Next Article in Journal
Numerical Simulation of Fracture Propagation during Refracturing
Previous Article in Journal
Estimating the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Customers’ Dining-Out Activities in South Korea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/su14159421
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dual Commitment to Leader and Organization: Alternative Models Based on the Employees’ Emotional Awareness

by
Marisa Santana-Martins
1,*,
Maria Isabel Sanchez-Hernandez
1 and
José Luís Nascimento
2
1
Business Administration and Sociology Department, School of Economics Sciences and Management, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
2
Centro de Administração e Politicas Públicas, Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Politicas, Lisbon University, 1300-663 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9421; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14159421
Submission received: 1 June 2022 / Revised: 19 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 1 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Management has been considering employee commitment as one of the strategic priorities, due to many studies suggesting the positive influence of commitment on high performance, innovative work behavior, employee retention, and many other important business outcomes. Nevertheless, commitment is considered an abstract construct, from which human resources management needs to create policies and practices that effectively support the business strategy and organizational culture. The existence of many foci of commitment in the workplace has been a challenge in that scenario, being important to understand how different foci relate to each other and how they influence the employee commitment process. To contribute to filling this gap, this research aims to compare two different models, analyzing the relationship between two foci of commitment, namely the affective commitment to the leader and organizational commitment. For this purpose, the employees’ emotional awareness has been considered as an independent variable. Hence, this study seeks to identify which model has higher explanatory power, and consequently, a more significant impact on the process of the employees’ commitment. The implications for theory and practice are discussed.

1. Introduction

Over the last years, companies have faced a competitive context that has brought significant management challenges. These circumstances emphasized the potential of organizational human capital, specifically their contribution to boosting innovation levels, increasing organizational competitiveness, and consequently, the sustainability of the company [1,2,3,4,5]. Regarding this perspective, commitment has been considered as an issue with high strategic relevance to management [3,6,7,8,9,10,11].
According to this environment, human resources managers have been exposed to several challenges, mainly related to the need of planning, and have implemented strategic commitment policies and practices to support the business strategy and the organizational culture. The difficulties come from the fact that commitment is still considered an “abstract phenomenon”, and mostly due to the existence of many different foci in the workplace [12,13]. In this sense, the context requires empirical contributions from which human resources management finds the support required to develop the employee’s commitment measure in the workplace [1,3,13]. Moreover, this demand is considered a commitment research line [3,8,14].
Commitment can be defined as a bond of a particular nature toward a specific focus, which leads to behavioral stability [3,15,16,17]. The organization has been one of the most studied foci of commitment, due to its influential relationship on variables such as an increase in high-performance, innovative work behaviors, talent retention, prosocial behaviors, and many others [3,17,18,19,20]. However, the relationship between organizational commitment and other foci, as well as directionality in each relationship, are still under-explored [14,21,22,23]. As Becker et al. [12] highlighted, “there have been few attempts to explain how commitments to multiple foci combine to affect workplace phenomena” (p. 1203). Therefore, the analysis of the multiple commitment foci is a relevant approach to the commitment studies, particularly on how different foci influence each other, and their potential impact on employees’ commitment process.
This work is innovative in two ways. On the one hand, it is assumed that the leader is an extremely relevant figure in the organizational structure, being a key element in important communications between employer and employee. It is undeniable that the leadership role has emphasized the need to influence employees [14,21,24,25]. However, commitment to the leader is a recent construct, with few studies either conceptual or empirical [21,24,26]. On the other hand, emotions have been considered to play an important role in commitment. In the past decades, many researchers highlighted the relevance of emotions in organizations. Emotional awareness allows the employees to experience daily situations more satisfactorily, including in challenging contexts, presenting them with few levels of anxiety [27,28,29,30,31]. In that sense, the employees´ emotional awareness (EEA) was included in this modeling study as an independent variable influencing commitment at work.
Therefore, this study aims to compare two different models analyzing the relationship between two foci of commitment (leader and organization) to identify the cause–effect of the relationship between organizational commitment (OC) and affective commitment to the leader (ACL). The first proposed model establishes that the affective commitment to the leader influences the organizational commitment, and the second one establishes that the organizational commitment influences the affective commitment to the leader. This study relies on a multidimensional view of organizational commitment (affective, normative, and continuance) [32,33], and the affective dimension of commitment to the leader under the Social Exchange Theory for explaining the leader–member exchange framework.
In sum, this research aims to analyze and compare two alternative models, identifying which one has more explanatory power, how these two foci of commitment influence each other, and consequently, their potential impact on the employees’ commitment process.
After this introduction, a literature review and hypotheses development are presented to build the two alternative models. Later, the method and procedure are explained, followed by the statistical results that allow to point to the best model. Finally, the implications for theory and practice are discussed.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Affective Commitment to the Leader and Organizational Commitment—The Role of the Employee’s Emotional Awareness

