a value based perspective on commitment in the workplace: an examination of schwartz's basic...

A value based perspective on commitment in the workplace:An examination of Schwartz’s basic human values theory amongbank employees in Israel

Aaron Cohen *

School of Political Science, Division of Public Administration, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel

1. Introduction

The study of commitment in the workplace dates back to the 1960s, and focused at first on the idea of organizationalcommitment (Cohen, 2003). Today, scholars recognize that employees are exposed simultaneously to more than one objectof commitment. The multiple-commitments approach recognizes a number of commitment foci other than the organization,both broader (the occupation, the union, work in general) and more specific (the work group and one’s particular job) (Cohen,1993, 1999, 2003, 2007; Morrow, 1993; Randall & Cote, 1991).

There are several reasons for the interest in multiple commitments. First, as the current workforce has become moreeducated, sophisticated, and flexible, one can no longer assume that organizational commitment is the sole or leadingcommitment in the workplace. Other commitments, particularly occupational commitment and commitment to work ingeneral, have become increasingly important (Cohen, 2003). The current worldwide recession has only sped up this process.The unstable economic climate since late 2008 has led to a significant breakdown in the commitment of organizations totheir employees—thereby strengthening employees’ attachments to foci that they see as more reliable or stable. Second,research has shown that multiple forms of commitment predict important work outcomes, such as withdrawal,

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 332–345

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:

Individual values

Workplace

Commitment

A B S T R A C T

There has been a growing trend recently to examine individual-level values in order to

better understand attitudes and behaviors of employees in the workplace. This paper

continues this trend by examining the relationship between individual-level values, using

Schwartz’s basic human values theory, and six workplace commitment forms (organiza-

tional, occupational, group, work, job, union). It also examines whether individual values

relate to commitment forms when controlling for demographic variables and justice

perceptions. The sample includes 424 employees of one of the major banks in Israel. The

findings show strong relationships between age and justice and commitment forms.

However, they also show that individual values relate to commitment forms above and

beyond the effect of the demographic and justice variables. In particular, the results show

consistent positive relationships between benevolence and achievement, on the one hand,

and most of the commitment forms on the other. The findings are discussed in terms of

their implications for future research on the relationships between individual values and

commitment in the workplace.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Tel.: +9724 8240 041; fax: +9724 8257 785.

E-mail address: [email protected].

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

0147-1767/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.04.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01471767

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.04.001

performance, absenteeism, and tardiness, better than one commitment form (e.g., Blau, 1986; Cohen, 1993, 1999, 2003;Randall & Cote, 1991).

Despite the numerous findings that have emerged from studies on multiple commitments in the workplace (for a reviewsee Cohen, 2003), one area of investigation has generally been overlooked—namely, the relationship between individualvalues and commitment in the workplace. A few studies have shown that values play a functional role as predictors ormoderators of work-related processes and outcomes, including organizational commitment as well as job satisfaction andwork performance (e.g., Boxx, Odom, & Dunn, 1991; Finegan, 2000; Glazer, Daniel, & Short, 2004; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001;Pearson & Chong, 1997; Wasti, 2003). Further, values are ascribed a central role in determining the fit between individualsand their employment organization. The underlying assumption is that people will be happier and more motivated, satisfied,and committed when their values are congruent with those emphasized in the organization or vocational group (Berings, DeFruyt, & Bouwen, 2004). However, much of this research deals with work values rather than general values (e.g., Furnham,Petrides, Tsaosis, Pappas, & Garrod, 2005; the main exception is Glazer et al., 2004). Although people’s activity in the workdomain is likely to depend more on work values than on general values, the role of general values should not be overlooked(Roe & Ester, 1999).

A few of the studies that have looked at individual values have applied Rokeach’s (1973) values theory, in particular toexamine values among police officers (Rokeach, Miller, & Snyder, 1971; Zhao, He, & Lovrich, 1998; Zhao, He, & Lovrich, 1999).Most studies apply Hofstede’s (1980) framework, arguing that each of his value dimensions varies widely across individualswithin a society and that these individual differences have main effects on many outcomes. For example, Clugston, Howell,and Dorfman (2000), looking at American employees, find a relationship between power distance and normativecommitment to the organization, the supervisor, and the work group. They find similar associations between uncertaintyavoidance and continuance commitment to the organization, the supervisor, and the work group, and between collectivismand affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the work group. Cohen (2007) examines five groups of Israeliteachers selected to represent different cultural groups (secular Jews, orthodox Jews, kibbutz teachers, Druze, and Arabs),and finds that all four values studied relate to forms of commitment and add to the variance already explained by the dummyvariable of membership in a given cultural group.

Fewer studies have applied Schwartz’s (1992, 1996) human values theory to examine relationships to commitment.Glazer et al. (2004) use Schwartz’s Values Survey (SVS) to examine the relationship between values and affective andcontinuance organizational commitment among hospital nurses in Hungary, Italy, the UK, and the US. They find a negativerelationship between openness to change and affective commitment in three of the four countries (all but the UK), andbetween conservation values and continuance commitment in the Italian sample. In a survey of German and Britishemployees, Fischer and Smith (2006) find no direct effect on affective organizational commitment for either conservation oropenness to change. They conclude that other forms of commitment as well as other values need to be examined to furtherclarify the relationship between values and commitment.

The goal of the current study is to continue this important research agenda by examining the relationship betweenindividual values, using Schwartz’s (1992) theory, and affective commitment to six foci—namely, the organization, theoccupation, the work group, the union, the job, and work itself. Using a sample of bank employees in Israel, the study looks athow values relate to commitment when controlling for (1) demographic variables commonly examined in the commitmentliterature (age, education, and gender), and (2) justice variables (distributive and procedural), which represent an importantexchange concept.

This study has the potential to make several contributions. First, it applies a theory of values (Schwartz, 1992) notcommonly used at the individual level in management and industrial psychology, particularly in commitment research.By doing so, it will add to our understanding of how individual values affect commitment in the workplace. It will alsocontribute to our understanding of how to create a better fit between the individual and the organization. Employeeswith more person-organization congruence of values may show greater flexibility across jobs and mesh better withtheir organization (Herbst & Houmanfar, 2009). An extensive literature review finds Schwartz’s model to be anappropriate comprehensive framework for studying supplementary person-organization fit (De Clercq, Fontaine, &Anseel, 2008).

Second, the findings of this study will help clarify whether individual values relate to commitment beyondthe effect of demographic and work-related variables such as organizational justice. Several recent studies haveemphasized the importance of justice in the context of individual values and commitment (Fischer & Smith, 2006; Lam,Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002). There is also evidence for a strong effect of justice variables on organizationalcommitment in different cultures such as Japan and Korea (Magoshi & Chang, 2009). The fact that this study applies amultidimensional approach to both justice and commitment facilitates a more thorough examination of thisrelationship.

