Wellbeing

Psychological Climate, OrganizationalCommitment and Morale: Implications

for Army Captains’ Career Intent

Krista L. LangkamerAptima, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Kelly S. ErvinU.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,

Arlington, VA

The purpose of this research was to examine how work experiences contribute to ju-nior officers’ intentions to leave the Army. Specifically, we hypothesized that psy-chological climate perceptions have direct and indirect effects on intent to leavethrough affective commitment and morale and that affective and continuance com-mitment interact to predict intent to leave the Army. The sample for this study was649 captains who responded to an Army-wide survey, the Fall 2002 Sample Survey ofMilitary Personnel. Results demonstrate support for full mediation, indicating thatpsychological climate impacts intent to leave the Army by influencing captains’ af-fective commitment and morale. The psychological climate dimension of leadershiphad the largest impact on affective commitment, morale, and intent to leave theArmy. Affective commitment did not interact with continuance commitment to pre-dict intent to leave. Implications for Army retention policies and leadership arediscussed.

All organizations are interested in retaining quality personnel, and nowhere does alack of quality personnel have such costly implications than in the United States

MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY, 20:219–236, 2008Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0899-5605 print / 1532-7876 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08995600802345113

The content of this report is based on the research conducted by the authors and does not representthe position of the U.S. Army Research Institute, the Army, or the Department of Defense.

This research was conducted while the first author was employed by the Consortium Research Fel-lows Program, U.S. Army Research Institute, Arlington, VA

Correspondence should be addressed to Krista L. Langkamer, Aptima, Inc., 1726 M St., NW, Suite900, Washington, D.C. 20036. E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded By: [Langkamer, Krista L.] At: 13:19 6 October 2008

Army. The Army “grows” its officer core by investing a significant amount of re-sources (e.g., training, schooling) in junior officers. The preferred return on this in-vestment is an officer’s commitment to stay in the Army until full retirement. Thestrength of the Army’s officer core is predicated on whether or not junior officersremain in the Army and advance from company grade officers (2nd lieutenant, 1stlieutenant, and captain) to field grade officers (major, lieutenant colonel, and colo-nel) and beyond. Spurred by a “captain’s crisis” that occurred from 1996 to 2000 inwhich the number of captains who left the Army before retirement increased from8 to 14% (Cahlink, 2005), Army leaders realized that an in-depth understanding ofthe reasons why junior officers leave is needed.

The objective of this study was to investigate work experiences and related fac-tors that can affect a captain’s decision to resign his commission.1 Our model (Fig-ure 1) proposes that work environment perceptions (psychological climate) have asubstantial impact on work attitudes (affective commitment and morale), which inturn may lead to considering leaving the Army. We also examined the interactionbetween affective and continuance commitment. This model illustrates how per-ceptions of work experiences can impact turnover intentions and, if supported, canbe used as a guide for Army leaders in determining what environmental aspectscaptains view as problematic and influential. Leaders can focus on these aspectswhile developing policies and programs to positively influence a captain’s inten-tion to remain in the Army until retirement.

220 LANGKAMER AND ERVIN

1In addition to the “captain’s crisis,” we focused on captains because these officers, bynature of the rank, are at a point in their military career in which they must weigh the costsand benefits of staying in the Army. This cost analysis is more salient at the rank of captainthan at any other rank because it represents 4 to 11 years of commissioned service in a possi-ble 20- or 30-year military career

FIGURE 1 Illustration of hypothesized relationships.


We begin with a discussion of turnover intentions and then examine psycholog-ical climate, commitment, and morale, highlighting relationships with turnover in-tentions and with one another.