The existence of multiple foci of commitment in the workplace is consensual, and many authors claim that employees’ commitment foci are dynamic, such as profession, career, organization, leader, and colleagues, amongst others [3,12,21]. This context hampers the perception of commitment as an integrated phenomenon, which consequently, represents an obstacle to implementing successful strategic policies and practices [3,12,15,17,34].
Regarding the Three-Component Model (TCM), Meyer and Allen [33] identified the social process of commitment, associating the reasons and the way in which employees commit. The TCM is formed by affective, normative, and continuance dimensions, in which in the affective dimension, the employees create an affective link to the organization, remaining because they like it. The normative dimension has an implicit moral duty, a feeling of debt, and an obligation to the organization, in which the commitment is based on the employee’ belief that the company deserves their commitment and contributions. In the continuance dimension, employees remain due to instrumental interests (material or monetary), as it can be the hierarchical position achieved, and the associated remunerations conditions [15,20,33].
The organization has been one of the most studied foci of commitment, once it is one of the most representative figures in the workplace. However, the socio-economic context has changed the labor market, new generations have been required to take on new ways of working, and other foci may have gained prominence [3]. In that sense, leadership has an implicit influence on employees, as much at the motivational as the operational level. The leader represents a fundamental role in daily management, particularly in promoting and implementing organizational changes [9,24,25,35]. This context exposes the relevance to include this figure as a focus of commitment [21,36]. The study of Eisenberger et al. [24] concluded that employees see the leader as an intermediary of the organization, and the employees′ perception of the leader’s embodiment to the organization influences their affective organizational commitment. This result suggests that the affective commitment to the leader may influence the employee’s organizational commitment.
The employee process of commitment has an analysis of extrinsic aspects such as the organizational values, the work environment, the job characteristics, and many others, but also based on the employees’ intrinsic characteristics [3,14,15,16,20].
The employees’ emotional awareness can be defined as the ability to recognize and assimilate feelings and emotions, bringing to the individual a better understanding of the emotional dynamics, and consequently leading to the actions and thoughts [28,31,37,38,39]. Many studies have suggested that a great ability to manage emotions positively influences the individual to act properly, even in demanding situations, allowing a greater capacity for managing stress and anxiety. According to these studies, the emotional management ability endorses benefits such as greater self-awareness, greater life satisfaction, and the quality of the relationships both personally and professionally, contributing necessarily to a better experience [28,30,37,38].
For that reason, many authors have developed studies about the impact of emotions in the workplace, where emotions play an important role in many aspects of day-to-day organizations, as it can be a part of the decision process and employees’ behavior [27,28,29,30,31,38,39,40].
Rego and Fernandes [41] proposed a model based on Mayer and Salovey [37] in which three emotional dimensions that support emotional awareness were considered. Based on that, understanding self-emotions (USE) is related to the individual ability to identify and understand self-emotions, and being able to identify the trigger causes. This ability can support the individuals’ awareness of their feelings toward the organization, being aware of the aspects they appreciate, and what can positively influence the employee’s organizational commitment (affective, normative, continuance). In the case of affective commitment to the leader, similarly the relationship will benefit by the ability to manage emotions and the development based on the emotional learning process.
Self-control when facing criticism (SFC) focuses on recognizing one′s own emotions in critical situations, and being able to manage these emotions constructively. According to Smith et al. [28], in any organizational context, the reaction to criticism can be negative, as it can be interpreted as focused on the fear of losing a job; or positively, when it is interpreted as an opportunity to improve. The difference of how an individual decides to focus on the criticism can influence the organizational commitment and the affective commitment of the leader, from the perspective that if it is based on fear, the individual feeling is more oriented to be out of the company. On the other hand, if the individual positively interprets the criticism, the individual will tend to be grateful for the possibility to improve, which can lead to affective commitment to the leader and organizational commitment.
Finally, understanding others’ emotions (UOE) is the ability to understand and identify other emotions in the moment of interaction, calibrating the behavior to act properly. This ability is the base to build better relationships, which can influence how the employee experiences the organization, leading to organizational commitment. In the same logical perspective, a great ability to create good relationships can lead to an affective commitment to the leader.
There are several studies focusing on positive emotions in the leader–member exchange literature [42,43], once social exchanges in organizations are the basis of the relationship between employees and leaders impacting the organizational culture [44,45,46,47,48]. Consequently, and accordingly to the theoretical framework previously exposed, we established the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Employees’ Emotional Awareness relates positively to Affective Commitment to the Leader.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Employees’ Emotional Awareness relates positively to Organizational Commitment.
As exposed before, this study focuses on the positive relationship between organizational commitment and affective commitment to the leader, and the reverse. However, the strength of this relationship still needs to be explored. For that reason, two new and alternative hypotheses are established, and two different models are statistically compared (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Hypothesis 3a (H3a).
Affective Commitment to the Leader relates positively to Organizational Commitment.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b).
Organizational Commitment relates positively to Affective Commitment to the Leader.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sample and Measures

