the relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior in arab and...

Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 105–118

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior

in Arab and Jewish culture

Aaron Cohen ¤

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

Received 1 September 2005Available online 24 January 2006

Abstract

This study examined the relation between multiple commitments (organizational commitment,occupational commitment, job involvement, and group commitment), ethnicity, and cultural values(individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/femininity) withorganizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and in-role performance. Two ethnic groups of Israeliteachers, Jews and Arabs, were examined. Of the 880 questionnaires that were distributed in 18schools in northern Israel, 569 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 65%. The Wnd-ings showed substantial diVerences between the two groups in the four cultural dimensions and intwo commitment forms. Ethnicity and the four cultural values related strongly to in-role perfor-mance and organizational OCB. The results showed 16 signiWcant interactions of multiple commit-ments with ethnicity and with cultural dimensions in relation to OCB and in-role performance.Implications of the Wndings for research on commitment and culture are discussed.© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Commitment; Organizational citizenship behavior; Culture

1. Introduction

Commitment in the workplace is a topic that has attracted the attention of both aca-demics and practitioners. The concept of multiple commitments includes speciWc objects of

* Fax: +9724 8257 785.E-mail address: [email protected].

0001-8791/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.12.004

mailto: [email protected]

mailto: [email protected]

106 A. Cohen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 105–118

commitment such as organization, work group, occupation, and one’s job (Blau, Paul, &St. John, 1993; Cohen, 1993, 1999a, 2003; Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Randall &Cote, 1991). There are several reasons for the interest in multiple commitments. First,employees in the workplace are exposed simultaneously to more than one object of com-mitment, and a better understanding of the process and magnitude of their commitmentscan result from examining their multiple commitments rather than only one commitmentat a time (Cohen, 1993, 2003). Second, forms of commitment have been shown to predictimportant work outcomes such as withdrawal, performance, absenteeism, and tardiness(Blau, 1986; Cohen, 1999b, 2000, 2003; Randall & Cote, 1991; Steers & Rhodes, 1978).

Despite the growing interest in the concept of multiple commitments, the relationbetween commitment and outcomes is still somewhat unclear. Two issues are important inthat regard. First, we need to establish which commitment forms are related to which out-comes, and to look at the magnitude of this relationship. Second, there is little data on theeVect of culture on the relationship between multiple commitments and outcomes in gen-eral and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in particular.

Very few studies have tested multiple commitments in a cross-cultural setting. Theknowledge acquired thus far is based on American theories that work very well for Westernnations. Are they equally applicable in non-Western countries (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985)?With the increasing focus on international ventures and management, it is important thatorganizational researchers and practitioners comprehend cultural similarities and diVer-ences, particularly because many psychological and managerial principles are culturallyrelative (Earley, 1989). An important consideration in that regard is the diVerence betweencross-national and cross-cultural research on commitment. While culture is frequentlyexamined by comparing Wndings between counties, one cannot ignore the cultural or ethnicgroups within a given country. Indeed, we can argue that diVerences between ethnic or cul-tural groups might be stronger than diVerences between countries (Clugston, Howell, &Dorfman, 2000; Cohen, 1999b; Mueller, Iverson, & Price, 1999). Often, in any given nation,several diVerent cultures can exist together, each with its own norms, religion, language, andway of life. Combining all of them into one group might result in the loss of importantinformation and in a faulty representation of the nature of the culture of a given country.

This study aimed primarily at addressing the needs outlined above. It examined the rela-tion between commitment forms (organizational commitment, occupational commitment,job involvement, and group commitment) and OCB and in-role performance among teach-ers from two diverse ethnic groups in Israel: Jews and Arabs. Each of the two groups wasassumed to represent diVerent cultural values. The eVect of culture was examined using twotechniques. First, we used ethnicity, an objective criterion, as a control variable. Second, wewill use Hofstede’s (1980) subjective measurement of four cultural dimensions, namely,power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femi-ninity. Interactions of commitment with ethnicity and with the four cultural dimensionswere also being tested. Such an intensive examination of the eVect of culture on the rela-tionship between multiple commitments and OCB has rarely been undertaken andconstitutes one of the major contributions of this study.

1.1. Multiple commitments and culture

There are many deWnitions of culture in the literature and no agreement on how todistinguish one culture from another (Triandis, 1994). Nonetheless, most deWnitions do

A. Cohen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 105–118 107

refer to a sharing of beliefs, values, and norms among people who identify themselves asmembers of a society. Some consensus has crystallized to the eVect that the appropriateconceptual framework for understanding cross-cultural diVerences in commitment isHofstede’s (1980) value survey module (VSM). This model is considered the most popularmeasure of cultural values, also holding great promise as a theoretical framework to guidecross-cultural comparisons of organizational commitment (Clugston et al., 2000; Kirkman& Shapiro, 2001; Randall, 1993) as well as commitment to other foci (Vandenberghe,Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Delhaise, 2001).