INTENT TO LEAVE THE ARMY (ITLA)

To better predict turnover within the officer core, it would serve Army leaderswell to understand the intended behaviors of their junior officers. Behavioral in-tentions are an important part of the turnover process and were demonstratedwithin an Army sample to be the most proximal predictor of reenlistment deci-sions (Motowidlo & Lawton, 1984). There is also a strong empirical history insocial psychology that illustrates the ability of specific attitudes of planned be-haviors to predict actual behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), and many studieshave demonstrated that intentions are strong cognitive predictors of actual turn-over (e.g., Michaels & Spector, 1982; Motowidlo & Lawton, 1984; Steele &Ovalle, 1984; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Motowidlo and Lawton found the relation-ship between retention intentions and turnover behavior to correlate between .61and .66. This link between intentions and actual turnover behavior underscoresthe importance of understanding what factors influence turnover intentions.Such an understanding is especially important to the Army, where retention is ofthe utmost concern.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE

Psychological climate refers to an individual’s cognitive appraisal of his organiza-tional environment that assesses the “significance and meaning of work environ-ments” (James, James, & Ashe, 1990, p. 51). In other words, individuals interpretsituational events and predict outcomes by creating perceptions in regard to howbeneficial or detrimental the work environment is to their well-being (James et al.,1990; Parker et al., 2003). Psychological climate perceptions were found to be amediating link between actual organizational events and employee attitudes andbehaviors (Parker et al., 2003). This meta-analysis demonstrated that the relation-ships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes such as indi-vidual performance and motivation were fully mediated by work attitudes likecommitment. Although this work does not specifically examine relationships withemployee turnover, these results demonstrate the influence of perceptions on workattitudes, attitudes that can ultimately impact turnover intentions.

Much of the research on psychological climate attempts to delineate themultidimensionality of the construct (Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990). The mostwidely used model, conceptualized by James and colleagues (James & Sells, 1981;

ARMY CAPTAINS’ CAREER INTENTIONS 221


Jones & James, 1979), depicts a multidimensional construct composed of five di-mensions: job challenge and autonomy; role stress and lack of harmony; leader-ship facilitation and support; work group cooperation; and organizational attrib-utes. These multiple dimensions indicate that individuals cognitively assess manytypes of work experiences (e.g., experiences with one’s leader and experienceswith one’s work group). Although these five dimensions have emerged, a higher-order, general factor (PCg) that represents an individual’s overall psychologicalappraisal of the organizational environment was found (James et al., 1990). Oneintention of our study was to test this commonly used model using an Armysample.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Organizational commitment, a very powerful attitude linked to employee behav-iors such as performance and retention, can be influenced by work experiencessuch as organizational support and leadership processes (Meyer, Stanley, Hers-covitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). These meta-analytic results quantitatively demon-strate that a positive or negative work environment can influence organizationalcommitment. Therefore, it is essential to explore many work experience variables(such as psychological climate) to fully understand how to intensify organizationalcommitment.

Meyer and Allen’s (1991) tripartite theory of commitment (affective, continu-ance, and normative) has been used as a theoretical base for many organizationalcommitment research studies (e.g., Brown, 1996; Gade, Tiggle, & Schumm,2003). Affective commitment is defined as employees wanting to be a part of anorganization; continuance commitment occurs when employees need to be a partof an organization based on the costs associated with leaving; normative commit-ment is should-based in terms of felt moral obligations. Of importance is thatMeyer and Allen considered each of these areas as components, not types, of com-mitment. This distinction acknowledges a lack of mutual exclusivity, indicatingthat the components may have additive or multiplicative effects on organizationaloutcomes when combined and studied together.

A few studies have examined the combined influence of affective and continu-ance commitment. Gade et al. (2003) demonstrated with an Army sample that highlevels of both affective and continuance commitment resulted in the highest reten-tion intentions. Sommer (1995) also demonstrated a significant interaction be-tween affective and continuance commitment, such that employees with high af-fective and low continuance commitment were most likely to remain in theorganization. This interaction suggests that feelings of sunk-costs from high con-tinuance commitment can negate the positive effect of affective commitment on re-tention. Conversely, Jaros (1997) did not find evidence of a significant interaction



between affective and continuance commitment in the prediction of turnover in-tentions. These inconclusive findings make it necessary to continue studying theimportant influences organizational commitment components may have on oneanother. Therefore, this current study will also examine how affective and continu-ance commitment interact to predict ITLA.

MORALE

Soldier morale is a belief in the emotional bond that holds a team together (Depart-ment of the Army, 1999) and is a function of cohesion and esprit de corps(Manning, 1991). It is a primary aspect of combat motivation (Wong, Kolditz,Millen, & Potter, 2003) and is a factor in both Soldier readiness to engage in com-bat and willingness to reenlist (Motowidlo & Borman, 1978; Schumm, Gade, &Bell, 2003). The morale of military personnel has been a focus of research sinceWorld War II and is considered one of the most important attributes needed to sus-tain a successful Army via individual readiness and organizational attachment(Medalia, Miller, & Delbert, 1955; Schumm & Bell, 2000; Tucker, Sinclair, &Thomas, 2005). We concur that morale is an important variable of study in militaryresearch and believe that the effects of morale on a captain’s intent to leave theArmy prior to full retirement need to be examined. Defining morale as being par-tially a function of unit cohesion indicates that this work attitude, like organi-zational commitment, has the potential to be impacted by one’s surrounding workenvironment or the perceptions thereof, meaning that psychological climate per-ceptions have the potential to influence one’s morale.

PROPOSED MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

The purpose of this study was to explore antecedents to career intent using a sam-ple of Army captains. Specifically, our model proposed that affective commit-ment and morale acted as mediators between psychological climate and ITLA.Work attitudes have been shown to be mediators of psychological climate/workoutcome relationships (Parker, et al., 2003) and therefore it is logical that vari-ables that are very salient to Army captains (such as affective commitment andmorale) should be used as mediators here. Also, because of the equivocal find-ings regarding the combined impact of affective and continuance commitment,we sought to explore this relationship further. As such, we argue that employeeperceptions of the surrounding work environment impact attitudes toward the or-ganization, which in turn influence decisions to remain in the Army until retire-ment. We propose the following hypotheses (illustrated in Figure 1):



Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship between individual perceptionsof psychological climate and affective commitment.

Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive relationship between individual perceptionsof psychological climate and individual level of morale.

Hypothesis 2: There is a negative relationship between individual perceptionsof psychological climate and Army captains’ intent to leave the Army.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between individual perceptions of psychologi-cal climate and intent to leave the Army is partially mediated by affective commit-ment and morale.

Hypothesis 4: Continuance commitment moderates the relationship betweenaffective commitment and intent to leave the Army such that intentions to leave arethe lowest when affective commitment is high and continuance commitment islow.

METHOD

Sample

The sample for this study consisted of 649 captains. The majority (82%) of thecaptains fell between the ages of 25 and 34, and 82% were males. The majority ofthe respondents (83%) classified themselves as White, 12% African American,and 6% Asian (percentages total to more than 100% due to allowing respondents tochoose more than one response).

Measures

All measures were taken from the Fall 2002 Sample Survey of Military Personnel(SSMP), which is conducted semi-annually by the U.S. Army Research Institutefor the Behavioral and Social Sciences Army Personnel Survey Office (ARI-APSO). The SSMP population is randomly selected active duty Army personnel.Although Soldiers across all ranks responded to the SSMP, we focused on the cap-tains’ responses to the survey.

Psychological climate measure. Captains were asked to assess a list of 24items on a 10-point scale (1 = no problem at all to 10 = serious problem). For ex-ample, they rated how much of a problem “lack of respect for leaders,” “work placeviolence,” “lack of training,” and “sexual harassment” were in their current unit.Items were recoded so that higher scores indicated more positive psychologicalclimate perceptions. The reliability for this measure was good (α = .88).