This study was conducted mainly in two different multinational companies in Portugal, one from the retail sector with the Head Quarter in France, and the other from the distribution sector, with Head Quarters in Portugal but present in many different countries. The survey was answered by 403 participants, 107 of them corresponded to a random group belonging to different companies. All the incomplete surveys were deleted, as well as the surveys of participants with less than 1 year of tenure in the company. The participants were adverted that their participation should be voluntary, and no personal data would be collected.
The sample presents a good socio-demographic balance and is composed of 56.1% female and 43.9% male respondents. In terms of tenure in the organizations, the average is 9 years, being a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 40 years. The respondents were also asked if they performed as leaders, with 38.2% responding positively and 61.8% responding negatively.
The survey was composed of three author scales from which the respondents were chosen from a 7-point Likert-format scale, which 1 corresponds to “totally disagree” and 7 to “totally agree”.
Concerning organizational commitment, we used an adapted and validated scale for the Portuguese context by Nascimento et al. [49], based on the Meyer and Allen [15] model. The indexes of this dimensions support their convergent validity, as suggested by Hair et al. [50] (affective organizational commitment: α = 0.825, AVE = 68% and CR = 0.86; normative organizational commitment: α = 0.846, AVE = 69% and CR = 0.87; and continuance organizational commitment: α = 0.735, AVE = 54% and CR = 0.78).
To measure the affective commitment to the leader, we used the scale developed by Nascimento et al. [49] for organizational commitment, adapted to the leader, from which only the affective dimension was considered. The indexes support its convergent validity (affective commitment to the leader: α = 0.879, AVE = 78% and CR = 0.91).
Regarding employees’ emotional awareness, we used a scale adapted and validated for the Portuguese context by Rego and Fernandes [41] based on the model of Mayer and Salovey [37]. Only the items relative to manifest variables were used, such as understanding self-emotions, self-control when facing criticism; and understanding others’ emotions. According to Hair et al. [50], all these dimensions presented indexes that support their convergent validity (understanding self-emotions: α = 0.875, AVE = 81% and CR = 0.93; self-control when facing criticism: α = 0.761, AVE = 58% and CR = 0.80; and understanding others’ emotions: α = 0.690, AVE = 61% and CR = 0.82).

3.2. Procedures and Statistical Analysis

For statistical analysis and treatment of data, we used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences—SPSS (version 22) and LISREL 9.2.
We followed the recommendations of Hair et al. [50], who argued for the need for independent variables in the study of directionality between constructs. An analysis of the common bias method was previously performed to identify a non-significant common variance [51].
Considering the sample validations, we proceeded to conduct a Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA) to verify if the scales were appropriated to validate the theoretical model [52]. Thus, the Robust Maximum Likelihood method was used, being the most appropriate to estimate models with ordinal variables, through calculating polychoric correlations [50].
Therefore, we proceeded to structural relationships estimation, considering the internal consistency analysis of the latent variables, the value of variance extracted (≥0.5), and the construct reliability between 0.6 and 0.7 [50]. To estimate the percentage of variance extracted from dependent variables explained by independent variables, we considered the determination coefficient (R2 ≥ 0.4) [50,52].
Structural equations modeling was performed to identify the quality of the goodness-of-fit of the proposed models. This methodology is recommended to validate theoretical models supported by hypothetical causal relationships between variables. This analysis is supported by a set of statistical indicators such as (i) absolute fit indicators measures, (ii) incremental fit measures, and (iii) parsimony and comparison of model measures [50,52].
Therefore, for structural fit models evaluation, the following indicators of absolute fit were used: (i) Chi-square (χ2), to quantify the differences between the covariance matrices; (ii) goodness-of-fit index (GFI > 0.9), which varies between 0 and 1 should be superior to 0.9, to guarantee the quality of fit of the proposed model; (iii) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < 0.08), which indicates the correction of the model based on the variables and the complexity of the proposed model, the lower the value, the better the quality of fit. It is acceptable values under 0.09 [50,52].
For reliability analysis of each scale, relative to the latent construct measurement, the coefficient alpha of Cronbach was considered, having as a reference a value greater or equal to 0.70, despite some authors considering it acceptable when it is superior to 0.60 [50,52].
The measures of incremental adjustment compare to the proposed model with the null model, so the more significant the difference between these models, the better the quality of the proposed model.
This study used the comparative fit index (CFI > 0.92). This indicator uses the degrees of freedom to fit the proposed model compared to the null model. This indicator is quite stable, being one of the most used indicators due to low sensitiveness to complex models.
The parsimony measures and comparison of models allow the possibility of identifying which model fits better. For this study, as an indicator of parsimony, we calculate by dividing the chi-square value with a value of degrees of freedom (χ2/df ≤ 3.0).
Subsequently, the generated model is used, into which the existing direct relationship between the independent and dependent variables is inserted. In this stage, to consider the existence of mediation, all direct and indirect relationships must remain statistically significant [50].

