Qualitative differences in the mindsets associated with dual nature of normative commitment

This study aims to o uncover how employees' normative commitment (sense of obligation) to their organization is experienced in terms of dual normative commitment (moral imperative or indebted obligation) and to describe the potential for different mindsets arising through the dynamic combination of the various components in the commitment profile. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 participants. The interviews were designed to identify the respondents' perceptions of obligation to their organisation, and their underlying motivational mindset associating with dual nature of normative commitment The interview findings for the affective-normative commitment dominant and the continuance commitment dominant participants were consistent with normative commitment experienced as either moral imperative or an indebted obligation, depending on the relative levels of affective and continuance commitment. All participants irrespective of their commitment profile noted that they had commitment to multiple foci, however, the alignment between commitment to these various foci differed by commitment profile. The qualitative differences among the commitment profiles indicated that the interaction of the commitment components is more complex than current commitment profile propositions suggest and that further theory development beyond the mindsets associated with continuance commitment and affective-normative commitment dominant profiles is required.

Automated summary

This study aimed to explore how employees' sense of obligation to their organization is experienced as either moral imperative or indebted obligation through the dynamic combination of different components in the commitment profile. The findings indicated that regardless of their commitment profile, all participants noted commitment to multiple foci, with differences in the alignment between commitments to these foci among different commitment profiles. This suggests that the interaction of commitment components is more complex than current literature suggests, warranting further theory development beyond the dominant profiles associated with continuance commitment and affective-normative commitment.