We believed that these 24 items represented issues of psychological climate asdefined and supported in the organizational literature (James & James, 1989;



Parker et al., 2003). That is, Jones and James (1979) state that psychological cli-mate is a function of individual perceptions of the work environment and, hence, isan evaluation of work experiences. The measure used here required captains tocognitively assess how detrimental situational and relationship issues were in theirunits, therefore measuring perceptions of the work environment. Moreover, theitems used in this analysis of psychological climate are conceptually similar tothose created by James and colleagues. For example, items from the original mea-sure targeted thoughts on effort within the work group to carry out difficult tasks;one of our items within the work group dimension asked about perceptions ofSoldiers trying to avoid work. Another example of the similarity between the mea-sures can be seen within the organizational dimension; items from both the origi-nal measure and the current measure reflected organizational effectiveness specifi-cally in terms of allowing individuals to complete their duties in an efficientmanner.

Organizational commitment. Modified versions (Gade et al., 2003) of Meyerand Allen’s (1991) commitment scales were used. Captains rated four affectivecommitment items (e.g., “I feel like a part of the family in the military”) and fourcontinuance commitment items (e.g., “One of the problems of leaving the militarywould be the lack of available alternatives”) on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree,5 = strongly disagree); all items were coded with higher scores indicating higherlevels of commitment. Both scales demonstrated high reliability (α = .87 for bothscales).

Soldier morale. Captains were asked to respond to the following question ona 5-point scale (1 = very high, 5 = very low): “How would you rate your currentlevel of morale?” Items were coded so that higher scores represented higher levelsof morale. Although some may question the psychometric properties of sin-gle-item measures, two studies by Wanous and colleagues demonstrated that theycan be reliably measured. First, Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997) used meta-an-alytically derived correlations and the correction for attenuation formula to esti-mate the reliability of a single-item job satisfaction measure; the authors found thata reasonable minimum reliability value for this measure was .70. Second, Wanousand Hudy (2001) demonstrated the reliability of single-item measures of teachingeffectiveness by using the correction for attenuation formula and factor analysistechniques. They found an average minimum reliability for the individual-levelsingle-item measure to be .70 across both methods of analysis. These two studiesdemonstrate that single-item measures, especially those assessing work attitudes,are not overly problematic from a psychometric viewpoint.

Career intent. Intent to leave the Army (ITLA) was measured by a well-established, single-item measure (e.g., Teplitzky, 1991) that has been found



to be a strong predictor of continuation or separation behavior (Byrnes & Hoo-ver, 1995). Captains chose the statement (1 = definitely stay in until retirementto 6 = definitely leave upon completion of my present obligation) that best re-flected their career intentions. Reponses were coded so that higher scores indi-cated that respondents were more likely to leave the Army before full retire-ment.

RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Psychological ClimateItems

Using the James and James (1989) five-factor model of psychological climate, the24 survey items were reviewed to see which dimension they conceptually fit. Eachitem was examined and grouped according to the dimension definitions providedin the literature, allowing for the development of a conceptual model in which ouritems mapped onto the established psychological climate dimensions. Followingthis initial theoretical categorization, there were 6 items that fit into the leadershipfacilitation and support dimension, 2 items in the role stress and lack of harmonydimension, 13 in work group cooperation, and 3 items in the organizational attrib-utes dimension. We did not find that any of the 24 items conceptually fit the jobchallenge and autonomy dimension.

Next, we subjected the 24 items to a CFA using LISREL 8.7, which produced apreliminary model according to the groupings described above that did not fit thedata well (RMSEA = .14, NFI = .87, IFI = .88, CFI = .88). Upon further examina-tion of the item loadings and dimension definitions, it appeared that some of thepsychological climate items grouped into two unique dimensions not previouslydefined by James and James (1989). Specifically, we had a number of items thatseemed to reflect issues of discrimination and hostility within the captains’ units.These new dimensions, which we labeled as equal opportunity and antagonisticbehavior, tapped into the presence of coworker aggression and fit well into the gen-eral definition of psychological climate; discrimination and hostility are most cer-tainly issues that influence whether people perceive their working environment asdetrimental to their well-being. Given that empirical work has demonstrated a neg-ative link between coworker aggression and emotional well-being (LeBlanc &Kelloway, 2002), the appraisal of whether or not such behaviors are present andimpacting one’s well-being represent psychological climate. Based on such theo-retical reasoning, we added these two dimensions to our psychological climatemeasurement model.

To improve the fit of the model, beyond the addition of dimensions, we also re-visited the items in relation to dimension definitions and made some adjustments.



First, we did not retain the role stress dimension for further analysis since none ofthe items loaded strongly, and the added value was minimal. Therefore, our finalmodel consisted of three of the original dimensions proposed by James and James(1989) and two new ones. Second, upon revisiting items and dimension defini-tions, many of the items were ambiguous enough to fit more than one dimension.For example, an item that asked how much of a problem “not dealing with diver-sity” was could theoretically be classified as an issue with leadership, a problem inthe work group, or perhaps a problem in the organization as a whole. Also, someitems such as “alcohol and drugs,” did not seem to be as important to the psycho-logical well-being of the captains as other issues such as “poor or inept leadership”and demonstrated relatively low loadings (.48 vs. .73, respectively). Thus, the factthat model fit improved upon removing more ambiguous or trivial items was notsurprising.

The final model structure consisted of 16 variables that loaded on five fac-tors (leader, equal opportunity, organization, work group, and antagonistic be-havior) and fit the data well. Although the chi-square of our final five-factormodel was significant, χ2 (94, N = 649) = 463.10, p < .000, we suspect that thesignificance was due in part to our large sample size, given that the other fit in-dices demonstrated good model fit (RMSEA = .079, NFI = .95, IFI =. 96, CFI =.96).

Because of evidence that psychological climate dimensions collectively com-prise a general factor (Parker et al., 2003), we also tested a model that containeda second-order factor structure, meaning that all five dimensions loaded onto ageneral psychological climate variable. This model demonstrated mediocre fit(RMESA = .089, NFI = .94, IFI = .94, CFI = .94) (MacCallum, Browne, &Sugawara, 1996). For comparison purposes, we also tested a first-order one-fac-tor model that demonstrated poor fit (RMSEA = .19, NFI = .84, IFI = .84, CFI =.84).

The results from the CFAs demonstrate that the model with the five first-orderfactors and no second-order factor fit the data the best. This seems to indicate thatcertain dimensions are more influential in determining psychological climate per-ceptions than others. Therefore, instead of merely testing our hypotheses using ageneral psychological climate variable, our analyses were also conducted witheach individual psychological climate dimension as the independent variable. Thefinal model and the results for this 16-item CFA are shown in Figure 2.

Our psychological climate dimensions were not an exact replica of the modelproposed by James and colleagues, nor did we expect to mimic the original modelbecause our items were unique. However, we assert that because captains were re-quired to cognitively assess their perceptions of their working environment, ourmeasure tapped into dimensions of psychological climate. Parker et al. (2003)found that compared to the other dimensions, the dimensions involving percep-tions of leader, work group, and organization had the strongest relationships with



work attitudes; these three dimensions are the ones that were retained in our analy-ses. Along with those three dimensions, the CFA provided us with the supportneeded to include equal opportunity and antagonistic environment as two new the-oretical psychological climate dimensions.


FIGURE 2 Confirmed factor structure and loadings for psychological climate measure.


Descriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all measures are presented inTable 1. Although the majority of the variables were significantly correlated, basedon current standards (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), the variance inflationfactors did not indicate multicollinearity (ranged from 1.2 to 1.5), and all relation-ships were in the expected direction.

Mediated Regression: General Psychological ClimateVariable

The results of the mediated regression for the general psychological climate vari-able are in Table 2. We first found support for Hypothesis (1a) that there is a posi-tive relationship between psychological climate and affective commitment (β =.25, R2 = .06, p < .01). The second part of the first Hypothesis (1b) predicted a sig-nificant, positive relationship between psychological climate and morale and wasalso supported (β = .46, R2 = .22, p < .01). These findings support the first part ofour hypothesized model. Our second hypothesis, that psychological climate andITLA have a negative relationship, was also supported (β = -.21, R2 = .04, p < .01).

Our final step was to test the mediating effects of morale and affective commitmenton ITLA. The two mediators were entered as a set, and our final hypothesis predictingpartial mediation was not supported (β = -.01, n.s.); this nonsignificant regressionweight provided evidence of full mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), meaning that


TABLE 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. PC general 7.58 1.342. Leader PC 6.45 2.48 .79**3. Work group PC 7.04 2.03 .79** .56**4. Organizational PC 5.84 2.46 .74** .46** .44**5. Antagonistic

behavior PC9.42 .91 .51** .22** .31** .23**

6. Equal opportunityPC

9.14 1.49 .58** .27** .36** .21** .51**

7. Affectivecommitment

3.64 .81 .24** .28** .22** .09* .09* .18**

8. Continuancecommitment

2.71 1.02 .06 .11** .06 .03 –.03 –.03 .29**

9. Morale 3.33 .93 .46** .49** .38** .33** .12* .16** .45** .20**10. Intent to leave 3.15 1.64 –.21** –.23** –.18** –.11** –.09* –.08* –.45** –.39**

Note. n = 649; **p < .01; *p < .05; All Psychological Climate dimensions were measured on a 10-pointscale, while all other variables were on a 5-point scale.

PC = Psychological Climate.


when affective commitment and morale were entered into the model, psychologicalclimate no longer had a direct effect on ITLA. Therefore, our final model, with all ofthe variables entered, resulted in a moderate effect size (R2 = .25), indicating thatpsychological climate, morale, and affective commitment collectively explained25% of the variance in an Army captains’intent to leave the Army before retirement.

Mediated Regression: Individual Psychological ClimateDimensions

Based on the CFA results, we suspected that some of the dimensions in the generalpsychological climate variable may be driving the tested relationships more thanothers. Therefore, to not wash out important differences, we conducted the sameregression analyses with each individual psychological climate dimension (leader,work group, organization, equal opportunity, and antagonistic behavior) as a sepa-rate predictor. Results indicated that the leader dimension was the only one to sig-nificantly predict ITLA. With the leader dimension as our sole predictor, resultswere analogous to those with the general psychological climate variable, albeitslightly stronger. The relationship between the leader dimension and ITLA wasfully mediated by affective commitment and morale, with all predictors explaining25% of the variance in ITLA. The results for all regression analyses are shown inFigures 3a–3e. Each of the mediated regressions is illustrated by a figure depicting


TABLE 2Regression Weights and Variance Explained:General Psychological

Climate

Model SE

Dependent variable: Affective commitmentSTEP 1

Psychological Climate .24** .04R2 .06**

Dependent variable: MoralePsychological Climate .45** .04R2 .20**

Dependent variable: Intent to leaveSTEP 2

Psychological Climate –.20** .04R2 .04**

STEP 3Psychological Climate –.01 .04Affective commitment –.34 .04Morale –.24** .04R2 .25**

Note: **p < .01


231

FIGURE 3 (a)–(e) Mediated regression analyses for each psychological climate dimension.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)


the specific relationship and the standardized regression weights. Due to the largesample size, relying on traditional significance values is not practical; therefore,only those relationships demonstrating an R2 of .04 or higher are considered signif-icant (according to standards of a small effect size; Cohen, 1992). Based on thiscriterion, as mentioned, the only dimension with a significant relationship withITLA was the leader dimension.

These results demonstrated that although the general psychological climate fac-tor was a significant predictor of ITLA, perceptions of leaders may be the most im-portant influence. As suggested by Parker (1999), aggregating psychological cli-mate perceptions into one general factor can potentially obfuscate importantrelationships existing between individual dimensions and outcomes of interest. Wewill discuss these results and their implications for leadership below.

The Influence of Continuance Commitment

Finally, we tested the multiplicative effect of affective and continuance commit-ment on ITLA by using moderated regression with centered predictors to reducethe impact of multicollinearity among interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991).The analysis did not support our hypothesis (â = -.02, n.s.) indicating that morework needs to examine the simultaneous influence that organizational commit-ment components can have on retention intentions and other outcomes.

DISCUSSION

We examined how work experiences can influence Army captains’ career intent.Specifically, psychological climate, affective and continuance commitment, andmorale were predictors of intent to leave the Army before retirement. Results sup-ported affective commitment and morale as fully mediating the link between psy-chological climate and intent to leave. Analyses did not support an interactionbetween affective and continuance commitment. The relationship between thecomponents of commitment should be explored further in different settings.

Our findings illustrated that perceptions of leaders strongly influence assess-ments of one’s working environment. Although we were surprised that none of theother individual psychological climate dimensions impacted turnover intentions, itwas not surprising that the leader dimension exerted the strongest influence onwork attitudes and turnover intentions. Leaders serve as direct representatives oforganizations (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades,2002) and are likely to influence work attitudes and turnover intentions. Data fromseveral focus groups conducted by us with both junior and senior Army officerstell us that experiences with first commanders are very influential in junior offi-cers’ retention decisions. Such anecdotal evidence and the idea of leaders serving



as organizational representatives indicates that leader behaviors perceived as detri-mental to one’s well-being may lead to deciding to leave the organization.

These results have important implications for both research and practice. First,the analyses conducted with the individual psychological climate dimensions il-lustrated the importance of teasing out what is driving relationships and may behelpful in detecting interactions among commitment components. A recent com-mon practice in commitment research (e.g., Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglham-ber, 2004) is to delineate different foci of commitment (e.g., organizational vs.supervisor commitment). By clearly and specifically defining the target of com-mitment, interactions among the components of organizational commitment maybe easier to detect.

Practically, leaders can exert a substantial influence over subordinate work atti-tudes and can be trained to understand this impact. Such training may be especiallycogent for senior Army commanders leading junior officers as they make deci-sions about their Army career. Thus, perceptions of leader behavior may ulti-mately influence the effectiveness and readiness of the force.

Our findings contribute to the psychological climate literature by adding to thetraditional psychological climate dimensions, notably those of antagonistic behav-ior and equal opportunity. Although issues such as work place aggression and dis-crimination have enjoyed significant focus in the literature (e.g., Collier, 2005; De-partment of Defense, 2005; Faley et al., 2006), these areas have yet to be studiedconceptually as psychological climate dimensions. They are important to considerbecause of the damaging effects that an antagonistic or discriminatory environ-ment can have on employees (e.g., Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001).Although we found evidence for these dimensions with a very unique organiza-tion, we believe that these dimensions also can be upheld in a civilian organization.Future research on psychological climate should continue to explore antagonisticbehavior and equal opportunity as psychological climate dimensions.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

We acknowledge that since our analysis was limited to captains who responded tothe SSMP, it may not be possible to generalize results to all Army captains. An-other possible limitation is the use of all self-report measures, which may result incommon method variance. However, if all of the relationships were upwardly bi-ased, as is a common result of method bias (Conway, 2002), nonsignificant rela-tionships would not have been found. Also, due to constraints in accessing Sol-diers, most data collections using Army samples are conducted using self-reportmeasures. Additionally, two of our constructs (morale and ITLA) were measuredby single-items. However, based on the reliability of such measures in past re-search, we do not see this as overly problematic. Future research should strive to



incorporate multi-method data collection strategies with multi-item measures. Alongitudinal design would also be useful in informing a more comprehensivemodel.

A better understanding of how Army captains assess their work environment isvaluable knowledge that Army leaders can use when developing retention programs.A thorough understanding of these relationships allows leaders to take either pre-emptive actions to ensure that captains will not interpret their work environment asdetrimental to their well-being or corrective actions to mitigate negative psychologi-cal climate perceptions. Such proactive leadership can help to ensure that junior offi-cers grow into senior officers, strengthening the Army in the process.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of em-pirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycholog-ical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & SocialPsychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying the existingconstruct typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230–251.

Byrnes, R. M., & Hoover, E. C. (1995). An analysis of officer self-reported propensity to stay in theArmy and actual behavior. Study report. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Be-havioral and Social Sciences.

Cahlink, G. (2005). Trial by fire. Retrieved June 2, 2005, from http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=30949

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analy-

sis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Collier, R. (2005). Gender, sexuality and violence in organizations. Gender, Work, & Organization,

12(6), 593–595.Conway, J. M. (2002). Method variance and method bias in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology(pp. 344–365). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Department of Defense. (2005). Report of the Defense Task Force on sexual harassment and violence atthe military service academies. Retrieved December 27, 2006, from http://www.dtic.mil/dtfs/doc_recd/High_GPO_RRC_tx.pdf

Department of the Army. (1999). Army leadership, Be, Know, Do. Field Manual No, 22-100. RetrievedJanuary 9, 2007, from https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/ public/9502-1/fm/22-100/toc.htm

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceivedsupervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.

Ensher, E., , & Donaldson, S. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organiza-tional commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Develop-ment Quarterly, 12(1), 53–72.



Faley, R. H., Knapp, D., Erdos, K., Gary, A., Dubois, C. L. Z., Young, J., et al. (2006). Estimating the or-ganizational costs of same-sex sexual harassment: The case of the U.S. Army. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 30(5), 557–577.

Gade, P. A., Tiggle, R. B., & Schumm, W. R. (2003). The measurement and consequences of militaryorganizational commitment in soldiers and spouses. Military Psychology, 15, 191–207.

James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into themeasurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–751.

James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role of cognitionand values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282–318). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and empirical re-search. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp.275–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organiza-tional commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319–337.

Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individualand aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,23, 201–250.

Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. InB. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282–318). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

LeBlanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and outcomes of workplace violence and aggres-sion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 444–453.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination ofsample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

Manning, F. J. (1991). Morale, cohesion, and espirt de corps. In G. Reuven & D. A. Mangelsdorff(Eds.), Handbook of military psychology (pp. 453–470). Oxford, England: Wiley & Sons.

Medalia, N. Z., Miller, D. C., & Delbert, C. (1955). Human relations leadership and the association ofmorale and efficiency in work groups: A controlled study with small military units. Social Forces, 33,348–352.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commit-ment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and nor-mative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and conse-quences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Michaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley, Griffith,Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53–59.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. (1978). Relationships between military morale, motivation, satis-faction, and unit effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 47–52.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Lawton, G. W. (1984). Affective and cognitive factors in soldiers’ reenlistment de-cisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 157–166.

Parker, C. P. (1999). A test of alternative hierarchical models of psychological climate: PCg, satisfac-tion, or common method variance? Organizational Research Methods, 2(3), 257–274.

Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., et al. (2003). Rela-tionships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389–416.

Schumm, W. R., & Bell, D. B. (2000). Soldiers at risk for individual readiness or morale problems dur-ing a six-month peacekeeping deployment to the Sinai. Psychological Reports, 87, 623–633.

Schumm, W. R., Gade, P. A., & Bell, D. B. (2003). Dimensionality of military professional valuesitems: An exploratory factor analysis of data from the spring 1996 Sample Survey of Military Per-sonnel. Psychological Reports, 92, 831–841.



Sommer, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of di-rect and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49–58.

Steele, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship be-tween behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673–686.

Teplitzky, M. L. (1991). Junior Army officer retention intentions: A path analytic model (Rep. No.ARI-TR-934). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, andturnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.

Tucker, J. S., Sinclair, R. R., & Thomas, J. L. (2005). The multilevel effects of occupational stressors onSoldiers’well-being, organizational attachment, and readiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 10(3), 276–299.

Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization,supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47–71.

Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organiza-tional Research Methods, 4(4), 361–375.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-itemmeasures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252.

Wong, L., Kolditz, T. A., Millen, R. A. & Potter, T. M. (2003). Why they fight: Combat motivation in theIraq War. Retrieved June 2, 2005, from http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5182



Wellbeing

Documents

Transcript of Wellbeing