Hofstede developed an overview consisting of four common dimensions, which hedetermined were the most important in explaining diVerences between cultures. They arepower distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. Power distance refers to the extent that members of a culture accept inequal-ity and large diVerentials between those with power (supervisors) and those with littlepower. Uncertainty avoidance reXects the emphasis on ritual behavior, rules, and labormobility within a culture. Individualism reXects the extent to which individuals empha-size their own goals over those of their clan or group. Masculinity/femininity refers tosocieties that diVerentiate on the basis of activity and gender. A masculine cultureemphasizes diVerences between genders, whereas in a feminine culture, gender diVerenti-ation is minimal.

For ease of cross-cultural research, cultures are often equated with countries (e.g.,Agassi, 1982; Triandis, 1995), but this approach may be inappropriate when countriescomprise diverse ethnic groups. A review of the literature that has examined commitmentfoci in diVerent cultures is presented by Cohen (2003). This review shows that most multi-ple commitment research in cross-cultural settings has examined commitment forms in onesetting. Clugston et al. (2000) argued, however, that diVerences in employees’ commitmentcould be predicted on the basis of cultural dimensions even within a homogeneous worksetting within one country. In an American sample, they found that the conceptual frame-work of using cultural dimensions to predict the foci and bases of organizational commit-ment was also sensitive to variations in an individual’s cultural socialization. The aboveWnding strengthens the importance of culture as a factor that can impact Wndings not onlybetween cultures but also within one single culture.

Israel, with its distinct Jewish and Arab societies, is a case in point. The demographiccomposition of Israel provides an opportunity to examine the multiple commitments ofworkers from two diverse cultures located in the same country. The population of Israel issegmented into a number of socially signiWcant groupings. The deepest division is national,between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. This gap overlaps with that of religion, betweenJews on the one hand and Arabs on the other. Almost all non-Jews are Arabs. The Arabs,representing about one-sixth of Israel’s population, are a permanent, non-assimilatingminority, clearly distinguished from Jews in place of residence and in cultural terms, speak-ing their own language and adhering to their own traditions (Cohen, 1999b). Studies ofJewish men and women in Israeli work settings suggest that their attitudes and experiencesare similar to those of Western Europe and North America (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985;Toren, 1991). In contrast, Israeli Arabs have been described as a traditional collectivist cul-ture. The collectivist orientation is expressed in ideals such as solidarity, cooperation, com-mitment, mutual trust, support, and a sense of belonging that are believed to be present inthe Arab nuclear and extended family, and the community (Pines & Zaidman, 2003; Ronen& Shenkar, 1985; Yishai & Cohen, 1997).


We expected that diVerences among these groups would prevail across all research vari-ables. In terms of the cultural dimensions, we expect that the Arabs, who represent the moretraditional group, would demonstrate higher levels of masculinity, higher levels of collectiv-ism, higher levels of uncertainty avoidance, and stronger levels of power distance. All of thethree dimensions in the described direction are characteristic of traditional cultures.

In terms of commitment, we expected that the Arab teachers would be more committedthan the Jewish teachers. The Arabs represent a more traditional society than that of theJews. In traditional societies, commitment is a complex attitude inXuenced by the norms,sanctions, and pressures of the small group, family, and community (Pines & Zaidman,2003). Values prized in such groups include a preference for more personal ties to supervi-sors, acceptance of more paternalistic treatment, and a sense that power relationshipsshould be hierarchical. These factors may inXuence the attitudes of employees who aremembers of traditional societies, resulting in greater commitment to the Wrm. In contrast,Jewish culture is thought to be more Western-oriented, hence more heterogeneous andfocused on diVerent values. Therefore, we expected that the Arab teachers would demon-strate higher levels of commitment than the Jewish teachers. The above explanationsshould also be relevant to the outcome variables, namely, OCB, which was termed byBesser (1993) as behavioral commitment, and to in-role performance. Thus, Hypotheses1a, 1b, and 1c:

Hypothesis 1a. Arabs demonstrate higher levels of masculinity, collectivism, uncertaintyavoidance, and power distance than Jews.

Hypothesis 1b. Arabs demonstrate higher levels of commitment forms than Jews.

Hypothesis 1c. Arabs demonstrate higher levels of OCB than Jews.

1.2. Multiple commitments and outcomes

The logic or theory as to why commitment forms should be related to outcomes followsthe exchange approach. Employees who experience positive exchanges with the organiza-tion, the job, or the work group will reciprocate with higher levels of commitment, whichwill motivate them to contribute to the organization in other ways, such as reduced turn-over and absenteeism or better performance. Another important aspect of the relationshipbetween commitment forms and outcomes concerns the nature of the relationship itself.How are diVerent forms of commitment related to outcomes? One approach has arguedthat commitment forms are expected to be related diVerently to various outcomes. Someresearchers contend that the type of work-related commitment under consideration mighthave some bearing on how commitment might direct behavior in organizations (Siders,George, & Dharwadkar, 2001; Somers & Birnbaum, 1998). As diVerent objects of workcommitment represent distinct attitudes, diVerential eVects on behavioral outcomes can beexpected. Researchers should therefore attempt to match the focus of their independentvariable with the focus of their work outcome variable (Becker, 1992).