4. Results

4.1. Model 1 Analysis—The Relationship between Employees’ Emotional Awareness Influencing Affective Commitment to the Leader and Organizational Commitment

Final Model 1 (see Figure 3), which focus on the relationship between employees’ emotional awareness and affective commitment to the leader influencing organizational commitment, presents good evidence of GFI (see Table 1).
The results present a positive relationship between the two foci of commitment, more precisely, between affective commitment to the leader towards affective organizational commitment (0.43) and normative organizational commitment (0.34). However, the relationship between affective commitment to the leader and continuance of organizational commitment is negative (−0.14).
Relatively to the relationship between the employees’ emotional awareness dimensions and organizational commitment, the results provide evidence that only the understanding self-emotions is positively related to the three dimensions of organizational commitment, affective OC (0.22), normative OC (0.28), and continuance OC (0.25).
However, self-control when facing criticism is positively related to affective commitment to the leader (0.28), but negatively associated with the continuance of organizational commitment (−0.20). This result can be related to the ability to receive feedback, which has inherent certain emotional maturity, reinforcing the relevance of affective commitment bond to the leader, contrary to an instrumental interest in the organization.
The dimension of understanding others’ emotions presents a positive relationship only with normative organizational commitment (0.17). This result suggests that the ability to understand the other´s emotions influences employees′ moral duty awareness.
The obtained results suggest that affective commitment to the leader positively influences the affective and normative organizational commitment, which means that affective commitment to the leader leads to a strong link that drives the employee’s organizational commitment process based on an affective perspective, but also based on a moral duty towards the organization.
On the other hand, the model also suggests a trend, as greater employees′ affective commitment to the leader lower the continuance of organizational commitment; in other words, lower will be the interest in monetary or instrumental factors.
With these results, we can infer that Hypothesis 1 is partially confirmed, once two of the three dimensions of emotional awareness dimensions considered in this study (understanding self-emotions and self-control when facing criticism) reflect a positive relationship with a commitment to the leader.
Thus, Hypothesis 3a can be assumed as partially valid as well, in the sense that a positive relationship between affective commitment to the leader and the affective and normative organizational commitment can be observed, but there is negative relationship to the continuance of organizational commitment.

4.2. Model 2 Analysis—The Relationship between Employees’ Emotional Awareness Influencing Organizational Commitment and Affective Commitment to the Leader

As can be seen in Final Model 2 (see Figure 4), the direct relationship between employee emotional awareness and organizational commitment influencing affective commitment to the leader was tested. The model presents evidence of the goodness of fit (Table 2). A positive relationship was found between affective organizational commitment (0.53) and affective commitment to the leader and a negative relationship between continuance organizational commitment (−0.21) and affective commitment to the leader.
This model also suggests that affective dimensions of these two foci of commitment are positively related and significantly influence each other. This result can mean that when employees are already committed to monetary or material factors, it could more difficult to commit affectively to the leader, or if the affective commitment with the leader is non-existent, the employees tend to commit to the organization based on instrumental aspects.
Regarding the employees’ emotional awareness, it was possible to identify the positive relationship between the understanding self-emotions and affective (0.26), normative (0.29), and continuance organizational commitment (0.23).
Self-control when facing criticism, only presents a negative relationship with the continuance of organizational commitment (−0.26), losing the positive relationship to affective commitment to the leader observed in Final Model 1 (Figure 3).
Understanding others’ emotions presents a positive relationship between affective (0.32) and normative organizational commitment (0.16).
Moreover, it should be noted that in this model, the employees’ emotional awareness does not reveal any relationship with the affective commitment to the leader.
Final Model 2 (Figure 4) reflects that the influence relationship between organizational commitment and affective commitment to the leader remains, however, with a lower number of structural relationships than Final Model 1. This fact could suggest that affective commitment to the leader, although unidimensional, could be a commitment focus with a more significant influence on organizational commitment than the opposite.
Thus, Hypothesis 3b is partially confirmed, once affective organizational commitment has a positive relationship with affective commitment to the leader, and a negative relationship with the continuance of organizational commitment.
Additionally, in this structural model, there is no relationship between normative organizational commitment and affective commitment to the leader, contrarily to Final Model 1 (Figure 3).