Third, this study examines six foci of commitment considered universal—that is, relevant to most if not all employees(Cohen, 2007; Morrow, 1993; Randall & Cote, 1991). However, most of the literature establishing these six foci as distinctivecommitment forms has been set in the English-speaking world, notably the US and UK (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005).The current study will help validate and generalize these concepts to other nations and cultures.

Finally, this research also responds to recent criticism that efforts to explain value differences are too narrow and focusalmost exclusively on individualism versus collectivism (Francesco & Chen, 2004; Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). This studyexamines 10 individual values simultaneously in their relationship to commitment.

A. Cohen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 332–345 333

2. Conceptual framework and research hypotheses

2.1. Schwartz’s individual values model

Schwartz and Sagiv (1995), based on Schwartz (1992, 1996), define human values as desirable, trans-situational goals,varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives. The crucial content aspect that distinguishes valuesfrom one another is the type of motivational goal they express. The authors reason that values, in the form of conscious goals,represent three universal requirements of human existence: biological needs, requisites of coordinated social interaction,and demands of group functioning. Groups and individuals represent these requirements cognitively as specific values aboutwhich they communicate. Schwartz (1992) defines 10 distinct motivational types of values. Table 1 lists the 10 value types aspresented in Schwartz and Sagiv (1995), each defined in terms of its central goal and followed, in parentheses, by specificvalues that primarily represent it.

Fig. 1 presents the relations of conflict and compatibility among value priorities that, in the view of Schwartz and Sagiv(1995), structure the value system. Competing value types emanate in opposing directions from the center; compatible typesare in close proximity going around the circle. As shown in Fig. 1, the 10 value types are organized in two dimensionscomposed of higher order value types. The first dimension – Openness to Change versus Conservation – juxtaposes valuesemphasizing independent thought and action and favoring change (self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism) with thoseemphasizing submissive self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and protection of stability (security,conformity, and tradition). The second dimension – Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence – juxtaposes valuesemphasizing pursuit of one’s own relative success and dominance over others (power, achievement, and hedonism) withthose emphasizing acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare (universalism and benevolence). (Note thathedonism fits in both dimensions, relating to both Openness to Change and Self-Enhancement). Evidence for this theoreticalstructure has been found in samples from 67 nations (Schwartz, 1992, 2005; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995), as well as in recentdata from 38 countries (Fontaine, Poortinga, Delbeke, & Schwartz, 2008). These two sets of findings, showing that 10motivationally distinct value types are recognized across cultures and are used to express value priorities, providesubstantial support for both the content and structure postulates of the theory. De Clercq et al. (2008), in an extensivequantitative literature review, also conclude that this model offers a thorough, comprehensive, and cross-culturallyvalidated theoretical values structure.

Schwartz (1996) describes several possible processes that might link value priorities to people’s attitudes and behaviors.He suggests that values influence, first of all, what we as human beings notice and pay attention to in the world around us.Values then influence our perceptions and interpretations of various situations. Put differently, high-priority valuesrepresent enduring goals that guide people to look for, and to pay particular attention to, value-relevant aspects of a situation(Schwartz, Sagiv, & Boehnke, 2000). People then define the situation – and choose a course of action in response – in light oftheir values and the weight they give to each one.

Schwartz (1996) argues that his view of value systems as integrated structures facilitates the generation ofsystematic, coherent hypotheses about how values and value priorities relate to other attitudes or behaviors. In his view,external variables (e.g., attitudes or behaviors) tend to be associated similarly with value types that are adjacent in the

Table 1

Definitions of motivational types of values in terms of their goals and the single values that represent thema.

Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. (Social Power, Authority, Wealth) [Preserving My Public Image,

Social Recognition]a

Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. (Successful, Capable, Ambitious, Influential) [Intelligent,

Self Respect]

Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. (Pleasure, Enjoying Life)

Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. (Daring, A Varied Life, An Exciting Life)

Self-direction: Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring. (Creativity, Freedom, Independent, Curious, Choosing Own Goals)

[Self-Respect]

Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. (Broadminded, Wisdom, Social Justice,

Equality, A World of Peace, A Word of Beauty, Unity With Nature, Protecting the Environment)

Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. (Helpful, Honest, Forgiving, Loyal,

Responsible) [True Friendship, Mature Love]

Tradition: Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self. (Humble, Accepting My Portion

in Life, Devout, Respect for Tradition, Moderate)

Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms (Politeness, Obedient,

Self-Discipline, Honoring Parents and Elders)

Security: Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. (Family Security, National Security, Social Order, Clean, Reciprocation

of Favors) [Sense of Belonging, Healthy]

a Values in brackets were not used in computing indexes for value types.

A. Cohen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33 (2009) 332–345334

model—that is, with value types based on the same or similar motivational goals. Researchers can best developspecific hypotheses regarding the relationship between values and attitudes by analyzing how strongly (if at all) aparticular attitude expresses the motivational goals which define each value type, enabling identification of the mostrelevant type.

3. The setting

Israel gained its independence in 1948, and since its early days has been characterized by rapid growth as well as by acontinuous state of war with the Arab nations surrounding it. The pioneering generation that established the new state,mainly immigrants from Eastern Europe, were in large part committed socialists, eager to form a socialist society in Israel(Lewis, 1972). It is not surprising, then, that socialism was the leading socio-economic ideology during the first decades ofIsrael’s existence (Tzafrir, Meshoulam, & Baruch, 2007); its dominance was demonstrated particularly in the collectivistcommunities known as kibbutzim. This helped to generate a strong sense of cohesion in the country, and enabled it to copewith enormous difficulties in areas such as security (which remains an issue today) and the heterogeneity of its population,caused by a number of waves of mass immigration from various countries (Lecker & Shachmurove, 1999). Mainly because ofthese waves of immigration, Israel’s original population of 600,000 in 1948 has grown more than tenfold since, to around6,689,700 (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2004).

The late 1970s saw the beginning of a new era in the Israeli labor market that continues up to the present, as externalchanges have caused shifts and transformations in Israel’s economy and a modernization of its industrial system. Thepressures of the 1973 war against its Arab neighbors, and the following global and local recessions, considerably slowedIsrael’s economic growth (from an average rate of 10% in the early years to 3.2% in 1980, and 1.2% in 1983; Israel CentralBureau of Statistics, 1980, 1983). Because of global and political changes (among them the growth of the high-tech industry,and the end of hegemony for the ruling Labor Party in 1977), the prevailing ideology has changed and today tends to followthe American capitalist model (Sagie & Weisberg, 2001).