Given that the object of organizational commitment is the employing organization, themost likely behavior to be aVected by this commitment is organization-oriented behaviorsuch as turnover intentions, actual turnover, (Cohen, 1993; Randall, 1990), absenteeism,and organizational citizenship behavior, particularly the organizational dimension. Simi-larly, the most likely behavior to be aVected by job involvement is task-oriented behavior


such as absenteeism (Blau, 1986), organizational citizenship behavior, and performance.Behaviors that are expected to be related to occupational commitment are occupation/career-oriented behavior such as withdrawal and actual departure from the occupation.

Based on the arguments above, it can be expected that OCB and in-role performance, asbehaviors that are strongly linked to the organization, will be more strongly related toorganization-oriented commitments such as organizational commitment, group commit-ment, and job involvement. They will be less strongly related to commitment that is moregeneral in terms of proximity to the organization, such as occupational commitment. Thus,Hypotheses 1b proposes that:

Hypothesis 2. Organizational commitment, group commitment, and job involvement relateto OCB and in-role performance more strongly than occupational commitment.

1.3. Culture, commitment, and OCB

The cultural diVerences among the diVerent groups examined in this study were outlinedabove and are expected to aVect OCB and in-role performance. First, ethnicity wouldexplain variations in OCB. The expectation was that higher levels of OCB of Arabs in com-parison to the Jewish teachers would explain variances in OCB as well as variances in in-role performance. A second expectation had to do with the relationship between multiplecommitments and OCB. This relationship was expected to be complex, rather than simplydirect. First, we expected that the relationship between commitment forms and OCB andin-role performance would be stronger for Arabs than for Jews. As outlined above, forArabs, as a more traditional group, commitment is a more important attitude than forJews, who are more westernized in their values. As a result, higher commitment levelsamong Arabs would have a stronger impact on OCB and in-role performance than forJews. Thus, Hypotheses 3a and 3b:

Hypothesis 3a. Ethnicity will be related to OCB and in-role.

Hypothesis 3b. Commitment forms will be related (positively) to OCB and in-role morestrongly for Arabs than for Jews.

The Wrst expectation examined here is that commitment forms explain the variance ofOCB and in-role performance above and beyond the variance explained by ethnicity andcultural values. Culture and cultural values are acquired early in one’s life during thesocialization process. They are expected to aVect behaviors in the workplace based on theexplanations outlined above. However, commitment attitudes examined here are mostlyacquired during one’s experiences in the workplace. As values that are more related to thecurrent experiences of one’s life, they are expected to aVect OCB and in-role performanceregardless of the eVect of culture. In addition, we expect them to make their own uniquecontribution to the variance of the outcome variables, above and beyond the variancealready explained by ethnicity and cultural values.

The Wnal hypotheses were based on the notion that even in a given culture there arevariations in the levels of cultural values. Therefore, controlling for ethnicity is not enoughto examine the relationship between culture and OCB. It is certainly not adequate toexplain the complex interplay among commitment, culture, and OCB. The expectation wasthat multiple commitments, regardless of the foci of commitment, would demonstrate astronger relationship with OCB and in-role performance among those who have higher


levels of collectivism and lower levels of power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Con-ceptual justiWcations for the expected relationship follow. OCB is a voluntary behaviorthat has a lot to do with helping others in the organization. A collectivist orientation Wtsbetter with this behavior and will strengthen the relationship between commitment andOCB. Low power distance may also strengthen the relationship between commitment andOCB. OCB is a behavior that is most often exhibited among those who do not have a rigidhierarchical orientation. OCB means assisting others regardless of their formal positionsand assisting the organization regardless of the formal hierarchy of the unit that needsassistance. Such behavior will be more common among those who are less power oriented.OCB requires a Xexible orientation in terms of when and how to perform it. It has very lit-tle to do with the formal obligations of one’s job. Those who have higher levels of uncer-tainty avoidance will hesitate to perform OCB. Therefore, the expectation is that amongthose with lower levels of uncertainty avoidance, commitment will have a stronger rela-tionship to OCB. The notion of OCB is much closer to feminine values. OCB stresses con-cern for people, compassion, and empathy and minimizes the emphasis on personalachievement, money, and material goods that characterizes masculine culture. Therefore,we expect that among those with lower levels of masculinity, commitment will have astronger relationship to OCB. We believe that the above expectations are also relevant forin-role performance, although with a lower magnitude than for OCB. Thus, Hypotheses 4aand 4b will argue:

Hypothesis 4a. Commitment forms will signiWcantly add to the variance of OCB andin-role performance above and beyond the variance already explained by ethnicity andcultural values.