4.3. Comparative Analysis between Final Model 1 and Final Model 2

Following the analysis of the results, Table 3 reflects a comparison of the two proposed models under study, based on the R2 values.
The results reflect that Final Model 2 performs a superior R2 in affective commitment to the leader (0.319), but Final Model 1 presents a more significant R2 on the remaining dimensions.
Thus, comparing the Final Models 1 and 2 (Figure 3 and Figure 4) and their R2 (Table 3), it can be assumed that Final Model 1 has a more significant explicative influence on the process of commitment between the affective commitment. That means that affective commitment to the leader has a greater effect on employees’ organizational commitment process, once higher determination coefficient values are present in the affective, normative, and continuance dimensions. Additionally, regarding employees’ emotional awareness dimensions, Final Model 1 reflects a more significant number of relationships than Final Model 2, which also suggests that the relationship between employees’ emotional awareness and organizational commitment is superior when motivated by affective commitment to the leader.

5. Discussion

Although organizational commitment is considered a well-studied construct, a set of relationships are yet to be explored. Nevertheless, recent studies have raised relevant questions of this construct, suggesting studies concerning antecedents, new foci, cause-effects, dynamic changes, directionalities, and profiles [3,20,21,23]. Thus, the current research allows a better understanding of commitment and the behavioral phenomena that it encompasses on affective commitment to the leader and organizational commitment (affective, normative, and continuance).
This study aimed specifically to compare two different proposed models, to analyze the relationship between affective commitment to the leader and organizational commitment. For this purpose, employees´ emotional awareness has been considered an independent variable to build two alternative models to analyze the dynamic/relationship between the two foci of commitment. The first model established that affective commitment to the leader has a positive influence on three dimensions of organizational commitment, the second offers the reverse relationship. The goal was to discover the model that has a higher explanatory power and, consequently, greater impact on the employees’ commitment process. In both models, the employees’ emotional awareness (understanding self-emotions, self-control when facing criticism, and understanding others’ emotions) was included as the independent variable.
Findings suggested that Final Model 1 presents a more significant explicative influence on the process of commitment than Final Model 2, performing more structural relationships between employees’ emotional awareness and affective commitment to the leader on the influence of organizational commitment. The results obtained reinforce the role of leaders influencing the employee commitment process.

5.1. Theoretical and Practical Considerations

A study by Meyer et al. [21] called for more research, to consider the influence of the hierarchical structure has on organizational commitment, and also on other different foci. The authors believe that different foci of commitment can be convergent, and the nature of bonds has implications on the employees′ behavior [21,22]. For that reason, a multidimensional approach to studies of commitment has been suggested, in order to understand the dynamics of the nature of commitment bonds and its implications on behavior and different foci [23].
Thus, our models assumed the multidimensional approach of organizational commitment, and one-dimensionality of commitment to the leader (affective) in agreement with Klein et al. [53]. These authors suggested that some objects of commitment could assume one-dimensionality depending on the personal or abstract perspective.
Therefore, Final Model 1 suggests that the affective commitment to the leader influences affective and normative organizational commitment and that the greater the substantial affective commitment to the leader, the less tends to be the continuance of organizational commitment.
Comparatively, Final Model 2 demonstrates that organizational commitment influences the affective commitment to the leader. However, that relationship is only between the affective dimensions of both foci. It was also possible to identify the negative association of continuance of organizational commitment to affective commitment to the leader. This result can mean that when employees are committed to remunerative aspects or material reasons, the lower will tend to commit affectively to the leader, or if they are not affectively committed to the leader, the greater tends to be the commitment based on remuneration or instrumental aspects.
Therefore, after a comparative analysis of the two final models (Table 3), the determination coefficient (R2), it could be concluded that the model which presents a better explanatory capacity is Final Model 1, with a set of structural relationships between the constructs.
As previously referred to, different studies argue that commitment links employees′ motivation, greater performance, well-being, and the impact on business outcomes. In this sense, commitment is currently a strategic objective of future and competitive oriented organizations [1,3,12,13,22,54,55]. Thus, it is essential to contribute to Human Resources in the process of identifying and implementing effective HR practices to improve employees’ commitment levels, influencing their contribution to organizational success, and consequently making them responsible for their careers [1,3,17,34,56].
Despite new trends on employee commitment, more recently focused on aspects of employee experience, it is still common to see the Human Resources departments adopting measures more focused on material benefits, investing on continuance of organizational commitment measures. The investment in an appealing remuneration package or instrumental benefits could be somewhat less complex than implementing measures related to conceptual factors, such as affection or defining a leadership culture, or even measures considering different foci, etc. However, studies reveal that the investment in continuance commitment measures may not necessarily be the most effective. For example, the study by Meyer and Parfyonova [57] argues that the affective and normative commitment bonds have stronger influence on the long term employee organizational remaining decision on the commitment process. This context is related to the fact that commitment is still considered an abstract phenomenon. According with the results of this study, affective commitment to the leader positively influences the affective and normative organizational commitment, which means that affective commitment to the leader has inherently a relatively strong link that drives affective and normative organizational commitment. Moreover, studies by Meyer et al. [14] and Meyer and Maltin [58] argue that a strong affective organizational commitment influences a higher level of well-being, and consequently, a greater predisposition to high-performance standards than those who are linked to continuance organizational commitment.
According to the results obtained, a greater emotional maturity has a positive influence on the affective commitment to the leader and, consequently, impacts employee’s organizational commitment.
Furthermore, it reinforces the need of define a leadership culture, where the leader adopts a leadership style that improves an affective commitment, based on close relationships and feedback, once self-control, when facing criticism, is positively related to affective commitment to the leader. Therefore, employees′ emotional awareness development is also recommended as a priority, as needed to improve commitment levels, and positively influencing the commitment process, based essentially on affective and normative bonds reinforcements. As it could be seen, understanding others’ emotions also presents a positive relationship on normative organizational commitment. This result suggests that understanding the other´s emotions influences employees′ moral duty awareness and a feeling of debt and obligation. On the other hand, the model also suggests that the greater employees′ affective commitment to the leader influences a lower continuance of organizational commitment. In other words, lower will be the relevance of remuneration or instrumental aspects. Thus, measures related to organizational behavior culture can be more effective than economic investments.
However, we also have insights from Final Model 2, as it could be seen in the relationship between employees’ emotional awareness dimensions towards the organizational commitment, influencing affective commitment to the leader. We found a positive relationship between affective organizational commitment and affective commitment to the leader and a negative relationship between them and continuance organizational commitment. This suggests that the affective dimensions of these two foci of commitment are positively related and significantly influence each other.