Since 1977, all governments have adopted the principles of liberalization and privatization. Furthermore, recentpeace efforts have signaled to foreign companies and investors that Israel is no longer a risky partner, supplier, orpurchaser (De Fontenay & Carmel, 2001). These processes have opened Israel to the international market. Indeed, Israelifirms have been vigorous in their efforts to establish business ties with companies from other countries (Lavie &Fiegenbaum, 2000; Sagie & Weisberg, 2001). One important process during this era has been the emergence ofalternatives to the diminishing Histadrut (the national trade union) and government industry organizations, withengineers and workers in high-tech firms often forgoing union membership in favor of personal contracts. During thisperiod, the country’s civilian workforce more than doubled, mostly due to immigration from the former Soviet Union(Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 1970, 2002). The country faced the new challenge of managing a multi-cultural,multi-value workforce.

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of relations among ten motivational types of values.


4. Research hypotheses

4.1. Demographic variables and commitment

This study examines three demographic variables as control variables: age, gender, and education. These variables havebeen frequently examined as determinants of commitment, in accordance with the side-bet theory (Becker, 1960; Meyer &Allen, 1984). The rationale is that these variables represent hidden investments that bind the individual to the organizationor occupation—or put differently, hidden costs of leaving the organization or occupation. The higher these perceived costs,the greater the level of commitment.

Age is known to be one of the strongest representatives of such hidden costs. Older employees may lose their benefits ifthey leave their current organization, and may face more difficulties in finding alternative employment or moving intoanother occupation. Women – whether old or young – may also have trouble finding suitable alternatives, as they aregenerally the ones who are expected to deal with additional, sometimes conflicting, demands from home, such as the care ofchildren or aging parents. This situation is particularly true in Israel (Cohen & Kirchmeyer, 2005; Yishai & Cohen, 1997).Higher education levels can have the opposite effect, reducing the perceived costs of changing jobs or professions by givingemployees more opportunities and employment alternatives. Older employees, women, and people with lower levels ofeducation are therefore likely to have greater levels of commitment than those who are younger, male, and/or moreeducated.

It should be noted in this regard that the logic of the side-bet theory appears applicable to both continuance and affectiveforms of commitment. However, two meta-analyses – Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Teplitsky (2002) and Mathieu andZajac (1990) – find no effect of age, gender or education on either affective or continuance/calculative commitment. Inexploring these expectations in the current study, we are considering forms of commitment that are basically affective intheir nature, following the argument that this form captures organizational commitment better than normative orcontinuance commitment forms (Cohen, 2003; Meyer et al., 2002).

Hypothesis 1. Greater age, female gender, and a lower level of education will relate to higher levels of commitment. Thisrelationship is expected for each of the individual variables.

4.2. Organizational justice and commitment

Organizational justice concerns how employees determine if they have been treated fairly in their jobs and how thesedeterminations influence other work-related variables (Moorman, 1991). In essence, researchers argue that if employeesbelieve they are treated fairly, they will be more likely to have positive attitudes about their work and their work outcomes.Fischer and Smith (2006) find that organizational justice relates to organizational commitment more strongly thanindividual values.

Researchers routinely cite two main sources of organizational justice. The first, distributive justice, is based on equitytheory, which states that perceptions of an unfair distribution of work rewards relative to work input create tension withinthe individual, a tension the individual seeks to resolve (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Prior research and theory on socialexchange and distributive justice suggest that when employees receive inducements that are commensurate with theirknowledge, skills and abilities, they are more likely to think that outcomes such as pay, benefits and terms of work are fairand just (Ang, Van Dyne, & Begley, 2003; Greenberg, 1990). These employees will reciprocate with higher levels ofcommitment.

Hypothesis 2. Distributive justice will relate positively to commitment forms.

The second source, procedural justice, has two components. The first, formal procedures, refers to the presence or absenceof procedures believed to be fundamental to the fair distribution of rewards. Unsurprisingly, formal procedures influenceperceptions of fairness; Martin and Bennett (1996) find that employees are more likely to feel committed to an organizationthey perceive to be procedurally fair. The second component, interactional justice, refers to fairness in how formalprocedures are enacted or explained (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Prior research and theory on social exchange andprocedural justice suggest that when organizational decision-making is consistent and meets the bias suppression rule(uniform treatment of all), employees have positive assessments of procedural justice (Ang et al., 2003; Colquitt, 2001;Greenberg, 1990). As a result, employees will reciprocate with higher levels of commitment.

Hypothesis 3. Both forms of procedural justice will relate positively to commitment forms.

4.3. Values and commitment

Becker (1960) recognized that values must relate to commitment, but did not advance a theoretical framework for thisrelationship, calling for future research on the subject: ‘‘. . .In short, to understand commitment fully, we must discover thesystems of value within which the mechanisms and processes described earlier operate’’ (p. 39). Lydon (1996), taking on thischallenge, contends that core values define who we are in an important way. They serve as a bridge from the self to life


experiences by informing us about the meaning that life experiences have for us. Meaning thus fulfills epistemic concernsabout life experiences—but meaning then seeks expression in a ‘‘motivational process’’ of commitment that energizes theperson to pursue a goal in the face of adversity. Thus, we are most committed to goals, projects, and life tasks that affirm whowe are—that give meaning to our lives.

Lydon’s (1996) explanation is somewhat general in the sense that it does not deal with the specific setting of theworkplace. Furnham et al.’s (2005) discussion is more relevant to the workplace setting and can be generalized tocommitment. Furnham et al. argue that affective disposition can have a pervasive influence on how people view the world,including their job—meaning that individuals with different personalities may react to different aspects of their workenvironment. This explanation relies on the fact that there is considerable variability among people in the same workenvironment, although it is uncertain whether this reflects personality or demographic differences or some combination ofthe two (Furnham et al.). Beyond that, Furnham et al. suggest that disposition may at times influence job-related choices,such that people with a negative disposition will accept, or may even seek out, less appealing jobs than people whose outlookis positive. In other words, it may be that people with different personalities sort themselves into different jobs.

In the current research, I expect that employees who highly value tradition, conformity, power, benevolence,universalism, and security will show greater commitment than those who do not. Conversely, I expect that employees whovalue achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction will show less commitment than those who do not.Commitment suggests a desire to build long-term, stable and meaningful relationships, both with the larger entity one ispart of and with its members. As such, commitment has much in common with five of the six values in the first set listedabove. Benevolence, for instance, shares with commitment a focus on the enhancement of others’ welfare, as doesuniversalism, with its added aspect of social justice. Tradition and conformity emphasize support, a sense of belonging, andsolidarity. Security, like commitment, suggests a striving for long-term relationships and increased stability.

The values in the second set are likely to have a much weaker relationship with commitment. People who highly valuehedonism or stimulation are likely to focus more on themselves than on the welfare of others. Those who value achievementand self-direction will likewise invest less in helping others and building relationships in the workplace, because of theirstrong focus on, and pride in, their own successes and advancement.

With regard to power, the formulation of a clear hypothesis is more complex. According to Schwartz, this value has astrong individualistic focus that contradicts the collectivist nature of commitment. However, accepting a power hierarchycan increase commitment because the idea of hierarchy is built into many commitment foci in the workplace. Therefore, theexpectation here is that employees who value power highly will be more committed than those who do not. The positiverelationship found in previous studies between power and organizational commitment (Clugston et al., 2000; Cohen, 2007)provides support for this hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4. Employees who highly value tradition, conformity, security, power, benevolence, and universalism are likelyto show greater commitment than those who do not. Employees who value hedonism, stimulation, achievement, and self-direction are likely to show less commitment than those who do not.

4.4. Values and individual commitment foci

Up to this point, I have not distinguished among particular types of commitment. However, some differences in therelationships between the predictor variables and commitment foci can be expected. Lawler’s (1992) principle of proximalrules may help in this regard, as it explains why ‘‘actors develop stronger affective ties to subgroups within a social systemrather than to the social system, to local communities rather than to states, to work organizations, and so forth’’ (p. 334).Interpersonal attachment produces a stronger commitment to subgroups than to the larger group, because the credit forpositive results from interpersonal bonds is likely to be attributed to the proximal subgroups, while the blame for negativeeffects is likely to be attributed to the large group (Lawler). The above logic can explain why one might develop a strongerpersonal attachment to one’s job, which is a proximal target in one’s immediate work unit, than to one’s career, which is amuch more distant target.

Gregerson (1993) and Mueller and Lawler (1999) argue that proximal variables exert the most significant influence onemployees’ actions because proximity provides more opportunities for exchange relationships. According to Gregerson(1993), individuals may come to identify strongly with and become significantly attached to proximal and potentiallyinfluential foci. We can easily apply this reasoning to the relationships between values and commitment forms. The basicargument here is that in the workplace context, values will more strongly relate to commitment foci that provide moreopportunities for exchange relationships, because these relationships present more opportunities for the attainment ofmotivational goals, as argued by Schwartz (1996). In the work setting, the organization, the work group, and the job are moreproximal foci – that is, involve intensive exchange relationships – than the occupation, the union, or work in general. Thismeans that the variables under study in this research – the three demographic variables, justice perceptions, and values –will relate to the organization more strongly than the occupation, to the work group more than the union, and to the job morethan to work in general.

Two additional comments are in order. First, the greater influence of proximal foci may not hold across the board. AsVandenberg and Scarpello (1994) note, the occupation might elicit greater commitment from employees in some settings. Inthe specific context examined here, bank employees may exhibit a stronger relationship between values and occupational


commitment than employees in other occupations. If this is so, we might expect that values in the current study will relate tooccupational commitment as much as to organizational commitment.

Second, some values that relate to commitment may do so more strongly than others. Specifically, benevolenceemphasizes the importance of positive personal contacts, meaning that by definition it involves intensive exchangerelationships. For this reason, we can expect people who score high in benevolence to show greater levels of commitment.

Note that in what follows, for ease of understanding, the terms ‘‘job involvement’’ and ‘‘work involvement’’ sometimesreplace ‘‘commitment to the job’’ and ‘‘commitment to work in general.’’

Hypothesis 5. Demographic variables, justice, and values will explain more variation in organizational commitment, groupcommitment, job involvement and occupational commitment than in work involvement and union commitment.

Hypothesis 6. Employees who value benevolence highly will be more committed to the foci examined here than those whodo not.

5. Research design

5.1. Subjects and procedure

The study population comprised employees of one of the largest banks in Israel. Management agreed to participate in thestudy in return for feedback on the findings, but stipulated that none of the participants would be identified in any way. Thisstipulation prevented a longitudinal design or the collection of data from sources other than the employees on topics such asperformance, absenteeism, or turnover.

By request of the management, data collection took place among veteran employees undergoing specialized training inthe bank’s training center. Over a period of about four months, data were collected from members of 20 training groups,which ranged in size from 12 to 40. The questionnaires were generally distributed and completed during training sessions,either before or after a scheduled break, and took about 20 minutes to complete. Altogether, 424 usable questionnaires werecollected.

The questionnaires were in Hebrew. The Schwartz values scale was translated by the author (Schwartz) into numerouslanguages with the use of accepted translation methods (Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess, & Harris, 2001). I translatedthe commitment and justice scales into Hebrew; they were then back-translated into English by a native speaker of thelanguage to ensure accuracy.

The participants were 58.7% female. Their average age was 37.5 years (SD = 11.7), and average tenure in the bank and inthe present job was 13.2 years and 4.8 years, respectively. With regard to family status, 71.4% of the respondents weremarried, and 49.4% had one or more children under 18. About 73.1% had a university degree. The bulk of the employees –89.3% – worked in the bank branches, and 27.8% had managerial positions.

5.2. Predictor measures

5.2.1. Commitment foci

The 8-item scale developed by Meyer and Allen (1984) measured affective organizational commitment (sample item: ‘‘Ireally feel as if this organization’s problems are my own’’). As noted above, affective commitment was used here followingCohen’s (2003) argument that this form captures organizational commitment better than normative or continuancecommitment forms (Meyer et al., 2002). Similarly, in Glazer et al. (2004) values do not significantly relate to continuancecommitment.

Occupational commitment was calculated using the 7-item measure developed by Blau (1988) (sample item: ‘‘I like thisvocation too well to give it up’’). Job involvement was measured by the 10-item scale developed by Kanungo (1979, 1982)(sample item: ‘‘The most important things that happen to me involve my present job’’), and work involvement by Kanungo’s(1979, 1982) 6-item scale (sample item: ‘‘Life is worth living only when people get absorbed in work’’). Work groupcommitment was calculated using the 7-item measure developed by Ellemers, de Gilder, and van den Heuvel (1998) (sampleitem: ‘‘I feel at home among my colleagues at work’’). Union commitment was measured by the shorter union loyalty scalesuggested by Kelloway, Catano, and Southwell (1992), based on the union commitment scale developed by Gordon, Philpot,Burt, Thompson, and Spiller (1980) (sample item: ‘‘I feel a sense of pride being a part of this union’’). Except for the groupcommitment scale, all the scales applied in this research have been noted in the literature (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran,2005; Morrow, 1993) as the most commonly used and the most reliable and valid work commitment scales. All thecommitment constructs were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

5.2.2. Organizational justice

This variable was measured using Niehoff and Moorman’s (1993) scales, which include 5 items measuring perceptions ofdistributive justice and 15 items measuring the two dimensions of procedural justice. The distributive justice items aredesigned to assess the fairness of different work outcomes. The procedural justice items include 6 designed to tap thepresence of formal procedures—that is, mechanisms to ensure the gathering of accurate and unbiased information, ways foremployees to make their voices heard, and an appeals process. The other 9 items cover interactional justice—that is, the


degree to which employees feel managers consider their needs in making job decisions and explain those decisionsadequately. Given the strong correlation found here between the formal procedures and interactional justice scores(r = 0.758), I decided to combine the two scales to form one procedural justice scale.

