organizational behavior

Internationaljournal of Management Vol. 22 No. 2 June 2005 193

Does Perceived Threat to Organizational StatusModerate the Relation hetween OrganizationalCommitment and Work Behavior?Michael RikettaUniversity of Tubingen, Germany

Angela LandererCatholic University of Eichstatt, Germany.

Drawing on research on social identity, the authors postulated that perceived threat toorganizational reputation moderates the relationship between attitudinal organizationalcommitment (AOC) on the one hand and in-role performance and organizationalcitizenship behavior (OCB) on the other. This hypothesis was tested with self-reportdata from 63 employees of a German health-service organization that had been involvedin a public scandal shortly before the investigation. As postulated, higher perceivedseverity ofthe scandal was associated with a more positive relationship between AOCand OCB. The hypothesis was not supported for in-role performance.

Attitudinal (or affective) organizational commitment (AOC) is usually defined as "therelative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particularorganization" (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p. 27). Thus, in essence, AOC denotesthe emotional attachment of an employee to his or her organization (Allen & Meyer,1990; Mowday et al., 1982, p. 28). This construct has attracted considerable researchinterest over the last three decades (for reviews, see Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer &Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982). Research has focused on the plausible hypothesisthat AOC predicts behaviors that are in accordance with organizational norms and thusare beneficial to the organization. In fact, research revealed positive relations of AOCwith a number of such behaviors, such as performance, attendance, and staying withthe organization (for meta-analyses, see Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley,Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Riketta, 2002). However, especially the correlationswith performance variables were weak on average. According to the mentioned meta-analyses, the AOC—in-role performance correlation is around .20, and the AOC—organizational citizenship behavior correlation is in the range of .20 to .30. In the lightof these generally weak correlations, some researchers explored moderators of theAOC—work behavior relationship in order to identify conditions under which AOChad a stronger impact (e.g., Brett et al., 2002; Schaubroeck & Ganster, 1991; Riketta &Landerer, 2002). The present research was designed to continue these efforts. It focuseson a moderator variable that has not yet been addressed in research on AOC before:threat to organizational reputation.

Our hypothesis concerning this variable is derived from recent research on social identity.Tajfel (1978) defined social identity as "that part of an individual's self-concept whichderives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together

194 Internationaljournal of Management Vol. 22 No. 2 June 2005

with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership" (p. 63). Sincethe 1970s, a large number of social psychological studies have dealt with the antecedents,consequences, and structure of social identity defmed as defined by Tajfei (for a recentreview, see Brown, 2001). Further, over the last ten years, applications of this researchto organizational settings have increased (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2001;Ouwerkerk, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 1999; van Knippenberg, 2000). One feature of thesocial identity approach that makes it particularly attractive for organizational behaviorresearchers is that it allows for a theoretical justification of why AOC should relate to(especially influence) work behavior. Specifically, one of the most influential theorieswithin this approach, social identity theory (SIT; Tajfei, 1978; Tajfei & Turner, 1986),assumes that persons have a striving for a positive social identity. According to SIT,this striving is a derivative from the universal human need for high self-esteem. Thus,once having identified with a group (called ingroup in the following), a person strivesto achieve or maintain a positive image of that group. The hypothesis follows that thestronger a person's identification with a group, the stronger that person's efforts atimproving the group's standing relative to other groups. In an organizational context,this means that, for example, the stronger an employee's identification with theorganizadon, the stronger the employee's motivation to make the organization superiorto competitors or, more generally, to improve the organization's status. This motivationshould translate into better work performance (see van Knippenberg, 2000, for a moredetailed theoretical analysis of the effects of organizational identification on workmotivation). Because identification with the organization is a key component of AOCas commonly defined and operatiohalized (cf. Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al.,1982), this idea can explain why AOC relates positively to performance. This explanationis crucial for the present research.

We hasten to add that AOC may be positively associated with performance for otherreasons as well. For example, identification with the organization should lead to theinternalization of the organization's work-related norms. Because performing well isprobably a norm of most organizations, jthat internalization process should generallyincrease intrinsic performance motivation and therefore lead to better performance.However, this process is not relevant to the hypothesis tested herein.