Hypothesis 4b. Commitment forms will be related (positively) to OCB and in-role perfor-mance more strongly for those who have higher levels of collectivism, lower levels of powerdistance, lower levels of uncertainty avoidance, and lower levels of masculinity.

2. Research design

2.1. Participants and procedure

The target population of this study was Israeli teachers, Jews and Arabs. Nine secularJewish schools and nine Arab schools participated in the study. Of the 880 questionnairesthat were distributed, 569 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 65%. Thedistribution of the questionnaires that were returned from the two groups was: 291 (65%response rate) from the secular Jewish schools and 278 (65% response rate) from the Arabschools. The questionnaires had two parts. Commitment foci, cultural dimensions, anddemographic characteristics were Wlled in by the teachers in the schools. The data on OCBand in-role performance was Wlled in by the principal in each of the schools, usually amonth or two after collecting the data from the teachers. The questionnaire itself was inHebrew.

As for the Wnal sample demographic characteristics, 90.4% of the teachers were born inIsrael (100% of the Arabs and 81.6% of the Jews), 58.5% of them were females, the averageage was 41.5, and the average tenure in the occupation and in the school was 15.0 years and10.6 years respectively. The vast majority of the respondents, 83.6%, was married, and had,on average, 1.7 children under the age of 18. With regard to employment, 86.4% of the


respondents were employed on a full time basis and 27.4% of them worked beyond thenumber of hours of a full time job.

2.1.1. Predictor measures2.1.1.1. Ethnicity. This variable was measured as a dichotomous variable with 0D Jews and1DArabs.

2.1.1.2. Commitment foci. Organizational commitment was measured by the eight-itemscale of aVective organizational commitment developed by Meyer and Allen (1984). Occu-pational commitment was calculated using the eight-item measure developed by Blau(1985). Job involvement (10 items) was measured by the scales developed by Kanungo(1982). Group commitment was calculated using four items taken from the six-item mea-sure developed by Randall and Cote (1991). All of the commitment constructs, measuredon a Wve-point scale (1D strongly disagree, to 5D strongly agree), have been noted in theliterature as the most commonly used and the most reliable and valid work commitmentscales (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Morrow, 1993).

2.1.1.3. Cultural dimensions. Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) cultural dimensions scales wereapplied to measure collectivism/individualism (six items), power distance (Wve items),uncertainty avoidance (Wve items), and masculinity/femininity (Wve items). These scaleswere adapted from Hofstede’s (1980) typology of cultural dimensions and are used to cap-ture the essence of cultural dimensions at the individual level (Clugston et al., 2000). Itshould be noted that in the case of power distance one item of the six original ones wasomitted because it reduced the reliability of the scale. The Wve-point scales for respondingranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

2.1.1.4. Organizational citizenship behavior and in-role performance. Data on organiza-tional citizenship behavior (OCB) and in-role performance were collected from the princi-pals in each of the schools. Williams and Anderson (1991) suggested that a goodmeasurement of OCB should include items representing intra-role behaviors, because suchan analysis would clarify whether the respondents diVerentiated between intra-role andextra-role behaviors. Their suggestion was strongly supported by Morrison (1994) and VanDyne et al. (1995). Consequently, a 32-item list taken from OCB scales developed by Wil-liams and Anderson (1991) and Organ and Konovsky (1989) and some items developedspeciWcally for this research were presented to the participating schools principals, whowere asked to evaluate each of their teachers on these items. Each item was measured on ascale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

The 32 items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis (Varimax rotation). Theanalysis revealed four factors. The Wrst one included 14 items concerned with helping a spe-ciWc person, either the supervisor or a co-worker (Sample items: The teacher assists thesupervisor with his/her work (when not asked); the teacher covers for co-workers; theteacher takes a personal interest in other employees). This scale, which explained 29.4% ofthe variance, was labeled “altruistic OCB.” The second factor that explained 16% of thevariance included eight items dealing with intra-role performance. This scale was labeled“in-role performance” (Sample items: The teacher adequately completes assigned duties;the teacher fulWlls responsibilities speciWed in the job description; the teacher fulWlls thesupervisor’s expectations). The third factor includes four items that explained 9.7% of the


variance. The items of this factor represent the more impersonal sort of OCB: full use ofwork time and adherence to various rules, but displaying conscientiousness far surpassingany enforceable minimum standards. (Sample items: The teacher coasts toward the end ofthe day; the teacher tends to miss school; the teacher tends to use the “declaration”(a teacher is entitled to two days of absence from school). In accordance with the OCB lit-erature discussed above, this factor was labeled “organizational OCB.” The fourth factorthat explained 5.9% of the variance included only two items with loadings between .5 and .6and was not interpretable.

