See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286498925

Understanding the impact of employee involvement on organizational

productivity: The moderating role of organizational commitment

Article  in  Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

42 13,742

3 authors, including:

Leon C. Prieto
Clayton State University
46 PUBLICATIONS   414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Leon C. Prieto on 06 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Page 107

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE

INVOLVEMENT ON ORGANIZATIONAL
PRODUCTIVITY: THE MODERATING ROLE OF
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Simone T. A. Phipps, Macon State College
Leon C. Prieto, Clayton State University
Erastus N. Ndinguri, Louisiana State University

ABSTRACT

Organizational culture plays an important role in the growth and development of an

organization, and can substantially impact organizational performance. There are many
elements that can reflect the “soul” of an organization’s culture, and one such element is the
extent to which employees are granted the opportunity to participate in the direction of their
organization. This paper will explore this element by investigating the relationship between
employee involvement (EI) and organizational productivity (OP), the latter being a form of
organizational performance. The possible moderating effect of organizational commitment (OC)
will also be considered. The four employee involvement elements (power, information,
knowledge/skills, and rewards) will be examined, and propositions will be provided concerning
the influence of these elements on organizational productivity, and the interaction between these
elements and organizational commitment that affects organizational productivity. A conceptual
model, implications, and suggestions for future inquiry will also be presented.

KEYWORDS: employee involvement, organizational commitment, productivity

INTRODUCTION

Organizational development (OD) and change are critical if organizations are to be

successful and remain competitive in this era of unremitting advancement and progress.
According to Beer and Walton (1987), increasing international competition, deregulation, the
decline of manufacturing, the changing values of workers, and the growth of information
technology have changed the concepts and approaches managers must use. By definition, OD
comprises a set of actions or interventions undertaken to improve organizational effectiveness
and employee well-being (Beer & Walton, 1987). Friedlander and Brown (1974) described it as a
planned change effort where the intervention is at the individual, process, technological, and/or
structural level. Therefore, organizational development and change are intertwined concepts that
can involve numerous facets or components of the organizational system, and that have the
potential to result in positive outcomes for the organization.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
Page 108

Successfully implementing change inevitably requires encouraging individuals to enact

new behaviors so that desired changes are achieved (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). The authors’
review mentioned behaviors, processes, practices, and attitudes that enable positive change to
occur, including active participation by affected parties (e.g., vicarious learning, enactive
mastery, and participative decision making), human resource management practices (e.g.,
selection, performance appraisal, compensation, and training and development programs),
management of information (i.e. internal and external), and commitment (e.g., compliance
commitment, identification commitment, and internalization commitment). These behaviors,
processes, practices, and attitudes are reflective of the culture that the organization espouses.
In these current dynamic times that require organizational development and change,
culture plays a pivotal role in determining how well organizations perform. For example, change
efforts elicit improvements in performance criteria such as quality, service, productivity,
profitability, efficiency, effectiveness, and risk-taking (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Porras &
Silvers, 1991). Burke and Litwin (1992) asserted that when management establishes a working
climate of participation, coupled with pay for performance, positive results occur. Evidence to
support this claim is provided through an earlier study by Rosenberg and Rosenstein (1980) as
their results revealed that increased participative activity was associated with an increase in
productivity. A literature review by Katzell and Guzzo (1983) revealed that OD interventions,
including training and instruction activities, financial compensation, and decision-making
techniques, frequently influence productivity improvement. These interventions are reflective of
an organization that strives to cultivate and sustain a culture that values employee participation
and involvement.
One of the major indicators of operational fruition is organizational productivity. In fact,
productivity is a standard measure often used to assess organizational performance (Newlin,
2009). However, productivity can be delineated in many ways. It has been defined in terms of
output, sales, profitability, work quality, and processes completed on schedule (Culnan & Bair,
1983; Pritchard, 1990). Another major organizational productivity indicator is absenteeism
(Kyoung-Ok, Wilson, & Myung Sun, 2004). How productivity is measured varies based on what
is important to the organization (Newlin, 2009). Therefore, in this paper, productivity is
generally defined as increased value over time. This definition enables the inclusion of all the
aforementioned indicators, which embrace both effectiveness and efficiency.
Organizational productivity is crucial as it is directly tied to an organization’s formula for
success (Schneider, 1995). Therefore, it is important to determine what factors influence
productivity as organizational development occurs and interventions are introduced and
implemented.
A culture of increased employee involvement (EI) has been acknowledged as one means
of augmenting organizational productivity. Wolf and Zwick (2008) found that employee
involvement raised establishment productivity. Jones, Kalmi, and Kauhanen (2010) also found
that participation had a strong positive effect on value added, with an establishment that
improved its score on participation from the first to the third quartile, seeing its “value added”
increase by five percent. Results also revealed that information sharing had a positive and
statistically significant effect on value added.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
 Page 109