According to SIT, a condition under which social identification is particularly likely totransform into behavior on behalf of the ingroup is when another group (called outgroupin the following) threatens the ingroup's status (Tajfei & Turner, 1986). This occurs, forexample,, when an outgroup (e.g., another sports team) becomes increasingly successfulon dimensions defining the ingroup (e.g., number of matches won). Such a threat to theingroup's status is in confiict with the group member's desire for a positive self-viewand thus motivates him or her to defend, restore, or improve the ingroup's standingrelative to the outgroup. Results from two laboratory experiment by Ouwerkerk, deGilder, and de Vries (2000) support this hypothesis. These experiments showed thatsocial identification (a) correlated posidvely with performance improvement on behalfof the ingroup when the ingroup had an inferior (experimentally manipulated) status

International Journal of Management Vol. 22 No. 2 June 2005 195

than the outgroup but (b) did not correlate with such performance improvement whenthe ingroup had a superior status.

The goal of the present research was to conceptually replicate this finding in anorganizational context. However, in contrast to the former study, we looked at statusthreat that was independent of an outgroup. Specifically, our data came from anorganization that had been involved in a corruption scandal. We operationalized statusthreat as the extent to which employees perceived the scandal to be detrimental theorganization's public reputation. This variable is called scandal severity in the following.Extending SIT, we assumed that threats to absolute status (of which public reputation isan indicator) are functionally equivalent to threats to relative status in that both types ofstatus threat may activate employees' desire to have a positive social identity and hencemay motivate employees to restore their organization's (absolute or relative) status.This should occur especially if their identification is high, as suggested by the fmdingsof Ouwerkerk et al. (2000). Thus, on the basis of SIT and the results of Ouwerkerk et al.(2000), we postulated that the relationship between AOC and performance should bemore positive among employees who reported high versus low scandal severity, that is,who perceived a strong versus weak threat to the organization's status in form of threatto public reputation. We tested this hypothesis separately for the two most often studiedtypes of performance: in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Theformer is defined as fulfillment of one's formal job duties whereas the latter is defmedas behavior that beneficial to the organization but not formally required by the job(Organ, 1988).

Method

Organization and Sample

The study was conducted in a large German health service organization. About oneyear before the investigation, a scandal broke when members of the organization wereaccused (and later convicted) of accepting bribes. This was reported in the mass mediaall across the country. The persons immediately involved in the scandal had been passedsentence on only a few weeks before our investigation. Again, this was reported widelyin the mass media. Hence, at the time of our investigation, employees could be assumedto be well aware of the scandal and its possible detrimental effects to the organization'sreputation. Until the scandal broke, the organization had had an unchallenged andexceptionally positive public image for decades.

We sent a questionnaire via internal mail to 260 employees from multiple sites of theorganization. Sixty-five questionnaires were returned (25% response rate). Sixty-threeof them were usable and provided the data for the following analyses. The analyzedsample is the same as in the study by Riketta and Landerer (2002).

Questionnaire

All data were collected with a self-report questionnaire. On the first page, participantswere told that the survey was for scientific purposes only and that participation was


voluntary. Furthermore, on the same page, participants were assured of the confidentialityof their results and were asked to return the questionnaire directly to the researchers,with postage to be paid hy licensee. An envelope addressed to the researchers wasattached to each questionnaire.

The remainder of the questionnaire comprised the scales referring to AOC, scandalseverity, in-role performance, and organizational citizenship hehavior alongsideadditional scales that were included for purposes independent of the present study (cf.Riketta & Landerer, 2002). In the following, the scales relevant to the present hypothesesare described in the same order in which they appeared on the questionnaire. Each itemhad to he answered on five-point scales anchored with not applicable at all and whollyapplicable. Answers were coded from 1 to 5 and averaged across items.

In-role performance was measured with four items beginning with "In the last sixmonths...": "My supervisor has been satisfied with me", "I have been one of the bestemployees of [organization] in my district", "I have met the requirements of my job",and "My colleagues have been respecting me for my performance".

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was measured with eight items beginningwith "In the last six months...": "I have voluntarily done more work than required", "Ihelped colleagues when they had much work to do", "I have tried to recruit volunteersfor [organization]", "I have voluntarily helped my supervisor with his/her work", "Ihave spontaneously made suggestions to improve work processes", "I have talkedfavorably about [organization] to my acquaintances", "I have taken more or longerbreaks during working hours than allowed" (reverse scored), "I have criticized[organization] in front of my acquaintances" (reverse scored). The scale was amodification of the common OCB scale of Smith, Organ, and Near (1983).

AOC was measured with five items adapted from the Organizational CommitmentQuestionnaire (Mowday et al., 1982) and the Affective Commitment Scale (Allen &Meyer, 1990): "I am proud to tell others that I work for [organization]", "If I could notwork for [organization] any more, I would miss something", "I have many things incommon with other employees of [organization]", "I am still satisfied with my decisionto work for [organization]", "I care about the problems of [organization] even if myworkplace is not involved in them".

Scandal severity was measured with five items: "The recent scandal has impaired[organization's] reputation", "I think many people currently have a negative opinion of[organization] due to the negative reports in the media", "I think that most people'sopinion of [organization] was not influenced by the scandal" (reverse scored), "I thinkthat, despite the negative reports in the media, most people still hold [organization] inhigh regard" (reverse scored), "The negative media reports do harm only to particularemployees or areas of [organization] but not to [organization] as a whole" (reversescored).

International Journal of Management Vol. 22 No. 2 June 2005 197

ResultsAll e values reported in the following are two-tailed. Results with p < .05 and p < .10are called significant and marginally significant, respectively. Table 1 shows descriptivestatistics for all variables. To test whether the relationships of AOC with in-roleperformance and OCB depended on scandal severity, we first z standardized AOC,scandal severity, and the performance variables. Then we regressed each performancetype on AOC, scandal severity, and the interaction term AOC x Scandal Severity(computed from the standardized variables). Table 2 displays the results. For OCB ascriterion, a strongly positive and significant beta coefficient for AOC emerged (beta =•64, g < .001). Thus, like in many previous studies, AOC and OCB were positivelyrelated (see Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002). Further, scandal severity was unrelatedto AOC (beta = -.06, £=.60). Most important, the interaction was marginally significant(beta = . 18, E = 09). Figure 1 visualizes this interaction by displaying the AOC—OCBrelationship (simple slopes) for two levels of scandal severity (M + SD and M - SD; cf.Cohen & Cohen, 1983). As predicted, the relationship was stronger and more positive

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients, andCorrelations

Variable M SD 1. 2. 3. 4.

l.AOC

2. In-role performance

3. OCB

4. Scandal severity 4.13 0.64 -.18 .07 -.21 (.69)

Note. N varies between 61 and 63 due to missing data. Scale range is 1-5. Cronbachalphas are given in parentheses. AOC: attitudinal organizational commitment.OCB: organizational citizenship behavior. *p< .05 . ***gs.OOl.

Table 2. Regression-Analytic Tests for Moderating Effects of Scandal

M3.47

3.85

3.56

4.13

SD1.00

0.75

0.71

0.64

1.(.84)

.30*

.63***

-.18

2.

(.69)

.43***

.07

3.

(.71)

-.21

Criterion

In-role performance

OCB

R̂.13*

.43***

SeverityPredictors

AOCScandal SeverityAOC X Scandal Severity

AOCScandal SeverityAOC X Scandal Severity

B

0.280.08

-0.14

0.64-0.060.15

SEB

0.130.130.11

0.100.100.09

P.28*

.08-.17

-.06.18*

Note. N = 62 for each analysis. The criteria, AOC, and Scandal Severity are zstandardized. AOC: attitudinal organizational commitment. OCB: organizationalcitizenship behavior. * e < . 10. * E < . 0 5 . ***e<.001.

198 International Journal of Management Vol. 22 No. 2 June 2005

for high versus low scandal severity.

For in-role performance as criterion, a moderate and significant beta weight foridentification emerged (beta = .28, Q. = .03). This, too, confirms the finding of manyprevious studies of a positive relationship between AOC and performance (see Meyeret al., 2002; Riketta, 2002). Scandal severity was unrelated to the criterion (beta = .08,E = .53). The beta interaction term was also nonsignificant, with the direction of theinteraction contrary of the hypothesis (beta = -.17, p = .19). Thus, our hypothesis wasconfirmed for OCB but not for in-role performance.