3. Results

Table 1 presents the basic statistics of the variables and the inter-correlations amongthem. Results show acceptable reliabilities of research variables. Most of the correlationsbetween OCB and in-role performance and between commitment foci are signiWcant andsupport the expected relationship between the concepts. The correlations among the inde-pendent variables were not high except for the inter-correlations between job involvementand occupational commitment (.62). Such a correlation is quite common in multiple com-mitment research (Cohen, 2003; Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). All other correla-tions among the independent variables were acceptable.

Hypothesis 1a expected higher levels of masculinity, collectivism, uncertainty avoid-ance, and power distance from Arabs than from Jews. ANOVA Wndings of the diVerencesbetween the two groups support this hypothesis. Arabs scored higher than Jews on collec-tivism (3.83 versus 3.30; FD 132.16; P 6 .001), power distance (2.85 versus 2.17; FD 150.59,P 6 .001) and masculinity (2.82 versus 1.93 FD145.75, P 6 .001). Not as expected, Jewsscored higher on uncertainty avoidance (4.27 versus 4.05; FD31.63, P 6 .001).

Hypothesis 1b expected lower levels of commitment from Jews than from Arabs. TheWndings showed partial support for this hypothesis. There were no diVerences between thegroups in the magnitude of organizational and occupational commitment. As for the othercommitment foci, the Arabs scored signiWcant higher than the Jews in job involvement(3.52 versus 3.35; FD 10.81, P 6 .001) and group commitment (3.58 versus 3.46; FD4.04,P 6 .05). Hypothesis 1c, which expected higher OCB scores from the Arabs than from theJews, was rejected by the data. Jews scored signiWcantly higher than Arabs in their in-roleperformance (34.34 versus 31.74; FD40.03, P 6 .001) and in their organizational OCB(15.48 versus 13.18; FD78.22, 34.34). No signiWcant diVerence was found between thegroups in their level of altruistic OCB.

Table 2 presents the results of a moderated regression analysis for the entire sample.This regression was performed in four steps. In the Wrst step ethnicity was entered into theequation. In the second step, the four cultural dimensions were entered, and in the thirdstep, commitment foci were entered. In the fourth step, the cross-products of the four com-mitment foci with ethnicity (four interactions were tested for each equation) and the cross-products of the four commitment foci with the four cultural dimensions were entered(16 interactions were tested for each equation), thereby testing for the diVerential eVects ofcommitment foci across ethnicity and across the cultural dimensions. All signiWcant inter-actions were plotted (plots are available) in order to evaluate their nature and direction.

Hypothesis 2 expected that organizational commitment, group commitment, andjob involvement will be related to OCB and in-role performance more stronglythan occupational commitment. This hypothesis received some support from the data.

A. C

ohen / Journal of Vocational B

ehavior 69 (2006) 105–118113

7 8 9 10 11 12

(.82)

.64¤¤¤ (.82)

.11¤¤ .14¤¤¤ (.75)

.23¤¤¤ .17¤¤¤ .08 (.89)

.20¤¤¤ .23¤¤¤ .15¤¤¤ .71¤¤¤ (.95)

.16¤¤¤ .09¤ .03 .54¤¤¤ .32¤¤¤ (.75)

Table 1Descriptive statistics, reliabilities (in parentheses), and inter-correlations among research variables

N D 564.a Jews D 0; Arabs D 1.¤ P 6 .05.

¤¤ P 6 .01.¤¤¤ P 6 .001.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Ethnicitya .49 .502. Individualism–

collectivism3.56 .62 .44¤¤¤ (.69)

3. Power distance 2.50 .73 .46¤¤¤ .32¤¤¤ (.64)4. Uncertainty avoidance 4.16 .48 ¡.23¤¤¤ .14¤¤¤ ¡.22¤¤¤ (.68)5. Masculinity–femininity 2.37 .98 .45¤¤¤ .35¤¤¤ .58¤¤¤ ¡.24¤¤¤ (.86)6. Organizational

commitment3.45 .63 .00 .17¤¤¤ ¡.20¤¤¤ .22¤¤¤ ¡.25¤¤¤ (.72)

7. Occupational commitment

3.53 .72 .01 .21¤¤¤ ¡.05 .31¤¤¤ ¡.13¤¤ .53¤¤¤

8. Job involvement 3.43 .62 .14¤¤¤ .35¤¤¤ .09¤ .16¤¤¤ .04 .49¤¤¤

9. Group commitment 3.52 .68 .08¤ .22¤¤¤ ¡.01 .04 .13¤¤ .16¤¤¤

10. In-role 33.08 4.97 ¡.26¤¤¤ ¡.02 ¡.22¤¤¤ .22¤¤¤ ¡.25¤¤¤ .27¤¤¤

11. OCB altruism 49.36 11.20 .03 .14¤¤¤ ¡.01 .08 ¡.04 .25¤¤¤

12. OCB organization 14.38 3.26 ¡.35¤¤¤ ¡.04 ¡.31¤¤¤ .16¤¤¤ ¡.24¤¤¤ .16¤¤¤


As Table 2 demonstrates, organizational commitment was related to in-role performanceand OCB altruism, and group commitment was related to OCB altruism (together withorganizational commitment). Occupational commitment was not related to any of the out-comes variables as expected.

