Here is the article:
McGee, Gail W. & Ford, Robert C. (1987). Two (or More?) Dimensions of organizational commitment: reexamination of th affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72(4), 638-642.
***
Statistics isn't my strongest suit, but I believe these were yes/no type questions, where you either agreed or didn't, rather than a rikert style (e.g., strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither disagree or agree, somewhat agree, sgrongly agree) or sliding scale of 1 to 10 (for example, or 1 to 5 or whatever). But for myself as a single respondent the Likert or sliding scales would work better, or at least be more informative, since we don't have statistics to provide more information. But the other problem is that at different times of my tenure with the mission I would have answered the questions somewhat differently, I think, so I guess I'll scrap that altogether and just discuss the items. These are all from page 639, so I won't repeat that each time."ACS1: I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization"
I guess I came with not a real strong belonging because I didn't really like the idea of being a secretary. But I could have really grown with the mission if they had worked with me and accepted that I was more than just a secretary, but they wouldn't do that (until near the end when it was too late) and then they started right off with lies and deception, which was a horrible way to start with me. I don't kow how other people took that, but that was totally the wrong thing to do with me. And the clincher was when they kept moving me around. How could I have a sense of belonging when they kept moving me around? That crazy! Of course, I couldn't! And I couldn't trust them enough to let my guard down, so that's certainly not conducive for having a strong sense of belonging.
"ACS2: I do not feel 'emotionally attached' to this organization."
Although my emotional attachment, such as it was, ebbed and flowed a bit, depending on what sort of work they gave me to do (that was where the rubber met the road, what really mattered, what I was there for and what my supporters were supporting me for), mostly I didn't feel emotionally attached to the organization really at all. I had to try to keep my emotions unattached from the mission as much as possible because the stress factor with them was enough emotion and I was just trying to keep myself together. What I did have was a high sense of work ethic and I did have a belief in what they were doing, although, as I've said, the moral issues chipped away even at that over time, to where I became disillusioned. I couldn't show any of that though. That would just really result in all hell being let loose on me. I just couldn't imagine what it would be like.
"ACFS4: I do not feel like 'part of the family' at this organization."
The mission really was like a huge extended family. Since I hadn't been properly socialized (I didn't totally trust them, etc.) and there were probably problems related to my dad's work in management with the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (aka star wars) all these things became road blocks to keep me from some aspects of being part of the family. But there were times, I think when the mission thought that I was socialized or at least seemed to treat me as if I was and I also felt like part of the family. This was especially true during the time after I returned to Vienna after being in the States several months.
"ACS5: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization."
When I decided on the Vienna mission it was my full intention to make a career of work with them... but NOT as a secretary. I agreed to 2 years as a secretary, but I was only going to work 2 years in that position as a way to get my foot in the door. Obviously, once I got to Vienna and met with what I saw there my intentions began to change. I didn't immediately didn't immediately turn my thoughts to this subject, though.
"ACS6: I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it."
Not! Of course you couldn't get around it in correspondence and the mission expected positive upbeat correspondence that met security protocol (whether or not it was the prayer letter circular; it was drummed into us - or into me at least). But as far as outsiders, local Viennese were concerned, I'd just have rathered talk about something else and not because the mission preferred that, but because I was mostly not happy with the mission and the mission was making it hard for me to continue with outside relations. How could I explain to them what was going on and what I was feeling (anger, frustration, etc.)? So it was better to bury all that and just avoid the subject of the mission altogether.
"ACS7: I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own."
I'm rather ambivalent about this one. While on the one hand I didn't wish the mission harm, on the other hand where I felt the mission was way off base I couldn't own its problems as if they were mine. Maybe that was a part, too, of me not identifying enough with the mission, but they had horrified me enough with the way they'd treated me and their lies and deception, that they were on their own for their problems. I didn't intentionally distance myself from their problems, like plot it or anything; it's just that the pain and hurt they'd already caused me and the great moral and ethical issues that distanced us stood in the way of my owning them.
"ACS8: I think I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one."
This is a loaded statement for me. Firs of all, I was, after about 6 months into my term with the mission, only minimally attached to the mission, so that's a pretty low bar to have to reach with another organization. Secondly, there weren't many other realistically potential missions out there. Thirdly, after what I went through with the Vienna mission, how "easily" could I realistically trust any mission again?
So with all these things considered I think I could not have become attached to another organization as I was to the Vienna organization (even though I was only held by a thread of minimal attachmentn to that mission). In the end that actually proved to be the case and I went to Russia on my on without a mission, despite having done some work back home in the USA with a couple missions, one of which especially wanted me to work with them.
"CCS1: One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice - another organization may not match the overall benefits I have."
This one is sort of, I don't know, tricky? The thing is that what the Vienna mission did, it's mission, or vision, what drew me to it in the first place, was unique and I had considered all these various missions and ministries and really prayed about it and... it really was a unique ministry.... gone bad, if you ask me. I have no idea why no one else is bothered by these things, unless I got special treatment because of my dad, and some of the things were unique to me at least during the time I was there. So maybe that was the case.
So leaving would mean sort of the pounding of the final nail in the coffin of my career.
On the other hand, staying would mean possibly more sacrifice, because there was absolutely no evidence that anything was going to get better. So I'd probably really go crazy if I stayed longer with them because I was more and more totally under their control since I'd left the Austrian church and was just doing everything all English by the end. So there was really no choice but to leave. So the sacrifice to stay would have been greater than to leave.
The other "CCS" phrases don't really add anything new to "CCS1" or are irrelevant to my situation.
***
This brief citation is under "Results" in the "Psychometric Properties of the Commitment Scales" sub-section:"Affective commitment was significantly and negatively related to CC:LowAlt [Continuance Commitment, Low alternatives], but significantly and positively related to CC:Hi-Sac [CC:High sacrifice]." (p. 640)
So if someone had low affect toward the employing organization this analysis predicts that s/he had few alternatives (i.e.,felt trapped) in an organization, and this may have a connection to (correlation with the?) that dissatisfaction the organization. (I'm reading into the text here, adding to it a possible explanation.)
On the other hand, if you have positive affect (regarding your employing organization) you will rate higher for sacrifice (for the organization).
(Because the researchers had done some some statistics not only with their figures, but also with earlier tests of the instrument, I was not able to figure out which individual statements were part of the factors (i.e., CC:LowAlt & CC:HiSac) It might have been easier to comment if I knew which statements were included).
All that is fine and good, but it's abstract, and that's not what this blog is primarily all about. So I come along and, of course, before long I have a low affect about the Vienna mission. I don't think that it can be said that (despite my concerns and hesitations earlier on) I had a negative affect towards the mission really until the 5th month into my term when they sent me to the USA. Then I most definitively had a negative affect and had one for the rest of my term. The only thing is that I didn't show it. I learned that while I was in the States. I think they wanted me to learn to fear them and submit to them, but I learned to fear them and to bury my feelings and keep secrets - my secrets, as well as their secrets. You might balk at this, but I was told before I went to the States that 2 other women, wives of leaders in the mission had been sent home to the States before me for similar reasons, so there was a precedence. It was in their arsenal of tricks up their sleeves, if you will, as to how to socialize people. Maybe not your average, typical way of going about it, but it was among their ways.
So I had a low affect for the mission, most of the time I was with the mission, although externally I was cheerful and of good attitude, because I'd learned to do that while I was in the U.S., and to prove it, I had low continuance commitment, which at the end of my term became finally obvious to all. And that's when they shunned me. But they still had no idea of my bad affect, because I maintained my positive front with them to the end. But I never once made an effort to try to extend my stay, so that would be true to this statement.
The second part of the sentence, in case you didn't guess, is irrelevant in my case.
***
That's all for this article.