5.2.3. Individual values

The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) was applied to measure the 10 basic values (Schwartz, 2005; Schwartz et al.,2001). The PVQ presents brief verbal portraits of 40 different people, gender-matched with the respondent. Each portraitdescribes a person’s goals and aspirations that point implicitly to the importance of a value. The verbal portraits describeeach person in terms of what is important to him or her. Thus, they capture the person’s values without explicitly identifyingvalues as the topic of investigation. The number of portraits for each value ranges from three (stimulation, hedonism, andpower) to six (universalism), reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. The score for the importance of each value is theaverage rating given to these items, all of which were designated a priori as markers of a value. All the value items havedemonstrated near equivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses using multi-dimensional scaling (Schwartz, 2005).

Table 2 presents the basic statistics of the variables and the ipsatized inter-correlations among them. Results showacceptable reliabilities of the research variables. Table 2 shows that the reliabilities for all the values, based on the raw data,are above .60. This is a positive indication, considering Schwartz et al.’s (2001) warning not to expect high internalreliabilities for the values. Schwartz et al. note that reliabilities below .60 are not unusual, both because the indexes includeonly a few items and because many values have conceptually broad definitions, encompassing multiple components.Therefore, the relatively high reliabilities found here are encouraging and can be attributed to the homogeneity of thesample.

To further establish the validity of the commitment scales applied here, I performed a confirmatory factor analysis usingthe AMOS program. In this analysis, I compared the fit of a six-factor model (incorporating the six commitment form scales)to the alternative fit of a single, one-factor model. The results for the six-factor model reveal the following fit indices:X2 = 2457.28 (DF = 887); X2/df = 2.77; RMSEA = .066; CFI = .833; IFI = .834. Loading all commitment form items onto a singlefactor, produced X2 = 4155.73 (DF = 903); X2/df = 4.60; RMSEA = .094; CFI .654; and IFI = .655. The findings thus support thesuperiority of the six-factor model over the one-factor model.

6. Data analysis

I applied correlation analysis to present the interrelationships among the research variables and to examine thepossibility of multicollinearity. The correlations among the predictor variables are acceptable and preclude the possibility ofmulticollinearity. Hierarchical regression analysis using the ‘enter’ method was employed to test the hypotheses. I did notuse the stepwise method because that technique is sometimes criticized for allowing the computer program to sequence thevariables based on their contribution to R2 (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The hierarchical regression using the entermethod in SPSS was performed in three stages. In the first stage, the three demographic variables were regressed on each ofthe commitment foci. In the second stage, the two justice variables were added to the equations, and in the third stage, the 10values were entered. In testing the hypotheses in this research, this method has the advantage of allowing the examination ofany variance above and beyond that explained in previous stages. That is, Hypothesis 1 will be supported if one or more of thedemographic variables relates significantly to the commitment foci. Hypothesis 2 and 3 will be supported if the two justicevariables relate significantly to the commitment foci when controlling for the effect of the demographic variables entered instage 1. Hypothesis 4 will be supported if the relevant values relate to commitment foci when controlling for the effect of thedemographic variables and the justice variables entered in stages 1 and 2. This stage (stage 3) is important in light of Fischerand Smith’s (2006) finding that the effect of values disappears when justice and values are entered into the regressionequation at the same stage. Entering values separately from justice can provide more sensitive information about the uniqueeffect of values when controlling for the effect of justice.

Hypothesis 5 will be supported if the predictor variables explain more of the variance in commitment to the organization,occupation, group and job than in commitment to the union and to work in general. Hypothesis 6 will be supported if thevalue benevolence relates significantly to all or most of the commitment forms.

7. Results

The correlations between the individual values and commitment forms presented in Table 2 show that conformity,benevolence, and universalism have a positive and consistent relationship with most of the commitment forms. Thesefindings provide initial general support for the research hypothesis. Naturally, more solid findings should show up in theregression analyses presented in the following section.

Table 3 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis, where the dependent variables were regressed on thedemographic variables in the first stage, on the justice variables in the second stage, and on the 10 values in the third stage.The findings for Stage 1 in Table 3 show that the demographic variables explain relatively high levels of variance incommitment forms (for example, .20 for organizational commitment; .13 each for job and work involvement; .11 for unioncommitment). They also provide general support for Hypothesis 1, particularly for age, which positively and strongly relatesto all commitment forms. The very strong relationship of age with all commitment forms is worth noting and can be


Table 2

Descriptive statistics, reliabilities (in parentheses), and inter-correlations among research variablesa.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Demographics

1. Age 37.52 11.72

2. Genderb .59 .49 �.17

3. Educationc .72 .45 �.36 �.21

Exchange variables

4. Procedural justice 4.52 1.13 .01 �.07 .13 (.94)

5. Distributive justice 4.02 1.19 .21 �.05 .05 .48 (.73)

Individual values

6. Conformity 3.46 .83 .18 �.08 �.13 .09 .11 (.64)

7. Tradition 2.42 1.04 .17 �.12 �.18 �.03 �.00 .50 (.68)

8. Benevolence 3.90 .71 .07 .02 �.03 .16 .11 .49 .34 (.67)

9. Universalism 3.48 .78 .27 �.13 �.12 .10 .06 .42 .29 .53 (.74)

10. Self-direction 3.82 .74 �.03 .02 .03 .08 .07 .14 .04 .28 .40 (.65)

11. Stimulation 2.87 1.04 �.12 �.05 .09 .01 �.04 .08 .11 .22 .36 .58 (.73)

12. Hedonism 3.45 1.08 �.04 �.05 �.04 .12 .05 .11 .09 .22 .34 .46 .57 (.85)

13. Achievement 3.80 .91 �.31 �.02 .25 .10 �.02 .16 �.05 .19 .18 .47 .38 .32 (.82)

14. Power 2.77 1.04 �.10 �.20 .13 �.01 �.03 .08 .01 .01 .15 .41 .40 .34 .57 (.69)

15. Security 3.73 .77 .23 �.15 �.11 .15 .08 .51 .36 .37 .55 .30 .10 .27 .23 .21 (.65)

Commitment forms

16. Organizational commitment 4.56 .99 .44 �.11 �.14 .34 .36 .29 .17 .30 .24 .05 �.08 .08 .03 �.01 .26 (.75)

17. Occupational commitment 4.74 1.31 .19 �.10 �.01 .40 .42 .24 .13 .25 .15 .05 �.03 .08 .18 .07 .18 .66 (.89)

18. Group commitment 5.18 .98 .27 �.08 �.02 .49 .40 .22 .00 .37 .31 .16 .03 .14 .14 �.01 .21 .59 .53 (.70)

19. Work involvement 3.79 1.04 .35 �.17 �.09 .23 .34 .20 .07 .15 .15 .00 �.05 �.00 .06 .11 .16 .53 .46 .44 (.78)

20. Job involvement 4.29 1.10 .34 �.17 �.08 .43 .43 .29 .16 .26 .23 .05 �.02 .05 .13 .09 .25 .70 .67 .61 .66 (.87)

21. Union commitment 4.23 1.18 .33 �.13 �.13 .30 .34 .27 .17 .27 .25 .11 .09 .21 .02 �.01 .25 .51 .42 .45 .23 .36 (.90)

N = 386–424 due to missing values.*P � .05; **P � .01; ***P � .001.

a Correlation � .10 significant at .05; correlation � .13 significant at .01; Correlation � .17 significant at .001.b Education—0 = non academic education; 1 = academic education.c Gender—0 = male; 1 = female.

A.

Co

hen

/Intern

atio

na

lJo

urn

al

of

Intercu

ltura

lR

elatio

ns

33

(20

09

)3

32

–3

45

34

0

attributed to the specific occupational group examined in this study. Partial support is provided for gender, as being femalerelates to higher levels of work and job involvement. No significant relationships were found for education.

Stage 2 in Table 3 presents the results of a hierarchical regression analysis of justice variables on the commitment forms.Hypothesis 2, which expected that perceptions of distributive justice would relate to commitment forms, was supported bythe data. As Table 3 shows, all forms of commitment relate to distributive justice. The data also support Hypothesis 3, whichexpected that procedural justice (formal procedures and interactional justice) would relate to organizational commitment.The combined scale of procedural justice relates strongly to all commitment forms.

Stage 3 in Table 3 presents the results of regression analyses of the 10 values on commitment forms. The findings providepartial support for Hypothesis 4. As expected, benevolence relates positively to five of the six forms of commitment, all

Table 3

Hierarchical regression results (standardized coefficients) of demographic variables, exchange variables, and individual values on commitment forms.

Commitment forms Organizational commitment Occupational commitment Group commitment

Predictor variables Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Demographics

1. Age .44*** .40*** .41*** .20*** .13* .18*** .30*** .25*** .26***

2. Gendera �.03 �.01 .00 �.05 �.01 .00 �.01 .02 �.00

3. Educationb .02 �.03 �.03 .05 �.02 �.03 .08 .02 �.01

Exchange variables

4. Procedural justice .26*** .22*** .28*** .25*** .41*** .35***

5. Distributive justice .15** .14** .26*** .26*** .15** .14**

Individual values

6. Conformity .07 .06 .04

7. Tradition .04 .07 �.13**

8. Benevolence .18*** .14* .24***

9. Universalism .01 �.00 .12*

11. Self-direction �.04 �.09 .01

12. Stimulation �.16** �.11 �.10

13. Hedonism .08 .02 .04

14. Achievement .17** .26*** .18***

15. Power �.00 .04 �.06

16. Security �.04 �.06 �.08

R2 (adjusted) .20(.19) .32(.32) .40(.38) .04(.04) .25(.24) .33(.31) .08(.07) .33(.32) .45(.43)

F 32.52*** 37.75*** 17.42*** 5.81*** 25.73*** 12.89*** 11.50*** 38.37*** 20.67***

DR2 .13 .08 .20 .09 .25 .12

F for DR2 36.80*** 5.23*** 53.32*** 5.12*** 72.47*** 8.28***

Commitment forms Work involvement Job involvement Union commitment

Predictor variables Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Demographics

1. Age .33*** .27*** .30*** .33*** .27*** .30*** .30*** .25*** .25***

2. Gendera �.11* �.08 �.07 �.10* �.08 �.05 �.08 �.05 �.05

3. Educationb .00 �.04 �.07 .02 �.04 �.06 �.04 �.08 �.06

Exchange variables

4. Procedural justice .13* .12* .33*** .30*** .22*** .18***

5. Distributive justice .21*** .21*** .20*** .21*** .17*** .17***

Individual values

6. Conformity .08 .09 .10

7. Tradition �.03 .04 .01

8. Benevolence .09 .11* .12*

9. Universalism .02 .03 �.02

11. Self-direction �.12* �.10* �.04

12. Stimulation �.03 �.04 .04

13. Hedonism �.06 �.05 .15**

14. Achievement .14* .21*** .05

15. Power .15* .07 �.07

16. Security �.04 �.02 .03

R2 (adjusted) .13 (.13) .21 (.20) .27 (.24) .13 (.12) .34 (.33) .42 (.40) .11 (.11) .22 (.22) .29 (.27)

F 20.01*** 21.25*** 9.42*** 19.65*** 40.26*** 18.59*** 16.64*** 22.85*** 10.69***

DR2 .08 .07 .21 .08 .11 .07

F for DR2 20.21*** 2.97*** 62.10*** 5.48*** 28.70*** 3.80***

N = 386–424 due to missing values.*P � .05; **P � .01; ***P � .001.

a Education—0 = non academic education; 1 = academic education.b Gender—0 = male; 1 = female.


except work involvement. As expected, the findings show an inverse relationship between self-direction and commitment toboth work in general and the specific job. The positive relationships between power and work involvement and betweenuniversalism and group commitment, and the negative relationship between stimulation and organizational commitment,were also expected. However, one unexpected finding that should be noted is the positive relationship between achievementand five of the commitment forms, except for union commitment.

The findings in Table 3 also provide general support for Hypotheses 4a and 4b. The justice variables add the largestamounts of explained variance to group commitment (.25), job involvement (.21), and occupational commitment (.20). Asexpected, the justice variables contribute least to the variance for work involvement (.08) and union commitment (.11). Asimilar pattern appears for the individual values, which also add little to the explained variance for work involvement andunion commitment (.07). The strong effect of benevolence on commitment forms was expected by Hypothesis 6.

