Advertisement

Organizational Commitment, Meaning of Work, Social Responsibility, and Social Exchange Relationships Among Different Generations

  • Nurul Farihin Mhd NasirEmail author
  • Shamshul Anaz Kassim
  • Dalili Izni Shafie
  • Nurulain Suid
  • Josephine Tening Pahang
  • Jati Kasuma Ali
Conference paper

Abstract

Organizational commitment is a topic that is widely discussed. Issues related to meaning of work, social responsibility, social exchange relationship (leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support), and the different generation gaps among employees are crucial in the new millennium. Respondents consisted of 140 employees of the Kubang Pasu District Office. It shows that the relationship was significant between perceived organizational support and significant difference between baby boomers and Gen Y with organizational commitment among employees. The findings show that future researchers and practitioners need to focus on improving the relationship between employer and employees, the quality of work and generation gaps in the organization accordingly.

Keywords

Organizational commitment Meaning of work Social responsibility Social exchange relationships 

References

  1. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, & Meyer. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1990), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, R. J., & Ng, E. (2006). The changing nature of work and organization: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 16(1), 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organization values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dencker, J. C., Joshi, A., & Martocchio, J. (2007). Employee benefits as context for intergenerational conflict. Human Resource Management Review, 17(2), 208–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim, T., & Chang, K. (2012) Turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behaviors in Korean firms: The interactional effects of organizational and occupational commitment. Asia Pacific Business Review, In Press.Google Scholar
  7. Martin, C., & Tulgan, B. (2006). Managing the generation mix [press release]. Amherst: HRD Press.Google Scholar
  8. Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace: How innovative companies attract, develop, and keep tomorrow’s employees today. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  9. Michaelson, C., Pratt, M. G., Grant, A. G., & Dunn, C. P. (2013). Meaningful work: Connecting business ethics and organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moon, T.-W., Hur, W.-M., Ko, S.-H., Kim, J.-W., & Yoon, S.-W. (2014). Bridging corporate social responsibility and compassion at work. Career Development International, 19(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Reilly, & Chatman. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internationalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1986), 492–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Palmer, K. (1995). Tightening environmental standards: The benefits-cast or the no-cast paradigm? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in the work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Srivasta, S. (2013). Job satisfaction and organizational relationship effect of personality variables. Vision, 17(2), 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tummers, L. G., & Knies, E. (2013). Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vasconcelos, A. F. (2015). The contemporary experience of work: Older workers’ perceptions. Management Research Review, 38(4), 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nurul Farihin Mhd Nasir
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shamshul Anaz Kassim
    • 1
  • Dalili Izni Shafie
    • 2
  • Nurulain Suid
    • 1
  • Josephine Tening Pahang
    • 3
  • Jati Kasuma Ali
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Business and ManagementUniversiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan PerlisArauMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Business and ManagementUniversiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan KedahBedongMalaysia
  3. 3.Faculty of Plantation and AgrotechnologyUniversiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan PerlisArauMalaysia
  4. 4.Faculty of Business and ManagementUniversiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan SarawakKota SamarahanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations