizational commitment variable was measured with a scale that was originally developed by Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993). The scale has proven to be valid in previous empirical studies (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997). The scale measures three dimensions of organizational commitment. It measures affective-, continuance-, and normative
organizational commitment. The original scale by Meyer et al. (1993) had to be translated
into Dutch, this was done in the same manner as it was done with the relational models scale. The original scale, which was also used in this study, can be found in table 2.