Another cultural factor that has been associated with organizational productivity is
organizational commitment. There has been an explosion of interest in the concept of high
performance-high commitment (HP-HC) work systems, of which an underlying premise is that
superior technology, efficient task design, congruent structure and processes, and good planning
are necessary but not sufficient for high performance, productivity, or quality (Woodman, 1989).
The author asserted that individuals and work groups must be committed to make the
technology, task design, structure, and strategy work. A review by Passmore and Fagans (1992),
although mentioning participative management as having positive effects on productivity, also
referred to commitment as a contextual factor that determines the effectiveness of participation
in organizations.
The literature suggests that both employee involvement and organizational commitment
should play a role in organizational productivity. Therefore, the primary purpose of this
manuscript is to explore the possible influence of employee involvement on organizational
productivity, as well as to investigate the moderating effect of organizational commitment on the
involvement-productivity relationship.
This review is significant in that it serves as a preliminary stride to provide a theoretical
basis and conceptual framework from which an actual study can be designed. Results obtained
from the study can be used as organizations strive to promote development and implement
cultural changes that would increase their productivity. If findings show that employee
involvement does indeed influence organizational productivity, EI practices should be used
within HR systems, with a focus on the EI elements that are shown to impact productivity most,
and organizations, as a cohesive unit, should endeavor to promote a culture that inspires
participation and involvement. Also, if organizational commitment is found to be a moderator,
steps should be taken to motivate employees to be committed to their organizations and to create
a culture that embraces and encourages commitment.

DOMAIN AND BOUNDARIES

Employee involvement has long been seen as an important aspect of organizational life,
and a key to achieving increased organizational effectiveness (Shadur, Kienzle, & Rodwell,
1999). The authors mentioned numerous varying definitions and conceptualizations of the
construct and proposed that three factors (i.e., communication, teamwork, and participation in
decision-making) accounted for the majority of processes and programs used in the field of
involvement. Boxall and Macky (2009) stated that a high-involvement goal implied making
better use of employee capacities for self-management, personal development, and problem
solving. Employee involvement, then, is a broad term, which covers an extremely broad range of
concepts (Collins, 1994). Therefore, it is important to delineate the boundaries of this
manuscript.
Primary focus is placed on employee involvement as described by Lawler (1986), and the
concept is discussed within the confines of human resource (HR) practices that constitute a high-
performance work system (HPWS). This decision was made because HR practices do provide
ample insight about what matters to organizations and what culture they support. HPWS consists
of work practices that lead in some way to superior organizational performance (Boxall &

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
Page 110

Macky, 2009). The authors further described work practices as being affiliated with the way the
work itself is organized, including its normal structure and any associated opportunities to
engage in problem-solving and change management regarding work processes. They also
discussed the link between involvement and commitment as firms that invested in high-
involvement work practices and processes had better economic performance, including higher
productivity, in conditions of low labor turnover. Thus, these work practices that encourage
employee involvement can potentially interact with organizational commitment, as well as
impact organizational productivity, which, as aforementioned, is a performance indicator.

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT

Glew, O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, and Fleet (1995) defined employee participation (i.e.,
involvement) as a conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in an
organization to provide visible extra-role or role-expanding opportunities for individuals or
groups at a lower level in the organization to have a greater voice in one or more areas of
organizational performance. EI includes four elements, namely power (i.e., providing people
with enough authority to make work-related decisions), information (i.e., timely access to
relevant information), knowledge and skills (i.e., providing training and development programs),
and rewards (i.e., providing intrinsic or extrinsic incentives for involvement) (Cummings &
Worley, 2008; Lawler, 1986).
Interestingly, keeping in mind that quality is an indicator of productivity, Geralis and
Terziovski (2003) found that workforce empowerment practices that promoted employee
autonomy substantially improved service quality in banks. Schiemann (1987) discussed how
rewards determined by compensation and benefit policies could have a sizable impact on a
number of productivity indicators. A meta-analysis by Guzzo, Jette, and Katzell (1985) found
that training and goal-setting, which encompass knowledge and skills, and information
respectively, were the intervention programs with the most powerful effects on productivity. In
general, results of their meta-analysis revealed that participative management had quite positive
effects on output (Sashkin & Burke, 1987).

