IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/cepdps/dp0881.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Organizational Commitment: Do Workplace Practices Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Bryson
  • Michael White

Abstract

Using nationally-representative linked employer-employee data for Britain this paper considers whether employers are able to influence the organizational commitment (OC) of their employees through the practices they deploy. We examine the association between OC and two broad groups of HRM practices emphasised in two different strands of the literature, namely "High-Performance Workplace Practices" (HPWPs) and practices associated with "Perceived Organizational Support" (POS). We consider their associations with mean workplace-level OC and individual employees' OC. Although employers may be able to engender greater OC on the part of their employees, the practices that do so are not those emphasized in the HPWP literature, with the exception of consultation and the involvement of employees in decision-taking. POS practices fare a little better but, again, the findings are far from unequivocal. Furthermore, those practices that are 'effective' in engendering higher OC such as tolerance of absence, recruiting on 'values' and allowing employees to make decisions, tend to have a fairly low incidence in British workplaces. There is, however, one finding which chimes with the ideas underpinning the HPWP literature, namely that there are returns to the use of practices in combination. Analyses of both mean workplace-level OC and individual employee OC find an independent positive association between OC and the deployment of multiple practices in combination. This evidence is consistent with practices having synergies, as emphasised in some of the HPWP literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Bryson & Michael White, 2008. "Organizational Commitment: Do Workplace Practices Matter?," CEP Discussion Papers dp0881, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  • Handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp0881.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duncan Gallie, 2001. "Employer Policies and Organizational Commitment in Britain 1992-97," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(8), pages 1081-1101, December.
    2. John Godard, 2004. "A Critical Assessment of the High-Performance Paradigm," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 42(2), pages 349-378, June.
    3. Harvie Ramsay & Dora Scholarios & Bill Harley, 2000. "Employees and High-Performance Work Systems: Testing inside the Black Box," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 38(4), pages 501-531, December.
    4. Michael White & Stephen Hill & Patrick McGovern & Colin Mills & Deborah Smeaton, 2003. "'High-performance' Management Practices, Working Hours and Work-Life Balance," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 41(2), pages 175-195, June.
    5. Gallie, Duncan & White, Michael & Cheng, Yuan & Tomlinson, Mark, 1998. "Restructuring the Employment Relationship," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198294412.
    6. McGovern, Patrick & Hill, Stephen & Mills, Colin & White, Michael, 2007. "Market, Class, and Employment," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199213382.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Melanie K. Jones, 2016. "Disability and Perceptions of Work and Management," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 54(1), pages 83-113, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    high performance; organizational commitment; perceived organizational support;

    JEL classification:

    • J28 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Safety; Job Satisfaction; Related Public Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0881. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/series.asp?prog=CEP .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.