DiscussionThis study was the first one to explore the role of threat to organizational reputation onthe AOC—performance relationship. Threat was operationalized as the perceivedseverity of a scandal in which the organization under study had been involved. Wepostulated that the more severe the scandal from employees' perspective, the strongerthe AOC—work engagement correlation. This hypothesis was marginally confirmedfor OCB but was disconfirmed for in-role performance.

The reasons why the hypothesis was confirmed only for one performance type areunclear. The arguably most plausible explanation is that participants considered OCB

Figure 1. Regression of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) onattitudinal organizational commitment (AOC) for low (M - SD) versus

high (M + SD) scandal severity (all variables z standardized).

1 -

So

-1 -

-2

. . • • • • /

/

• • •Low

High

1

scandal

scandal

1

severity

severity

1

-2 - 1 0 1

AOC

Internationaljournal of Management Vol. 22 No. 2 June 2005 199

as more instrumental for restoring the organization's image than in-role performance.However, in this case, the correlation between AOC and OCB should have beenparticularly strong for employees who believed that their work behavior was visible tothe public. Using the same sample, Riketta and Landerer (2002) tested exactly thishypothesis and found that the AOC—OCB relationship was clearly unrelated to publicvisibility of work behavior. Yet, they found a moderator effect of this variable on theAOC—in-role performance relationship. Thus, the above explanation, albeit plausible,does not seem to apply to the present sample. Hence, finding an explanation for thisunexpected pattern of results remains a challenge for future research. In any case,however, because the difference between the performance types was unpredicted, oneshould await replications before interpreting it further.

Several limitations of our study must be mentioned. First, our correlational data do notpermit causal conclusions. Specifically, our results do not demonstrate that AOC causesperformance and that status threat causes changes in the AOC—performance relationship,although the theory (SIT) and findings (Ouwerkerk et al., 2000) that underlied ourresearch do suggest these directions of the causal paths. Second, we used only self-reported indicators of performance. Self-report measures of work behavior likely leadto an overestimation of actual work behavior (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988) and maylead to inflated correlations due to halo error and mono-method bias. Thus, one shouldbe cautious with interpreting the means of the analyzed variables and the absolute sizeof the correlations obtained herein. However, these effects do not necessarily distortobserved interactions between variables and hence do not necessarily impair theconclusiveness of our moderator analysis. Third, the present data came from oneparticular organization (a German health-service organization) and referred to a particulartype of status threat (a public scandal). The generalizability of our results acrossorganizations and instances of status threat remain to be explored.

Given these limitations, our results are preliminary. Nevertheless, they (a) do suggestthat employees' concern for the organization's reputation is among the moderators ofthe AOC—performance relationship and (b) add to the evidence for the usefulness ofthe social identity approach for explaining organizational behavior.

ReferencesAllen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 63, 1-18.

Ashforth B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity and the organization. Academy ofManagement Review, 14,20-39.

Brett, J. F., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1995). Economic dependency on work.Academy of Management Journal, 95, 261-271.

Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievenients, current problems, andfuture challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745-778.


Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis forthe behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self—supervisor, self—peer, and peer—supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology. 41, 43-62.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach.London: Sage.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,108, 171-194.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the vforkplace. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. P, Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 61, 20-52.

Mowday, R. T, Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages:The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Toronto: Lexington.

Ouwerkerk, J. W., de Gilder, D., & de Vries, N. (2000). When the going gets tough, thetough get going: Social identification and individual effort in intergroup competition.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1550-1559.

Ouwerkerk, J. W., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (1999). Group commitment andindividual effort in experimental and organizational contexts. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears& B. Doosje (Eds.), Social Identity (pp. 185-204). Oxford, Great Britain: Blackwell.

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257-266.

Riketta, M. & Landerer, A. (2002). Organizational commitment, accountability, andwork behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 653-660.

Schaubroeck, J. & Ganster, D. C. (1991). Beyond the call of duty: A field study ofextra-role behavior in voluntary organizations. Human Relations, 44, 569-582.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Tajfel, H. (Ed.) (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. InS. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., pp.7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identityperspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357-371.

Contact email address: michael.rikettaOuni-tuebingen.de

organizational behavior

Education