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Cole and Bruch (2006) defined organizational commitment as an individual’s emotional

attachment to and involvement in an employing organization. Porter, Steers, Mowday, and
Boulian (1974) explained that commitment is characterized by three factors, namely (1) a strong
belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, (2) a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and (3) a definite desire to maintain
organizational membership. Therefore, an employee’s commitment to an organization embraces
his/her bond with and responsibility to the organization, which pushes him/her to want to
contribute to the organization and its mission.
There are three components of commitment, namely affective commitment, continuance
commitment, and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991).
According to the authors, affective commitment refers to the emotional attachment that an

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
 Page 111

employee has with his/her organization and its goals such that he/she identifies with, is involved
in, and enjoys membership of the organization. Continuance commitment reflects a readiness to
remain with the organization as a result of consideration of the costs associated with
discontinuing the relationship. Finally, normative commitment incorporates a sense of obligation
to the organization as the employee perceives that it is his/her duty to remain loyal to the
organization.
Angle and Perry (1981) hypothesized that organizations whose members were strongly
committed would have both high participation and high production. They also expected such
organizations to show high levels of operating efficiency. Thus, it is logical to assert that an
organization that fosters a climate that encourages commitment would also profit from efficiency
benefits. Furthermore, since a climate for efficiency affects productivity (Van De Voorde, Van
Veldhoven, & Paauwe, 2009), it is reasonable to state that commitment would indeed impact
productivity.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Reciprocal obligations are the cornerstone of social exchange theory, which advocates
that parties in a jointly dependent relationship give and take in a fashion that maximizes their
benefits. Blau (1964) suggested that social exchanges may be prompted by an organization’s
treatment of its employees, anticipating that actions by the organization would be reciprocated
accordingly. When organizations send a signal that they value employees’ contributions and are
willing to seek their interests, employees respond with positive work attitudes and behaviors
(Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-Lamastro, 1990).
A culture that promotes employee involvement recognizes and embraces the development
of employees, the facilitation of their informed decision-making, the sharing of power between
management and the workforce, and the latter’s receipt of incentives for input. Therefore, human
resource practices that encourage employee involvement can be viewed as evidence of good
treatment and an indication that the organization does indeed value its employees and their
contributions. Thus, according to the premise of social exchange theory, employees should react
in a favorable manner towards the organization. For instance, Gould-Williams (2007) mentioned
that employees that feel valued would be more willing to exert extra effort and less likely to
withdraw membership from the organization. These potential responses certainly have
implications for both organizational commitment and organizational productivity. The exertion
of extra effort by an employee can be a sign of his/her commitment to the organization and can
have a positive impact on productivity in terms of output, efficiency, quality, and other
indicators. Likewise, the decision to remain with an organization alludes to an employee’s
commitment to that organization.
Social identity theory (SIT) is also helpful in exploring the relationships proposed in this
manuscript. Ashforth and Mael (1989) explained that SIT incorporates a self-concept that is
comprised of a personal identity and a social identity, with the latter enabling the individual to
locate or define himself/herself in his/her social environment. Thus, the individual feels a sense
of oneness with or belonging to that environment, and thus the group (or organization) with
which he/she is affiliated.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
Page 112

Riketta (2005) found that involvement and organizational identification were related
constructs. Participation frequently entails psychological changes in individuals’ concept of
themselves and others, and many contemporary approaches to management presume that people
working together will come to identify with each other and their larger organization (Rousseau,
1998). Research also found that organizational identification was related to turnover intentions
(Van Dick et al., 2004), which were indeed influenced by commitment (Joo, 2010). Moreover,
commitment has been shown to have an effect on performance in general (Baugh & Roberts,
1994) and productivity in particular (Jacobs, Tytherleigh, Webb, & Cooper, 2007). Therefore,
human resource practices that encourage employee involvement should foster a sense of identity
with the organization, which encourages employees to be committed to the organization, and to
behave in a manner that would be conducive to gains in productivity.

PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT

High involvement, collaboration, and participation are crucial components to managing

human systems (Woodman, 1989). Commitment is also viewed as an important contributor that
serves to enhance the success of sound HR practices toward the achievement of desired
organizational outcomes. In fact, the concept of high performance-high commitment (HP-HC)
work systems is often used interchangeably with labels such as high-involvement plants and
productive workplaces (Woodman, 1989), alluding that there is indeed a link between
involvement, commitment, and productivity. Considering the established connections and
similarities, this paper proposes relationships among employee involvement, organizational
commitment, and organizational productivity.

Power

In an autonomy supportive environment, significant others encourage choice and

participation in decision-making instead of control (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994).
Autonomy support can have an impact on individuals’ attitudes and behavior by fulfilling their
psychological need for competence, which encompasses their desire to produce outcomes and to
understand the circumstances leading to these outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Therefore, an
organization that promotes employee involvement, whereby workers have the authority and
autonomy to play an active role in work-related decision-making, should benefit from increased
organizational productivity due to the paradigm shift employees incur by having the opportunity
to give their input. This paradigm shift should be reflected in their behavior as they would
consequently be more motivated to perform at a high standard to achieve goals that they had a
part in setting.
An interaction between power and commitment is also quite reasonable to expect, as the
success of human resource practices and policies that promote employee authority and autonomy
would be aided by committed employees who use these opportunities wisely. Woodman (1989)
asserted that congruent processes are necessary but not sufficient for high performance,
productivity, or quality, and that individuals and work groups must be committed to make
strategy work. One of the defining characteristics of the HP-HC system is empowerment, which

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
 Page 113

embraces the provision of opportunities to employees as well as valuing their contributions

(Sherwood, 1988). Everyone is expected to accept and exercise the responsibility necessary to
get their jobs done and to help others accomplish tasks. Therefore, employees are not confined or
limited to their “appropriate lane,” and thus, they are more likely to be committed to the
organization. The following propositions reflect the associations put forward among power,
organizational commitment, and organizational productivity:

Proposition 1A: Power is positively related to organizational productivity.

Proposition 1B: Organizational commitment moderates the relationship between power and
organizational productivity, such that the relationship is stronger when employees are
more committed to the organization than when they are less committed to the
organization.

Information

Timely access to relevant information allows employees to be effective and efficient self
managers as they would have to depend less on management to perform their duties, which also
saves time. O’Toole and Lawler (2006) mentioned information technology (IT) as one way to
disseminate information resourcefully, and explained that quick access to needed information to
manage one’s own processes limits the need for supervision, giving employees more control over
their tasks, which, in turn, increases the degree to which their jobs are motivating and satisfying,
and their efforts are productive. Thus, timely access to information should influence
productivity.
It is also reasonable to expect an interaction between information access and commitment
as a more committed employee should be more motivated to use the information to which he/she
has access, in order to be more productive. Another defining characteristic of the HP-HC system
is delegation, which entails giving responsibility for decisions and actions to the individuals who
have the most relevant and timely information (Sherwood, 1988). One would expect that the
committed employees would take this responsibility seriously, and use the information at his/her
disposal to maximize desirable outcomes, including productivity. The following propositions
relay the relationships suggested among information, organizational commitment, and
organizational productivity:

Proposition 2A: Information is positively related to organizational productivity.

Proposition 2B: Organizational commitment moderates the relationship between information and
organizational productivity, such that the relationship is stronger when employees are
more committed to the organization than when they are less committed to the
organization.

Knowledge/Skills

A better educated and better trained workforce can be expected to produce more
efficiently (Prais, 1995). A pertinent example was a manufacturer of Fender guitars that was

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
Page 114

struggling to achieve acceptable quality at a reasonable cost (Moore, Blake, Phillips, &
McConaughy, 2003). The authors explained that a training program focusing on state-of-the-art
manufacturing processes was implemented in an effort to improve productivity (including
quality). The result was two racks a week of rejected guitars, compared with twelve racks every
two days before training. Thus, unacceptable output that needed to be reworked or scrapped was
dramatically reduced. Aw, Roberts, and Winston (2007) also found that exporters who invested
in research and development and worker training had significantly higher future productivity
than firms that only exported. Their findings supported a development process whereby firms
positively impacted their productivity path by making investments that increased their
knowledge base, and in turn, higher productivity increased the return to these investments which
resulted in additional investments that further expanded the knowledge base. Therefore, human
resource practices that embrace the pursuit of developmental activities can play a vital role in
achieving organizational outcomes such as increased productivity.
However, an employee may possess the necessary knowledge and skills to be more
productive and to help drive organizational productivity, but lack the commitment to use his/her
skills to make a difference. Noe (1986) asserted that if training is to be connected to the
individual’s and organization’s performance, employees must be motivated. Commitment is a
motivational phenomenon (Johnson, Chang, & Yang, 2010). The authors explained that different
motivations underlie each form of commitment. They also proposed that self-identity, a
motivation-based variable, helped clarify differences among different types of commitment.
Identification embraces a need for affiliation, and this need may motivate employees to commit
more to the organization and align their behaviors (i.e., use their knowledge and skills) to benefit
the organization.
Delegation, one of the aforementioned HP-HC system characteristics, also embraces the
idea that individuals with the most appropriate knowledge and skills should be granted
responsibility for decisions and actions (Sherwood, 1988). Proper application of delegation
should also develop employees’ knowledge and skills, as well as their self-confidence and
commitment (Vinton, 1987). Vinton (1987) explained that commitment may be developed and
maintained through delegation by conveying a feeling of personal importance by being
considered productive and valuable to the organization, and by creating an experience in a
cohesive group with positive feelings toward the organization. Both help employees to identify
with the organization, and to have more of a desire to reciprocate by using their knowledge and
skills to help the organization achieve its performance goals. Therefore, the attainment of
relevant knowledge and skills may interact with employee commitment to influence
organizational productivity. The following propositions convey the links proffered among
knowledge/skills, organizational commitment, and organizational productivity:

Proposition 3A: Knowledge/skills is positively related to organizational productivity.

Proposition 3B: Organizational commitment moderates the relationship between knowledge/skills and
organizational productivity, such that the relationship is stronger when employees are
more committed to the organization than when they are less committed to the
organization.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
 Page 115

Rewards

Research has consistently linked rewards to productivity. For instance, Blinder (1990)
described how incentives like profit sharing and employee stock ownership plans may enhance
motivation and increase productivity. However, for a strong reward system, the incentives
themselves must be desirable to organizational members, and a clear connection is required
between productivity and obtaining the incentive (Pritchard, 1990). Therefore, the reward for
involvement must be sufficiently attractive to the employee to motivate him/her to reciprocate
with behaviors conducive to productivity gains. Also, the necessary criteria for earning these
incentives must be explicit and unambiguous, and understood by all.
Although there is inconsistency as regards which HR practices should be classified as
“high-commitment,” employee involvement schemes and performance contingent reward
packages are prominently featured (Gould-Williams, 2007). Bonus and financial incentive
programs have become very popular tools to motivate employees (Schiemann, 1987). The author
explained that rewards can increase employee commitment and reduce turnover, thus increasing
overall productivity and improving the bottom line. Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, and
Ekeberg (1988) asserted that the mechanism by which productivity increases is primarily a
motivational one as increased motivation means that personnel would exert more effort and be
more persistent in their efforts. Efficiency would increase because efforts would be more directly
related to organizational objectives and there would be more effective cooperation to meet
objectives. Rewards may serve as this mechanism. Thus, an interaction between rewards and
commitment to influence productivity is quite possible. The following propositions reflect the
associations put forward among rewards, organizational commitment, and organizational
productivity:

Proposition 4A: Rewards is positively related to organizational productivity.

Proposition 4B: Organizational commitment moderates the relationship between rewards and
organizational productivity, such that the relationship is stronger when employees are
more committed to the organization than when they are less committed to the
organization.

Figure 1 depicts the proposed relationships among the constructs being explored. It is a
conceptual model that illustrates the influence of employee involvement, including the elements
of power, information, knowledge/skills, and rewards, on organizational productivity. The
moderating effect of organizational commitment on the involvement-productivity relationship is
also conveyed.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
Page 116

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Organizational
Commitment

Power

Organizational
Employee Productivity
Information Rewards
Involvement

Knowledge/Skills

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that expedient performance outcomes are the result of an

organization’s culture of participation and involvement, and its inclination to use HR practices
that mirror this culture, and indicate that the organization values employees and their input. For
example, Arthur (1994) found that practices that emphasized the development of employee
commitment resulted in higher productivity than practices that were more control oriented. The
author also asserted that these “commitment” human resource systems were characterized by
higher levels of employee involvement in managerial decisions, formal participation programs,
and training in group problem solving, as well as higher percentages of average wage rates.
Commitment can be an exchange commodity; people are likely to become committed to
an organization when they feel that the organization is committed to them (Fuller, Barnett,
Hester, & Relyea, 2003). Martin, Parsons, and Bennett (1995) found that employees who were
members of employee involvement programs reported higher levels of organizational
commitment than non-members, even after being discharged or laid off. This kind of strong
commitment can certainly be an asset to an organization. If channeled in the right direction, it
can greatly influence productivity as well as other organizational outcomes. According to the
research, both involvement and commitment seem to go hand in hand, and main effects as well
as interaction effects between them can be expected to influence productivity.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
 Page 117

IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE INQUIRY

Employee involvement and organizational commitment are cultural constructs that both
have implications for human resource management practices, which do impact performance in
general, and productivity in particular. Research has shown that providing employees with
opportunities to participate in work-related decision-making, to access relevant information, to
gain appropriate skills, and to earn suitable incentives enhances productivity. Research has also
shown that employees’ commitment to their organization can induce behaviors that positively
influence organizational productivity. Therefore, while also taking other organizational factors
such as strategic goals and other cultural elements into account (e.g., people orientation,
aggressiveness/competitiveness etc.), human resource management practices that promote
employee involvement and foster organizational commitment should be embraced in an attempt
to boost organizational productivity.
Since HR practices are often reflective of organizational culture, implications for HRM
should be addressed. Empirical research on the productivity impact of HRM has been relatively
sparse (Jones, Kalmi, & Kauhanen, 2010). Therefore, much can be gained from the investigation
of EI dimensions (i.e. power, information, knowledge/skills, and rewards) separately and in an
HRM context. For instance, research should be conducted to determine which HR practices
associated with each dimension are most effective as regards increasing productivity. Also,
researchers should consider that employee involvement dimensions, and EI on the whole, may be
differentially related to various productivity outcomes (e.g., output, sales, and quality). Likewise,
different components of commitment (i.e. affective, continuance, and normative) may relate
more or less strongly to different productivity outcomes. Further inquiry into these notions would
be useful.
Future research should also address additional moderators that can potentially impact the
involvement-productivity relationship, especially personality constructs, which tend to influence
both employee involvement and organizational productivity. For instance, Organ and Lingl
(1995) asserted that employees high in conscientiousness have a greater inclination to be
involved in the workplace and to perform better than the employees that are low in
conscientiousness. Other trait, as well as state factors, should be investigated to shed more light
on the moderating variables involved in the relationship.
Examination of the literature has revealed concerns about negative issues like stress,
which affect employees, and by extension, their satisfaction, motivation, commitment, and
productivity. This, in turn, affects the productivity of the organization as a whole. Thus,
additional research should also explore the role of a “healthy” workplace as it relates to the
model presented in this article. Grawitch, Gottschalk, and Munz (2006) identified employee
involvement as one of five healthy workplace practices that influence employee well-being
(including commitment) as well as numerous organizational improvements (including
productivity). Some more attention should be focused on novel and innovative organizational
practices that are conducive to employee well-being, as they can be instrumental in achieving
desirable organizational outcomes.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
Page 118

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1-14.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the
1990s.Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academyof
Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational
justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3),
267-285.
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,
14(1), 20-39.
Aw, B., Roberts, M., & Winston, T. (2007). Export market participation, investments in R&D and worker training,
and the evolution of firm productivity. World Economy, 30(1), 83-104.
Baugh, S., & Roberts, R. (1994). Professional and organizational commitment among engineers: Conflicting or
complementing? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41(2), 108-114.
Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. (1987). Organization change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 339-
367.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.
Blinder, A. S. (1990). Paying for productivity: A look at the evidence. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution
Press.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-
involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3-23.
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of
Management, 18(3), 523-545.
Cole, M., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their
relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(5), 585-605.
Collins, D. (1994). The disempowering logic of empowerment. Empowerment in Organizations, 2(2), 14-21.
Culnan, M., & Bair, J. (1983). Human communication needs and organizational productivity: The potential impact
of office automation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(3), 215-221.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. (2008). Organization development and change. Cincinnati, OH:Southwestern
Publishing Co.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination
theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-Lamastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence,
commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59.
Friedlander, F., & Brown, L. D. (1974). Organization development. Annual Review of Psychology, 25, 313-341.
Fuller, J., Barnett, T., Hester, K., & Relyea, C. (2003). A social identity perspective on the relationship between
perceived organizational support and organizational commitment. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(6),
789-791.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
 Page 119

