1. Sources of Organizational Commitment Yang, Song, Steven Worden, and George Wilson 2004 Sociological Spectrum 24:667-688

2. Theoretical motivations Organizational commitment is so consequential to employees and employers Organizational commitment is so consequential to employees and employers Loyal and happy workers are productive! Loyal and happy workers are productive! Loyal and happy workers are steady and countable! Loyal and happy workers are steady and countable! Loyal and happy workers are also mentally healthy at home. Loyal and happy workers are also mentally healthy at home.

3. Sources of Commitment We also know a lot about what contributes to great organizational commitment. We also know a lot about what contributes to great organizational commitment. Individual variables: Race, and Marital Status. Individual variables: Race, and Marital Status. Job characteristics: income, tenure, union, and position/occupation. Job characteristics: income, tenure, union, and position/occupation. Workplace features: democratic workplaces, bureaucratic type, internal labor market, and workplace size. Workplace features: democratic workplaces, bureaucratic type, internal labor market, and workplace size.

4. Internal labor market Internal labor market (ILM) supposedly increases workers commitment by providing high job security and steady promotion based on seniority Internal labor market (ILM) supposedly increases workers commitment by providing high job security and steady promotion based on seniority However, workers in post-industrial society such as US embrace a wide variety of job expectations, many of which are incongruous with what the ILM has to offer. However, workers in post-industrial society such as US embrace a wide variety of job expectations, many of which are incongruous with what the ILM has to offer.

5. Interplay Thus, a critical issue that awaits answer is how worker valuation/job expectation interplay with ILM to have an impact on workers organizational commitment. Thus, a critical issue that awaits answer is how worker valuation/job expectation interplay with ILM to have an impact on workers organizational commitment. In particular, one may reasonably hypothesize that workers whose job valuation matches with the ILM offerings would come to appreciate the ILM by showing great loyalty to their employers/organizations. Conversely those whose expectations are incongruence with the ILM offerings are largely indifferent to what the ILM has to offer. In particular, one may reasonably hypothesize that workers whose job valuation matches with the ILM offerings would come to appreciate the ILM by showing great loyalty to their employers/organizations. Conversely those whose expectations are incongruence with the ILM offerings are largely indifferent to what the ILM has to offer.

6. An Elaboration Modeling ILM Organizational Commitment Job Expectation

8. Why understudy? Plenty of theoretical discussions on interplay between workers’ job expectations and employers’ offering, so called matching theory. Plenty of theoretical discussions on interplay between workers’ job expectations and employers’ offering, so called matching theory. Why so few empirical analyses? Why so few empirical analyses? Reason 1: statistical issue – interaction terms in multivariate regression is not widely known and used by Sociologists until recently. Reason 1: statistical issue – interaction terms in multivariate regression is not widely known and used by Sociologists until recently. Reason 2: Methodological issue – cross-level dataset that captures employer-employee variables is not readily available until NOS 1991 Reason 2: Methodological issue – cross-level dataset that captures employer-employee variables is not readily available until NOS 1991

9. No more excuse! With a unique employer-employee dataset from the 1991 NOS, and an advancement of interaction analyses in multiple regression by Aiken and West 1991, we are set to re-analyze organizational commitment. With a unique employer-employee dataset from the 1991 NOS, and an advancement of interaction analyses in multiple regression by Aiken and West 1991, we are set to re-analyze organizational commitment.

10. Interaction term Centering method to curb multicollinearity Centering method to curb multicollinearity Our study has two interaction terms Our study has two interaction terms One is ILM * worker job security expectation One is ILM * worker job security expectation One is ILM * worker job promotion expectation One is ILM * worker job promotion expectation

11. GSS 1991 Organizational commitment scale Organizational commitment scale 1) I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help this organization succeed 1) I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help this organization succeed 2) I feel very little loyalty to this organization 2) I feel very little loyalty to this organization 3) I would take almost any job to keep working for this organization 3) I would take almost any job to keep working for this organization 4) I find that my values and the organization’s values are quite similar 4) I find that my values and the organization’s values are quite similar 5) I am proud to be working for this organization 5) I am proud to be working for this organization 6) I would turn down another job for more pay in order to stay with this organization 6) I would turn down another job for more pay in order to stay with this organization Coding are strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). Question 2 is reverse coded Coding are strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). Question 2 is reverse coded The results are summed up and divided by 6, producing a commitment scale from 0 to 4 The results are summed up and divided by 6, producing a commitment scale from 0 to 4 Internal consistency reliability (0.74) Internal consistency reliability (0.74) N = 688 + 39 = 727, because the outcome variable is the individual worker attributes (GSS-NOS), not an organization variable (NOS). N = 688 + 39 = 727, because the outcome variable is the individual worker attributes (GSS-NOS), not an organization variable (NOS).

12. GSS 1991 Valuation of job security is measured by a single item: “How important is ‘not being in danger of being fired’ to you?” Answers range from “most important” (5), “the second most important” (4), “the third most important” (3), “the fourth most important” (2), and “the fifth most important” (1). Valuation of job security is measured by a single item: “How important is ‘not being in danger of being fired’ to you?” Answers range from “most important” (5), “the second most important” (4), “the third most important” (3), “the fourth most important” (2), and “the fifth most important” (1).

13. GSS 1991 Valuation of job promotion is measured by a single item: “how important are “chances for job advancement to you?” Answers range from “the most important (5)”, “the second most important (4)”, “the third most important (3)”, “the fourth most important (2)”, and “the fifth most important (1).” Valuation of job promotion is measured by a single item: “how important are “chances for job advancement to you?” Answers range from “the most important (5)”, “the second most important (4)”, “the third most important (3)”, “the fourth most important (2)”, and “the fifth most important (1).”

14. NOS 1991 Firm Internal Labor Market is an additive index consisting of three items: “Do you sometimes fill (occupation) vacancies with people already employed at your establishment?”(yes = 1; no = 0); Firm Internal Labor Market is an additive index consisting of three items: “Do you sometimes fill (occupation) vacancies with people already employed at your establishment?”(yes = 1; no = 0); “Does your establishment have occupational levels? (yes = 1, no =0)” “Does your establishment have occupational levels? (yes = 1, no =0)” “Is it possible for an occupation to be promoted to a level above? “Is it possible for an occupation to be promoted to a level above? How often does this happen? (Not very often = 0), (often = 1) (very often = 2)”. How often does this happen? (Not very often = 0), (often = 1) (very often = 2)”. The results of the three measuring items are summed up, producing an index that ranges in value from 0 to 4. The results of the three measuring items are summed up, producing an index that ranges in value from 0 to 4.

18. Findings ILM does not automatically increase workers organizational commitment. ILM does not automatically increase workers organizational commitment. The extent to which ILM is conducive to great commitment is contingent on whether ILM produces the substances that are desired by workers. The extent to which ILM is conducive to great commitment is contingent on whether ILM produces the substances that are desired by workers. Standing-alone model with either solo workers characteristics or solo workplace feature is not sufficient to account for variations in organizational commitment. Standing-alone model with either solo workers characteristics or solo workplace feature is not sufficient to account for variations in organizational commitment. Interplay model that incorporates both workers valuation and their employers’ programs offers unique contribution to extend our understanding of organizational commitment Interplay model that incorporates both workers valuation and their employers’ programs offers unique contribution to extend our understanding of organizational commitment

19. Future studies A bit out-dated dataset: whether relations reported here hold with new empirical dataset? A bit out-dated dataset: whether relations reported here hold with new empirical dataset? We focus only on affective commitment: questions abound whether our findings hold when we study other types of commitment as outcome variables: continuance commitment, calculative commitment, and normative commitment? We focus only on affective commitment: questions abound whether our findings hold when we study other types of commitment as outcome variables: continuance commitment, calculative commitment, and normative commitment? Workers valuation is constantly changing and it can be indoctrinated by their employers. This study portrays a snap-shot, one time cross-sectional analysis. A longitudinal study can describe such dynamic process better than our static modeling. Workers valuation is constantly changing and it can be indoctrinated by their employers. This study portrays a snap-shot, one time cross-sectional analysis. A longitudinal study can describe such dynamic process better than our static modeling.