8. Discussion

This study continues an important research agenda of examining the effect of individual-level values on employees’attitudes in the workplace (Clugston et al., 2000; Cohen, 2007; Glazer et al., 2004). One difference between the currentresearch and many previous studies is the use of Schwartz’s (1992) values theory. In addition, this study uses the more recentmeasurement of values, the PVQ, advanced by Schwartz et al. (2001). It also presents a broader perspective on therelationship between values and commitment by examining six commitment forms and all 10 individual values, allowing amore sensitive examination. The findings of this study are quite encouraging regarding the application of Schwartzs theoryand its advanced measurement tools to a better understanding of commitment in the workplace. Building upon previousstudies (Fischer & Smith, 2006; Glazer et al., 2004), and findings based on Hofstedes theory (Clugston et al., 2000; Cohen,2007), they support the usefulness of this research agenda, showing that individual values should not be neglected whenconsidering determinants that shape commitment in the workplace.

Another contribution of this study is the inclusion of justice variables. Few studies have included justice together withindividual values to predict work outcomes (exceptions are Fischer & Smith, 2006; Lam et al., 2002). This made it possible totest the effect of individual values above and beyond the effect of important work-exchange variables such as perceptions oforganizational justice. However, it is equally interesting that in the current study, variables from all three groups –demographics, justice, and values – relate to commitment, with the magnitude of explained variance in each case quite high.In other words, all three groups make unique and specific contributions to explaining the sources of commitment and thusshould be included in further examinations of determinants of commitment forms.

The weak correlations between values and justice bear noting as well. While this study did not aim to fully examine howvalues relate to justice, future research should try and replicate the findings here and determine the reasons for them. Is itthat values relate less to very situation-specific constructs such as organizational justice than to more long-term conceptssuch as commitment?

Besides this, in order to generalize from the findings here with greater certainty, future research should first explorewhether the findings are specific to the target population examined here, as well as to the specific cultural and nationalsetting. For example, the very strong effect of age, particularly on commitment forms, might be attributed to theoccupational setting of Israeli bank employees. The absence of any significant relationship between security andcommitment forms, with or without controlling for demographic and justice variables, might also be attributed to thestability of employment in this occupational group in Israel. The strong effect of benevolence on commitment forms might beattributed to the collectivist nature of Israeli society (Cohen, 2007). Replication of the findings here in other occupationalsettings and national cultures is warranted. Also, the data here were collected before the current global recession. It may bethat the findings would differ if the data had been collected at the beginning of 2009. For example, I would expect a strongereffect of security and an even stronger effect of age on commitment forms as a result of the quest for better job security.

Some the findings here show interesting patterns that should be examined more thoroughly and explored in futurecommitment research. First, we should note the strong and consistent effect of benevolence. Benevolence is a value thatassigns great importance to relationships with other people. Employees who score high in benevolence seem to develop deepcommitments based on their exchange relationships with the people with whom they work. These fellow employees, ratherthan more abstract and less personal entities, are the object of commitment. Previous findings (Clugston et al., 2000; Cohen,2007) that show a strong relationship between collectivism and commitment also support this contention. Future researchshould continue to examine the relationship between benevolence and commitment.

Also interesting is the consistent positive relationship between achievement and commitment. Three explanations can beadvanced for this finding. One has to do with the specific setting examined here. Bank employees in Israel have feweremployment opportunities in other organizations outside the banking industry. Their emphasis on achievement may meanthat they focus on developing their career in the bank because of their limited employment opportunities elsewhere. Second,Israeli culture encourages and promotes innovation, an outlook that permeates most institutions throughout the country (DeFontenay & Carmel, 2001). This means that a person who strongly values achievement finds an atmosphere very conduciveto becoming highly involved with work, the group and the organization. A third possibility has to do with the strong effect ofage on commitment. The correlation findings in this research show a negative relationship between age and achievementand a positive relationship between age and all commitment forms. The regressions show a very strong and positive effect ofage on all commitment forms. Could it be that achievement has a positive effect on commitment for older employees?


Support for this contention can be found in the fact that when I regressed the values on commitment forms without thedemographic and justice variables, achievement was related only to occupational commitment. With the demographicvariables (age in particular), it was related to all commitment forms except union commitment. Future research shouldfurther explore the possibilities advanced here, exploring whether the relationship between achievement and commitmentfound here is unique to Israel, unique to banking, or not specific to either.

Other interesting patterns relate to Gregerson’s (1993) and Lawler’s (1992) ideas about proximity and exchangerelationships. The amount of variance explained by values was greatest for commitment to the work group (.45), and lowestfor commitment to work in general (.27). These figures suggest that values have greater relevance for more proximalcommitment forms than for more abstract ones—in other words, that people bring their personal values to bear in theirimmediate relationships and interactions more so than in remote ones. Put differently, proximity facilitates more effectiveexchange relationships, which in turn are essential for attaining the motivational goals represented by values. These findingsecho similar results in prior research—for example, the findings of Boyacigiller and Adler (1991) that commitment derivesmore from employees’ collegial ties to coworkers than from loyalty to the job or the work.

Also noteworthy is the negative relationship between stimulation and organizational commitment. In Schwartz’sschema, stimulation falls into the category of openness to change. Organizational commitment, for its part, suggests arejection of change, a general belief that things are good as they are. This finding raises some interesting questions regardingcommitment in the workplace. It seems to suggest that an attitude of organizational commitment characterizes employeeswho can be described as content and stable. It would be intriguing to investigate whether this pattern of relationships holdsduring a time of instable economic conditions such as the current worldwide recession.

The findings raise several other intriguing questions. Power in the current findings relates only to the most general formof commitment, namely to work in general. This suggests that the work setting provides a key environment in which peoplewho score high in power express or fulfill their goals. Hedonism, for its part, relates only to union commitment, implying thatemployees who show commitment to a union (a collective institution) might do so, paradoxically, because the union helpsthem achieve self-enhancement goals.

The negative relationship between tradition and group commitment (see Table 3) was unexpected and quite difficult tointerpret. What factor in the setting of a workgroup in an Israeli bank would contradict values that have to do with religiousobservance and regard for tradition? One possible explanation is that this relationship is also a function of age, in that olderpeople may be more traditional and group commitment focuses on working with people in an egalitarian way despite agedifferences. This is one possibility for a future study that could enlighten us about this unexpected finding.

This study has several limitations. First, it relied upon a snapshot-in-time survey design. Such a design consists of a singleobservation with no control group and limited control over the effects of variables. However, individual values are quitestable constructs that are not easily affected by situational changes, and therefore it is hard to assume that measuring themin more than one time frame would yield different findings. Second, only one professional group, bank employees, wasexamined here, and one should be cautious about generalizing the results to other occupational groups. Third, the study wasperformed in one culture, and its findings might be pertinent only to this particular culture. Therefore, this study must bereplicated numerous times before firm conclusions can be made. It should also be noted that the data here were collectedbefore the current global recession, and it may be that the results would be different if the data were collected today.