5.2. Limitations and Future Directions

Since this study has several limitations, it is important to pay attention to the specific results. First, it is relevant to highlight the difference in GFI between the two final models, which are only slightly different, mostly allowing us to understand that the first model presents more structural relationships, and for that reason, more influence on the employee’s commitment processes.
Therefore, we propose future research focusing on different variables, apart from employees’ emotional awareness. We also suggest future studies that test the one-dimensionality versus multidimensionality of commitment foci, such as goals, career, and colleagues with a more diversified sample, including in different public and private sectors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.-M.; Methodology, M.S.-M., M.I.S.-H. and J.L.N.; Writing—original draft, M.S.-M.; Writing—review & editing, M.S.-M., M.I.S.-H. and J.L.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been partially funded by the Regional Government of Extremadura (Junta de Extremadura) and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund—A way of making Europe), supporting Research Groups (SEJO21—GR21078) of the University of Extremadura.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beer, M.; Boselie, P.; Brewster, C. Back to the Future. Implications for the fields of HRM of the multistakeholder perspective proposed 30 years ago. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 54, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Markoulli, M.; Lee, C.I.; Byington, E.; Felps, W.A. Mapping human resource management: Reviewing the field and charting future directions. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2017, 27, 367–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Klein, H.; Brinsfield, C.; Cooper, J. The experience of commitment in the contemporary workplace: An exploratory reexamination of commitment model antecedents. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 60, 885–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Murray, W.C.; Holmes, M.R. Impacts of employee empowerment and organizational commitment on workforce sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ha, J.; Lee, J. Realization of a Sustainable High-Performance Organization through Procedural Justice: The Dual Mediating Role of Organizational Trust and Organizational Commitment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Battistelli, A.; Galletta, M.; Portoghese, I.; Vandenberghe, C. Mindsets of commitment and motivation: Interrelationships and contribution to work outcomes. J. Psychol. 2013, 147, 17–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Xerri, M.J.; Brunetto, Y. Fostering innovative behavior: The importance of employee commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 3163–3177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Meyer, J.P. Employee commitment: Looking back and moving forward. In Handbook of Employee Commitment; John, P., Meyer, J.P., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lapointe, É.; Vandenberghe, C. Supervisory mentoring and employee affective commitment and turnover: The critical role of contextual factors. J. Vocat. Behav. 2017, 98, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Forest, J.; Chen, C. The negative and positive aspects of employees’ innovative behavior: Role of goals of employees and supervisors. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Shaikh, E.; Brahmi, M.; Thang, P.C.; Watto, W.A.; Trang, N.; Loan, N.T. Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining the Turnover Intentions with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Organizational Identification and Organizational Commitment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Becker, T.E.; Kernan, M.C.; Clark, K.D.; Klein, H.J. Dual commitments to organizations and professions: Different motivational pathways to productivity. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 1202–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Strack, R.; Caye, J.; Leicht, M.; Villis, U.; Bohm, H.; McDonnell, M. The Future of HR Europe—Key Challenges throughout 2015; Boston Consulting Group and European Association for People Management: Boston, MA, USA; Alexandria, VA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  14. Becker, T.E.; Klein, H.J.; Meyer, J.P. Commitment in organizations. Accumulated wisdom and new directions. In Commitment in Organizations: Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions; Klein, H., Becker, T., Meyer, J., Eds.; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2009; pp. 419–452. [Google Scholar]
