Abstract
Organizational scholars usually treat commitment either as a calculative or a moral form of organizational involvement. There has been a parallel schism with respect to etiology, with commitment being seen either as the result of investments in the organizational role or as reciprocation with the organization for the fulfillment of important needs. The latter view implies that individual differences in need structure will act as a moderator. The research is based, in part, on a theory which holds that the saliency of different needs varies with job tenure. Questionnaire data were collected from 881 employees in two hospitals and 28 bank branches to determine whether job tenure moderates the relative impacts of existence, relatedness and growth need fulfillment on organizational commitment. The study also compared the relative utility of the investments and reciprocation models of etiology, vis-a-vis both calculative and moral commitment. Both etiological models accounted for non-redundant variance in organizational commitment. While support was stronger for the reciprocation model, there was a relative gain in support for the investments model when calculative commitment was the dependent variable. No support was found for the hypothesized job-tenure phased differences in the impacts of needs on commitment. Subsidiary analyses of job satisfaction, role stress and manifest need strengths indicated basic patterns in the participant sample at variance with the underlying model of time and work. Non-supportive results were discussed in this context.