Despite these limitations, the findings of this study demonstrate the importance of individual values in understandingcommitment in the workplace. The results suggest that the literature would benefit from further research into the role ofvalues at the individual level. In particular, research exploring variables that mediate and moderate the relationship betweenvalues and commitment would make a particularly valuable contribution to the understanding of this relationship.

References

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Begley, T. M. (2003). The employment relationships of foreign workers versus local employees: A field study of organizational justice, jobsatisfaction, performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 561–583.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32–40.Berings, D., De Fruyt, F., & Bouwen, R. (2004). Work values and personality traits as predictors of enterprising and social vocational interests. Personality and

Individual Differences, 36, 349–364.Blau, G. J. (1986). Job involvement and organizational commitment as interactive predictors of tardiness and absenteeism. Journal of Management, 12, 577–584.Blau, G. J. (1988). Further exploring the meaning and measurement of career commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 284–297.Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An

empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20, 195–205.Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262–290.Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5–30.Cohen, A. (1993). Work commitment in relation to withdrawal intentions and union effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 26, 75–90.Cohen, A. (1999). The relation between commitment forms and work outcomes in Jewish and Arab culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 371–391.Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cohen, A. (2007). An examination of the relationship between commitments and culture among five cultural groups of Israeli teachers. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 38, 34–49.Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Cohen, A., & Kirchmeyer, C. (2005). A cross-cultural study of the work/nonwork interface among Israeli nurses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,

538–568.Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241–259.


De Clercq, S., Fontaine, J. R., & Anseel, F. (2008). In search of a comprehensive value model for assessing supplementary person-organization fit. The Journal ofPsychology, 142, 277–302.

De Fontenay, C., & Carmel, E. (2001). Israel’s silicon wadi: The forces behind cluster formation. Discussion paper No. 00-40. Stanford Institute for Economic PolicyResearch.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,717–730.

Finegan, J. E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,149–169.

Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on the link between organizational justice and work behaviour. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 55, 541–562.

Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: Distinguishing samplingfluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 39, 345–365.

Francesco, A. M., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Collectivism in action. Group & Organization Management, 29, 425–441.Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Tsaosis, I., Pappas, K., & Garrod, D. (2005). A cross-cultural investigation into the relationships between personality traits and work

values. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 5–32.Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.Glazer, S., Daniel, S. K., & Short, K. M. (2004). A study of the relationship between organizational commitment and human values in four countries. Human

Relations, 57, 323–345.Gordon, M. E., Philpot, W. J., Burt, E. R., Thompson, A. C., & Spiller, E. W. (1980). Commitment to the union: Development of a measure and an examination of its

correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 479–499.Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.Gregerson, H. B. (1993). Multiple commitments at work and extra-role behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. Journal of Business Research, 26, 31–

47.Herbst, S. A., & Houmanfar, R. (2009). Psychological approaches to values in organizations and organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational

Behavior Management, 29, 47–68.Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 1970, 1980, 1983, 2002.Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concept of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 119–138.Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349.Kelloway, E. K., Catano, V. M., & Southwell, R. R. (1992). The construct validity of union commitment: Development and dimensionality of a shorter scale. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 197–211.Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The

mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 557–569.Lam, S. K. S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 23, 1–18.Lavie, D., & Fiegenbaum, A. (2000). The Strategic Reaction of Domestic Firms to Foreign MNC Dominance: The Israeli Experience. Long Range Planning, 33, 651–

672.Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachment to nested groups: A choice process theory. American Sociological Review, 57, 327–339.Lecker, T., & Shachmurove, Y. (1999). Immigration and socioeconomic gaps: Theory and applications. Applied Economics, 31, 539–549.Lewis, B. (1972). The emergence of modern Israel. Middle Eastern Studies, 8, 421–427.Lydon, J. (1996). Toward a theory of commitment. In C. Seligman, J. M Olsen, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Values: The Ontario symposium: Vol. 8 (pp. 191–213). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Magoshi, M., & Chang, E. (2009). Diversity management and the effects on employees’ organizational commitment: Evidence from Japan and Korea. Journal of

World Business, 44, 31–40.Martin, C. L., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group &

Organization Management, 21, 84–104.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, P. J., & Allen, J. N. (1984). Testing the side bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,

372–378.Meyer, P. J., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Teplitsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of

antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee

citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc.Mueller, C. W., & Lawler, E. J. (1999). Commitment to nested organizational units: Some basic principles and preliminary findings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62,

325–346.Niehoff, P. B., & Moorman, H. R. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy

of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.Pearson, C. A. L., & Chong, J. (1997). Contributions of job content and social information on organizational commitment and job satisfaction: An exploration in a

Malaysian nursing context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 357–374.Randall, D. M., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interrelationships of work commitment constructs. Work and Occupation, 18, 194–211.Roe, R. A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: Empirical findings and theoretical perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 1–21.Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.Rokeach, M., Miller, M., & Snyder, J. (1971). The value gap between police and policed. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 155–171.Sagie, A., & Weisberg, J. (2001). The transformation in Human resource management in Israel. International Journal of Manpower, 22, 226–234.Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. (Ed.). Advances in experimental

social psychology. Vol. 25 (pp.1–65). New York: Academic Press.Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olsen, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Values: The

Ontario symposium: Vol. 8 (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory on universals in individual human values. In Tamayo, & J. B. Porto (Eds:), Valores e trabalho [Values

and work] (pp. 56–95). Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia.Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different

method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542.Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Boehnke, K. (2000). Worries and values. Journal of Personality, 68, 309–346.Tzafrir, S. S., Meshoulam, I., & Baruch, Y. (2007). HRM in Israel: New challenges. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 114–131.Vandenberg, R. G., & Scarpello, V. (1994). A longitudinal assessment of the determinant relationship between employee commitments to the occupation and the

organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 535–547.


Wasti, S. A. (2003). The influence of cultural values on antecedents of organizational commitment: An individual-level analysis. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 52, 533–554.

Yishai, Y., & Cohen, A. (1997). (Un) Representative bureaucracy: Women in the Israeli senior civil service. Administration and Society, 28, 441–465.Zhao, J., He, N., & Lovrich, N. P. (1998). Individual value preferences among American police officers: The Rokeach theory of human values revisited. Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21, 22–37.Zhao, J., He, N., & Lovrich, N. P. (1999). Value change among police officers at a time of organizational reform: A follow-up study using Rokeach values. Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 22, 152–170.


a value based perspective on commitment in the workplace: an examination of schwartz's basic...

Documents