The Wndings in Table 2 showed the eVect of ethnicity as expected in Hypothesis 3a.Ethnicity signiWcantly explained variances in OCB organization (12%) and in-role perfor-mance (7%). The eVect of ethnicity remained signiWcant after the inclusion of cultural val-ues and commitment foci. OCB altruism was not related to ethnicity. It should be notedthat the direction of the eVect of ethnicity contradicted Hypothesis 3a. Being an Arabteacher was related to organizational OCB and in-role performance. Hypothesis 3b, whichpredicted an interaction between ethnicity and commitment foci, was supported in generalby the data. Of the 12 interactions that were tested, Wve were signiWcant, all in the expecteddirection. The eVect of organizational commitment on in-role performance (�R2D 0.01; Ffor �R2D 8.1, P 6 .01) and organizational OCB (�R2D0.02; F for �R2D 11.9, P 6 .001)was positive and stronger for Arabs than for Jews. A similar pattern was found for occupa-tional commitment, which had a stronger eVect for Arabs on organizational OCB(�R2D0.01; F for �R2D6.15, P 6 .05). Similarly, occupational commitment had a strongerand favorable eVect for Arabs on in-role performance, compared to Jews, for whom it hadan adverse eVect (�R2D0.02; F for �R2D15.32, P 6 .001). For Jews, in-role performancewas also negatively aVected by job involvement, as opposed to positive eVect for Arabs(�R2D0.02; F for �R2D14.03, P 6 .001). No interaction eVect was found for group com-mitment and no such eVect was found on OCB altruism.

Table 2Moderated regression results (standardized coeYcients) of culture and multiple commitments on in-roleperformance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)

N D 564.a Jews D 0; Arabs D 1.¤ P 6 .05.

¤¤ P 6 .01.¤¤¤ P 6 .001.

Variables In-role OCB altruism OCB organization

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Cultural groups1. Arabsa ¡.26¤¤¤ ¡.20¤¤¤ ¡.21¤¤¤ .03 .01 ¡.01 ¡.35¤¤¤ ¡.32¤¤¤ ¡.33¤¤¤

Cultural dimensions2. Individualism–collectivism .12¤ .04 .17¤¤¤ .07 .17¤¤¤ .13¤¤

3. Power distance ¡.06 ¡.04 ¡.01 .02 ¡.19¤¤¤ ¡.19¤¤¤

4. Uncertainty avoidance .12¤¤ .08 .04 .00 .02 ¡.015. Masculinity–femininity ¡.14¤¤ ¡.09 ¡.09 ¡.04 ¡.04 ¡.01

Multiple commitments6. Organizational commitment .15¤¤ .16¤¤ .047. Occupational commitment .06 .02 .098. Job involvement .06 .10 .039. Group commitment .06 .10¤ .00

R2 (adjusted) .07 (.07) .12 (.12) .17 (.16) .00 (.00) .03 (.02) .09 (.08) .12 (.12) .18 (.17) .19 (18)F 39.81¤¤¤ 15.10¤¤¤ 12.36¤¤¤ .50 3.28¤¤ 5.86¤¤¤ 77.79¤¤¤ 23.29¤¤¤ 14.27¤¤¤

�R2 .05 .05 .03 .06 .05 .02F for �R2 8.38¤¤¤ 7.95¤¤¤ 3.98¤¤ 8.84¤¤¤ 8.59¤¤¤ 2.64¤


Hypothesis 4a predicted that commitment forms would explain variations in OCB andin-role performance above and beyond the eVect of culture. This hypothesis was supportedfor in-role performance and OCB altruism. Commitment forms added 5% to the varianceof in-role performance (only organizational commitment was signiWcant) and 6% to thevariance of OCB altruism (organizational and group commitment were signiWcant) aboveand beyond the variance explained by ethnicity and cultural values. Hypothesis 4bpredicted the interaction eVects of commitment forms with cultural values. Six signiWcantinteractions were found for power distance. All of them contradicted the expected direc-tion. Organizational commitment had a stronger favorable eVect on in-role performance(�R2D0.01; F for �R2D4.14, P 6 .05) and organizational OCB (�R2D0.03; F for�R2D23.96, P 6 .001) for those with high power distance. Those with low power distancewere adversely aVected by organizational commitment. A similar pattern was found for theinteractions of occupational commitment and job involvement with power distance. Forthose with high power distance, occupational commitment aVected in-role performance(�R2D0.01; F for �R2D5.49, P 6 .05) and organizational OCB (�R2D0.02; F for�R2D10.09, P 6 .001) favorably. In contrast, for those with low power distance, the eVectwas an adverse one. The eVect of job involvement on in-role performance (�R2D0.01; Ffor �R2D8.56, P 6 .01) and organizational OCB (�R2D0.01; F for �R2D 6.92, P 6 .01)was also favorable for those with high power distance and unfavorable for those with lowpower distance.

Three interactions were found for uncertainty avoidance. Organizational commitmenthad a favorable eVect on in-role performance (�R2D0.02; F for �R2D 13.65, P 6 .001) forthose with low uncertainty avoidance, but a favorable eVect on organizational OCB(�R2D0.01; F for �R2D8.47, P 6 .01) for those with high uncertainty avoidance. Occupa-tional commitment had a positive eVect on in-role performance (�R2D0.01; F for�R2D3.99, P 6 .05) for those with lower uncertainty avoidance. Occupational commit-ment had a positive eVect on in-role performance for those with higher levels of femininityand an adverse eVect for those with higher levels of masculinity (�R2D 0.01; F for�R2D3.81, P 6 .05). Occupational commitment also had a positive eVect on organiza-tional OCB for those with higher levels of collectivism, as opposed to the negative eVect forthose with higher levels of individualism (�R2D 0.01; F for �R2D 5.89, P 6 .05). Two gen-eral Wndings are worth noting. First, there is no interaction eVect for group commitment.Second, power distance is the cultural dimension with the largest number of interactionscompared with the other three cultural dimensions

4. Discussion

This study showed signiWcant diVerences between Arabs and Jews living in the samecountry–Israel. The strong diVerences found between the ethnic groups in the four culturaldimensions is an important issue that should be the concern of future cross-culturalresearch on commitment forms. The Wndings here lead to the conclusion that culture ismuch more than the diVerence between one country and another. This conclusion shouldguide future research on cross-cultural aspects of multiple commitments. Researchersshould therefore be cautious in comparing countries without a more detailed description oftheir sample in terms of potential cultural diVerences within it. Similar cases can exist inother countries. If there is a potential for such diVerences, these should be explained andanalyzed as control variables in the data analysis.


An important Wnding of this study is the strong support for Hofstede’s (1980) frame-work not only in diVerentiating cultural environments across nations but also in diVer-entiating cultural groups within a speciWc country. Measuring culture by subjectivescales seems to capture an accurate picture of cultural factors relevant to this study.The ANOVA Wndings revealed signiWcant diVerences between the two groups in all ofthe cultural dimensions. The diVerences supported in general the expected hypothesesand demonstrated the value of Hofstede’s model as well as the ability of the scale devel-oped for it to capture the cultural diVerences. While there is a need for more researchthat will establish the usefulness of the typology and scales within countries and acrosscountries, the strong support here provides a very encouraging demonstration of thisapproach.

More speciWcally, culture aVects the relationship between commitment and OCB inthree ways. First, ethnicity had a strong eVect on the explained variance of OCB and in-role performance. This Wnding suggests that OCB itself is aVected by culture. While there isa growing body of literature that examines the eVect of culture on commitment (Clugstonet al.’s, 2000; Cohen, 1999b; Mueller et al., 1999), more work is needed to further explorethe nature of the relationship between culture and OCB. The Wnding that 7% of the vari-ance of in-role performance was explained by ethnicity is also worth noting in the sensethat actual performance on the job is probably perceived diVerently in groups thatrepresent diVerent cultures.

Another eVect of culture was demonstrated by the relationship found between the fourcultural dimensions and OCB. This Wnding shows that even within a given group there arevariances in the cultural dimensions that cannot be ignored in research targeting the eVectof culture. As for the speciWc Wndings, organizational OCB was the variable aVected themost by culture, both ethnicity and cultural values, while OCB altruism was not aVectedby any of these variables in the Wnal equation. This Wnding suggests that culture aVectsmore outcomes that are more work speciWc in their content. Outcomes that are less workspeciWc and more general in their nature seem to be less aVected by culture. Another Wnd-ing that is worth noting is the relationship of individualism/collectivism to the two dimen-sions of OCB, altruistic and organizational, as well as to in-role performance. This Wndingshows the importance of a collectivist orientation in encouraging OCB and in-roleperformance.

The third impact of culture was demonstrated by the interaction eVects. The Wndingsof the interactions seem to support the notion that while ethnicity has a consistent eVecton the relationship between commitment forms and OCB and in-role performance (com-mitment forms aVect OCB and in-role performance more favorably for Arabs than forJews), variations within each group regarding their cultural values are more complex.For example, commitment forms had a favorable eVect on the outcome variables forthose with high power distance than for those with low power distance. Also, uncertaintyavoidance interacted diVerently with commitment, producing a variety of outcomes interms of their direction. These complexities need further attention in future research.Power distance was the cultural dimension that had the most interactions with commit-ment forms. This Wnding demonstrates the importance of this value in the cultural set-ting examined here. It should be mentioned that in a cultural setting such as the oneexamined here, more interactions with collectivism were expected. However, the impor-tance of collectivism was demonstrated mainly by its strong main eVect on all outcomevariables.


As for the eVect of commitment foci, several Wndings are worth noting. First, commit-ment was related to in-role performance and OCB altruism above and beyond the eVect ofthe two cultural constructs. This strengthens the value of commitment as a concept thataVects outcomes regardless of and in addition to the eVect of culture. Second, the ANOVAWndings that showed that Arabs are more committed than Jews to their job and work-group suggest that the proximity of the commitment foci aVects the magnitude of commit-ment. Job and workgroup are more speciWc and tangible foci than the organization or theoccupation. The proximity of the commitment foci seems to be more important to Arabsthan to Jews in determining their level of commitment.

This study has several limitations. First, not all cultural groups in Israel were repre-sented here. For example, immigrant groups such as those from Eastern Europe andEthiopia were not examined here. Second, only one professional group, teachers, wasexamined here and one should be cautious in generalizing the results to other occupa-tional groups. Despite its limitations, the Wndings of this study challenge the approachcommon to cross-cultural research of equating cultures with countries. Aspects of eth-nicity, such as religion, or membership in a particular social group may be more criticalfor establishing the cultural contexts for certain social phenomena than national bound-aries. When included in cross-cultural comparisons, countries like Israel whose popula-tions are ethnically or racially diverse should be further subdivided into ethnicgroupings. For studies of commitment, researchers would be advised to identify rou-tinely the ethnic and racial attributes of their samples. This practice has not been typicalof research on this topic, and variances in the composition of the samples could accountfor some inconsistencies across studies.

References

Agassi, J. B. (1982). Comparing the work attitudes of women and men. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 35, 232–244.Besser, T. L. (1993). The commitment of Japanese workers and U.S. workers: A reassessment of the literature.

American Sociological Review, 58, 873–881.Blau, G. J. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,

58, 277–288.Blau, G. J. (1986). Job involvement and organizational commitment as interactive predictors of tardiness and

absenteeism. Journal of Management, 12, 577–584.Blau, G., Paul, A., & St. John, N. (1993). On developing a general index of work commitment. Journal of Voca-

tional Behavior, 42, 298–314.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 eVectiveness. Journal of Busi-

ness Research, 26, 75–90.Cohen, A. (1999a). Relationships among Wve forms of commitment: An empirical examination. Journal of Organi-

zational Behavior, 20, 285–308.Cohen, A. (1999b). The relation between commitment forms and work outcomes in Jewish and Arab culture.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 371–391.Cohen, A. (2000). The relationship between commitment forms and work outcomes: A comparison of three

models. Human Relations, 53(3), 387–418.Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative frame-

work. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241–259.


Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and eVective leadership patterns: Hofstederevisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127–150.

Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loaWng and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republicof China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565–581.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International diVerences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349.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 Manage-ment Journal, 44, 557–569.

Meyer, P. J., & Allen, J. N. (1984). Testing the side bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodologi-cal considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378.

Morrison, W. E. (1994). Role deWnition and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of theemployee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.

Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc.Mueller, C. W., Iverson, R. D., & Price, J. L. (1999). The eVects of group racial composition on job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and career commitment. Work and Occupation, 26, 187–219.Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus aVective determinants of organizational citizenship

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164.Pines, A. M., & Zaidman, N. (2003). Israeli Jews and Arabs: Similarities and diVerences in the utilization of social

support. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 465–480.Randall, D. M. (1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological investigation. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361–378.Randall, D. M. (1993). Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: A review and application of Hof-

stede’s value survey module. Journal of Business Research, 26, 91–110.Randall, D. M., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interrelationships of work commitment constructs. Work and Occupation,

18, 194–211.Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy

of Management Review, 10, 435–454.Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The relationship of internal and external commitment foci to

objective performance measures. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 570–579.Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related commitment and job performance: It’s also the nature of the

performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 621–634.Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major inXuences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 63, 391–407.Toren, N. (1991). The nexus between family and work roles of academic women in Israel: Reality and representa-

tion. Sex Roles, 24, 651–667.Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhamber, P., Bentein, K., & Delhaise, T. (2001). An examination of the cross-cultural

validity of multidimensional model of commitment in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32,322–347.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and deWni-tional clarity, a bridge over muddled waters. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organi-zational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

Yishai, Y., & Cohen, A. (1997). (Un)Representative bureaucracy: Women in the Israeli senior civil service. Admin-istration and Society, 28, 441–465.

the relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior in arab and...

Documents