Some of the factors such as role stress, empowerment, job insecurity and employability, and distribution of leadership have been shown to be connected to a worker's sense of organizational commitment.
Meyer and Allen's research indicated that there are three "mind sets" which can characterize an employee's commitment to the organization.
Mercurio (2015) extended this model by reviewing the empirical and theoretical studies on organizational commitment.
Meyer and Allen gave this example that "positive relationships between tenure and commitment maybe due to tenure-related differences in job status and quality"[1] In developing this concept, Meyer and Allen drew largely on Mowday, Porter, and Steers's (2006)[3] concept of commitment, which in turn drew on earlier work by Kanter (1968).
"Side bets", or investments, are the gains and losses that may occur should an individual stay or leave an organization.
An individual may commit to the organization because he/she perceives a high cost of losing organizational membership (cf.
Normative commitment is higher in organizations that value loyalty and systematically communicate the fact to employees with rewards, incentives and other strategies.
High levels of job satisfaction, in turn, reduces employee turnover and increases the organization's ability to recruit and retain talent.
Meyer and Allen based their research in this area more on theoretical evidence rather than empirical, which may explain the lack of depth in this section of their study compared to the others.
To date, the three-component conceptual model has been regarded as the leading model for organizational commitment because it ties together three aspects of earlier commitment research (Becker, 2005; Buchanan, 2005; Kanter, 1968; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Salancik, 2004; Weiner, 2004; Weiner & Vardi, 2005).
They believe the studies should return to the original understanding of organizational commitment as an attitude toward the organization and measure it accordingly.
After their research, Sollinger, Olffen, and Roe believe Eagly and Chaiken's attitude-behavior model from 1993 would be a good alternative model to look at as a general organizational commitment predictor because of its approach at organizational commitment as a singular construct, which in turn would help predicting various behaviors beyond turnover.
[7] More recently, scholars have proposed a five component model of commitment, though it has been developed in the context of product and service consumption.
This model proposes habitual and forced commitment as two additional dimensions which are very germane in consumption settings.
This study examined how one leader (usually a principal) effected the job satisfaction and commitment of teachers.
John Meyer responded to this gap by proposing a model of organizational change commitment.
[16] Though Meyer does not cite him, a peer reviewed source for behavioral commitment comes from Leon Coetsee in South Africa.