“In my work with clients, each of the three flavors of commitment plays a critical role in figuring out how to create sticky organizations for top talent.” -Rum

One of the most influential and formative academic articles I have read was Meyer & Allen’s 1991 piece on the three types of organizational commitment: affective, continuance, and normative. These three “flavors” of commitment have provided such amazing clarity about people’s relationships with their teams and organizations.

In my work with clients, each of the three flavors of commitment plays a critical role in figuring out how to create sticky organizations for top talent.

For me, affective commitment is usually the first and most desired flavor of commitment (and often the highest priority goal of organizations). Affective commitment is the degree to which people invest emotionally in their work and organization, and Meyer & Allen likened it to a person’s desire to be connected. The bond between employee and their work can be a deep and satisfying, and those who describe their work as being filled with “meaning and purpose” are often associated with having higher levels of affective commitment.

Continuance commitment is a more transactional type of commitment, contingent on the situational needs of an individual. In this flavor of commitment, individuals commit to a job and organization to satisfy a need, typically because it is the highest paying job, or the most flexible job, or the job that has the best benefits. People are committed only to the extent that they need the job. As situations change (e.g., they are offered a more competitive salary elsewhere), people often don’t hesitate to move on.

The final flavor of commitment is normative commitment. Normative commitment represents the obligation that someone might feel to be committed to an organization. As you might expect from the name, normative commitment is based on the norms and values of the culture surrounding the employee (and employer), from the team’s culture up through to society’s culture. In the olden days, there was actually an expectation that you would stay with a company for your whole career. There were strong norms that encouraged people to stay (loyalty matters) and discouraged people from leaving.

What’s interesting now is that these three flavors of commitment have never been more in play within organizations. Affective commitment is still supreme for building strong and robust employment relationships that can serve both the employee and employer. And as I mentioned above, it is also a huge driver of meaning and purpose in people’s lives.

Of course, we are living in a society today where people often move in quick succession between organizations because 1) they can boost their earning potential, 2) they can move up the ladder more quickly career-wise, and 3) they aren’t as vulnerable to cost-cutting strategies by organizations trying to boost their own profits. This shift encompasses both continuance and normative flavors of commitment.

So the challenge for people and organizations is to figure out how to balance all of these flavors. For individuals, focusing too much on continuance commitment can lead to a lack of meaning in their lives. For organizations, focusing too much on any one of them can lead to an imbalance that makes it harder to keep top talent.

Take Action!

Three actions you can take:

1. Assess: Think about your own “commitment” profile. Rate how high you are on affective and continuance commitment. Then rate how strong the norms and values are around you that are pushing you to stay or leave to find something better.
2. Reflect: What is your ideal “commitment” profile. How important is it to you to be emotionally invested in your work? Making the most money? Working in an organization that encourages you to stay longer (or leave more quickly).
3. Take Action: Based on your desired “commitment” profile, what steps should you take to lean into the kind of relationship you want to have with your work and organization.

References

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-98.

Restore® Initiative
This article was written in support of the Restore® Initiative, LRI’s campaign to encourage people to take a critical and constructive look at their own engagement (the Engage® Battery), and to learn about restorative leadership behaviors that help to recharge one’s own and others’ engagement (the Restore® Battery). For more information, email credible-leader@lri.com or click on www.credible-leader.com.

Disclaimer
The text in this article was not AI-generated.