  15. Meyer, J.; Allen, N. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  16. Meyer, J.; Herscovitch, L. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2001, 11, 229–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Meyer, J. Commitment in a changing world of work. In Commitment in Organizations: Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions; Klein, H., Becker, T., Meyer, J., Eds.; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  18. Weick, K. Making Sense of the Organization; Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  19. Meyer, J.; Standley, D.; Herscovitch, L.; Topolnytsky, L. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 2002, 61, 20–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Klein, H.; Molloy, J.; Cooper, J. Conceptual foundations: Construct definitions and theorical representations of workplace commitments. In Commitment in Organizations: Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions; Klein, H., Becker, T., Meyer, J., Eds.; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  21. Meyer, J.P.; Morin, A.J.; Vandenberghe, C. Dual commitment to organization and supervisor. A person-centered approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015, 88, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Meyer, J.; Morin, A.; Stanley, L.; Maltin, E. Teachers’ dual commitment to the organization and occupation: A person-centered investigation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 77, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. van Rossenberg, Y.G.T.; Cross, D.; Swart, J. An HRM perspective on workplace commitment: Reconnecting in concept, measurement and methodology. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2022, 100891, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Eisenberger, R.; Karagonlar, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Neves, P.; Becker, T.E.; Gonzalez-Morales, M.G. Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 1085–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Riisla, K.; Wendt, H.; Babalola, M.T.; Euwema, M. Building Cohesive Teams—The Role of Leaders’ Bottom-Line Mentality and Behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stinglhamber, F.; Vandenberghe, C. Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yip, J.; Côté, S. The emotionally intelligent decision-maker. Emotion-understanding ability reduces the effect of incidental anxiety on risk-taking. Psychol. Sci. J. 2013, 24, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Smith, R.; Killgore, W.D.S.; Lane, R.D. The structure of emotional experience and its relation to trait emotional awareness: A theoretical review. Emotion 2018, 18, 670–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Grandey, A.; Sayre, G. Emotional Labor: Regulating Emotions for a Wage. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 28, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Helvac, M.; Yilmaz, H. The relationship between the emotion management competencies of school principals during a chance process and organizational change cynicism levels of teachers. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Diener, E.; Thapa, S.; Tay, L. Positive Emotions at Work. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2020, 7, 451–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Allen, N.; Meyer, J. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 1990, 63, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Meyer, J.; Allen, N. A Three-component conceptualizations of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 1–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Meyer, J.; Allen, N.; Topolnytsky, L. Commitment in a changing world of work. Can. Psychol. 1998, 39, 82–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bass, B.; Riggio, R. Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2006; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  36. Strauss, K.; Griffin, M.; Rafferty, A. Proactivity Directed Toward the Team and Organization. The Role of Leadership, Commitment and Role-breadth Self-efficacy. Br. J. Manag. 2009, 20, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Mayer, J.; Salovey, P. What is Emotional Intelligence. In Emotional Development, Emotional Literacy, and Emotional Intelligence; Salovey, P., Sluyter, D., Eds.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  38. Côté, S. Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014, 1, 459–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rimé, B. Le Partege Social des Emotions; Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rimé, B. Emotions at the service of cultural construction. Emot. Rev. 2020, 12, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rego, A.; Fernandes, C. Inteligência emocional. contributos adicionais para a validação de um instrumento de medida [Emotional intelligence. additional contributions for the validation of a measuring instrument]. Psicología 2005, 19, 139–167. [Google Scholar]
  42. Cropanzano, R.; Dasborough, M.T.; Weiss, H.M. Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2017, 42, 233–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Herman, H.M.; Troth, A.C.; Ashkanasy, N.M.; Collins, A.L. Affect and leader-member exchange in the new millennium: A state-of-art review and guiding framework. Leadersh. Q. 2018, 29, 135–149. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bishop, J.W.; Scott, K.D.; Goldsby, M.G.; Cropanzano, R. A construct validity study of commitment and perceived support variables: A multifoci approach across different team environments. Group Organ. Manag. 2005, 30, 153–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bhal, K.T.; Gulati, N.; Ansari, M.A. Leader-member exchange and subordinate outcomes: Test of a mediation model. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2009, 30, 30,106–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Homans, G.C. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 1958, 63, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 874–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Lawler, E.J.; Thye, S.R.; Yoon, J. The emergence of collective emotions in social exchange. In Collective Emotions; Von Scheve, C., Salmela, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 189–203. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nascimento, J.; Lopes, A.; Salgueiro, M. Estudo sobre a validação do Modelo de Comportamento Organizacional de Meyer e Allen para o contexto português [Study of validation of the Meyer and Allen Organizational Behavior Model for the Portuguese context]. Comport. Organ. Gestão 2008, 14, 115–133. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hair, J.; Black, B.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  51. Podsakoff, M.; MacKenzie, B.; Podsakoff, P. Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Marôco, J. Analysis of structural equations. Theoretical fundamentals, software and applications. In Análise de Equações Estruturais: Fundamentos Teóricos, Software e Aplicações; ReportNumber, Lda: Pêro Pinheiro, Portugal, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  53. Klein, H.J. Advances in workplace commitments. Introduction to the special issue. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2013, 23, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Strack, R.; Caye, J.; Gaissmaier, T.; Orglmeister, C.; Tamboto, E.; Von Der Linden, C.; Ullrich, S.; Haen, P.; Quirós, H.; Jauregui, J. Creating People Advantage 2014–2015: How to Set up Great HR Functions: Connect, Prioritize, Impact; Boston Consulting Group and World Federation of People Management Associations: Boston, MA, USA; Alexandria, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wright, P.; Gardner, T.; Moynihan, L.; Allen, N. The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Pers. Psychol. 2005, 58, 409–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wright, P.; Dunford, B.; Snell, A. Human resources and the resource basedoyees view of the firm. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 701–721. [Google Scholar]
  57. Meyer, J.P.; Parfyonova, N.M. Normative commitment in the workplace. A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2010, 20, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Meyer, J.; Maltin, E. Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 77, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 09421 g001 550
Figure 1. Research Model 1—the relationship between employees’ emotional awareness to affective commitment to the leader and organizational commitment.
Figure 1. Research Model 1—the relationship between employees’ emotional awareness to affective commitment to the leader and organizational commitment.
Sustainability 14 09421 g001
Sustainability 14 09421 g002 550
Figure 2. Research Model 2—the relationship of employees’ emotional awareness to organizational commitment and affective commitment to the leader.
Figure 2. Research Model 2—the relationship of employees’ emotional awareness to organizational commitment and affective commitment to the leader.
Sustainability 14 09421 g002
Sustainability 14 09421 g003 550
Figure 3. Final Model 1— The relationship between employees’ emotional awareness to affective commitment to the leader influencing organizational commitment.
Figure 3. Final Model 1— The relationship between employees’ emotional awareness to affective commitment to the leader influencing organizational commitment.
Sustainability 14 09421 g003
Sustainability 14 09421 g004 550
Figure 4. Final Model 2—The relationship between employees’ emotional awareness to organizational commitment influencing affective commitment to the leader.
Figure 4. Final Model 2—The relationship between employees’ emotional awareness to organizational commitment influencing affective commitment to the leader.
Sustainability 14 09421 g004
Table
Table 1. The goodness-of-fit index of the Final Model 1.
Table 1. The goodness-of-fit index of the Final Model 1.
x2dfRMSEAGFICFIx2/df
Final Model 1256.291730.0670.9830.9831.481
Table
Table 2. The goodness-of-fit index of Final Model 2.
Table 2. The goodness-of-fit index of Final Model 2.
x2dfRMSEAGFICFIx2/df
Final Model 2268.811770.0680.9010.9831.481
Table
Table 3. Determination coefficient between Final Model 1 and Final Model 2.
Table 3. Determination coefficient between Final Model 1 and Final Model 2.
R2ACLAOCNOCCOC
Final Model 1 (ACL Sustainability 14 09421 i001OC)0.1480.3860.2450.093
Final Model 2 (OC Sustainability 14 09421 i002ACL)0.3190.2600.1600.083
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Santana-Martins, M.; Sanchez-Hernandez, M.I.; Nascimento, J.L. Dual Commitment to Leader and Organization: Alternative Models Based on the Employees’ Emotional Awareness. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9421. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14159421

AMA Style

Santana-Martins M, Sanchez-Hernandez MI, Nascimento JL. Dual Commitment to Leader and Organization: Alternative Models Based on the Employees’ Emotional Awareness. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9421. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14159421

Chicago/Turabian Style

Santana-Martins, Marisa, Maria Isabel Sanchez-Hernandez, and José Luís Nascimento. 2022. "Dual Commitment to Leader and Organization: Alternative Models Based on the Employees’ Emotional Awareness" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9421. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14159421

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop