Penley, Larry E. & Gould, Sam. (1988). Etzioni's model of organizational involvement: a perspective for understanding commitment to organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 9(43), 43-59.
***
I'm skipping several pages to the section "Dimensions of commitment" which deals with 3 types of commitment from Etzioni's model.
"Moral Commitment
...A moral commitment is characterized by the acceptance of and identification with organizational goals. It may be thought of as a kind of organizational identification..." (p. 46)
I came to Vienna with what I thought was a pretty strong moral commitment to the mission, but that became eroded away during the time I was there. First it became eroded because I just wasn't so sure how trustworthy they were, but at the very end their very goals came into question I think as I began to question more and more who they really were.
***
"Calculative Commitment... It is a commitment to an organization which is based on the employee's receiving inducements to match contributions." (p. 46)
It's possible that the times when my commitment increased due to my having work more interesting to me, even when the basic issues remained the same, could have been commitment of this nature, because really the whole thing was not most fundamentally about my work, so that was a diversion or something. It did not address my complaints at all, but it might have been a nice inducement, it's true.
***
"Alienative Commitment... Etzioni (1961) originally described alienative involvement as typical of a prison or military basic training camp in which a coercive compliance system is prevalent. For many readers, it is difficult to conceive of alienation as a basis for organizational commitment. Yet, it can be viewed as such if one thinks of an employee's attachment to an organization as a consequence of (1) a lack of control over the internal organization environment and (2) the perceived absence of alternatives for organizational commitment.
Essential to understanding of the concept is Etzioni's use of the word -- alienation, Etzioni borrowed from the work of Karl Marx who gave alienation its classic definition -- a lack of control... To the alienatively committed worker, rewards and punishments may seem random rather than a direct result of the quality or the quantity of work. The employee's perceived sense of randomness provides the sense of loss of control. Thus the negative affective attachment to the organization, ascribed by Etzioni to the alienatively involved employee, develops." (p. 47)
The first few months in Vienna, before being sent back to the USA I definitely faced this kind of thing. It was strange to me and I didn't see any need for it; it didn't make any sense to me. Even when I understood why they probably did it I still didn't think it was necessary and I disagreed with it.
As far as lack of control was concerned, I had the distinct belief that someone else had access to my computer, such as via a network or something because my computer was constantly acting strangely, and I had had experience with computers, none of which had ever acted in such a manner before. So I felt frustrated and not in control of that, and I was supposed to be learning the software. I didn't want to complain about it because I felt like it might be some kind of test and I thought it was stupid so in my usual way I decided to play along, but doing this was very stressful and these things took their toll, because if it wasn't one thing it was another and not to complain of any of them was difficult ... was stressful. I'm not sure they (the management) liked it that I didn't complain, either, because maybe I was supposed to complain.
For me the randomness was my job placement. And no one else was moved around so much either! (And how many times have I said that here?!) I wasn't looking for reward or punishment, although just encouragement or correction if I were off-base, I guess, would have been enough. No one ever said there was a problem with my work or anything though.
***
"... However, the alienatively committed employee remains despite a perceived deficit in rewards for efforts...
The alienatively committed employee's inaction may be due to fear's of serious financial loss from leaving (e.g., loss of pension), not perceived alternative jobs, or the loss of family ties with geographical mobility. In the typical work organization, then, alienative commitment may be conceived to represent the kind of organizational attachment which results when an employee no longer perceives that there are rewards commensurate with investments; yet, he or she remains due to environmental pressure. Thus alienative commitment is a negative organizational attachment which is characterized by low internsity of intentions to meet organizational membership." (p. 48)
When it comes down to it, the main reasons I stayed on when it became clear that the mission and I were not a good fit were 1) I couldn't quite get myself to fully believe that they were as bad as they seemed to be; 2) duty said that I should complete my 2 year commission (personal value, commitment to supporters, etc.); 3) I didn't know what my other options were if I left
That number 3 there is pretty similar to what the authors are talking about.
***
That's all I want to take from that article.My migraine is kind of bad today. I've got to try to find a recipe I said I'd make for Sunday that I can't find now. Maybe I misfiled it. Otherwise I'll make a different salad, I guess.