Geralis, M., & Terziovski, M. (2003). A quantitative analysis of the relationship between empowerment practices
and service quality outcomes. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 14(1), 45-62.
Glew, D., O'Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R., & Van Fleet, D. (1995). Participation in Organizations: A Preview of the
Issues and Proposed Framework for Future Analysis. Journal of Management, 21(3), 395-421.
Gould-Williams, J. (2007). HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes: Evaluating social
exchange relationships in local government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(9),
1627-1647.
Grawitch, M., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking
healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 129-147.
Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on
worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38(2), 275-291.
Jacobs, P., Tytherleigh, M., Webb, C., & Cooper, C. (2007). Predictors of work performance among higher
education employees: An examination using the ASSET Model of Stress. International Journal of Stress
Management, 14(2), 199-210.
Johnson, R., Chang, C., & Yang, L. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee
identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 226-245.
Jones, D., Kalmi, P., & Kauhanen, A. (2010). How does employee involvement stack up? The effects of human
resource management policies on performance in a retail firm. Industrial Relations, 49(1), 1-21.
Joo, B. (2010). Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: The roles of perceived organizational learning
culture, leader–member exchange quality, and turnover intention. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 21(1), 69-85.
Katzell, R. A., & Guzzo, R. A. (1983). Psychological approaches to productivity improvement. American
Psychologist, 38(4), 468-472.
Kyoung-Ok, P., Wilson, M., & Myung Sun, L. (2004). Effects of social support at work on depression and
organizational productivity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28(5), 444-455.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1986). High-involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Martin, C., Parsons, C., & Bennett, N. (1995). The influence of employee involvement program membership during
downsizing: Attitudes toward the employer and the union. Journal of Management, 21(5), 879-890.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
Moore, R. W., Blake, D. R., Phillips, G. M., & McConaughy, D. (2003). Training that works: Lessons from
California’s employment training panel program. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research.
Newlin, J. S. (2009). Effect of enterprise resource planning implementation on organizational productivity. Air
Force Journal of Logistics, 33(2), 34-38.
Noe, R. A. (1986), Trainees attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness, Academy of
Management Review, 11(4), 736–749.
Organ, D., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social
Psychology, 135(3), 339-350.
O’Toole, J., & Lawler, E. E., III. (2006). The new American workplace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Passmore, W. A., & Fagans, M. R. (1992). Participation, individual development, and organizational change: A
review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 18(2), 375-397.
Porras, J. I., & Silvers, R. C. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual Review of Psychology,
42, 51-78.
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover
among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
Page 120

Prais, S. J. (1995). Productivity, education, and training: An international perspective. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Pritchard, R. D. (1990). Measuring and improving organizational productivity: A practical guide. New York:
Praeger Publishers.
Pritchard, R., Jones, S., Roth, P., Stuebing, K., & Ekeberg, S. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and
incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 337-358.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358-384.
Rosenberg, R. D., & Rosenstein, E. (1980). Participation and productivity: An empirical study. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 33(3), 355-367.
Rousseau, D. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3),
217-233.
Sashkin, M., & Burke, W. W. (1987). Organization development in the 1980's. Journal of Management, 13(2), 393-
417.
Schiemann, W. (1987). The impact of corporate compensation and benefit policy on employee attitudes and
behavior and corporate profitability. Journal of Business & Psychology, 2(1), 8-26.
Schneider, W. (1995). Productivity improvement through cultural focus. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 47(1), 3-27.
Shadur, M. A., Kienzle, R., & Rodwell, J. J. (1999). The relationship between organizational climate and employee
perceptions of involvement: The importance of support. Group and Organization Management, 24(4), 479-
503.
Sherwood, J. J. (1988). Creating work cultures with competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 16(3), 5-27.
Van De Voorde, K., Van Veldhoven, M., & Paauwe, J. (2009). Strategic climate and organizational productivity:
The role of work satisfaction. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.
Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., Hauptmeier, M., Hohfeld, C.,
Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with
organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15(4), 351-360.
Vinton, D. (1987). Delegation for employee development. Training & Development Journal, 41(1), 65-67.
Wolf, E., & Zwick, T. (2008). Reassessing the productivity impact of employee involvement and financial
incentives. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 60(2), 160-181.
Woodman, R. W. (1989). Organizational change and development: New arenas for inquiry and action. Journal of
Management, 15(2), 205-228.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 2, 2013
 Copyright of Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict is the property
of Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats