Organizational commitment is an important employee attitude because it can render increased predictability in an organization’s future (Meyer, 2017). For example, making an investment in developing the talent of a firm’s employees becomes less problematic when these employees are strongly committed to the firm. As for a formal definition of organizational commitment, it is described as “an individual’s psychological bond with an organization” (Choi et al., 2015, p. 1542).
Organizational commitment has evolved into three components: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). Affective commitment (AC) denotes an individual’s emotional attachment, identification, and engagement in his or her organization, whereas continuance commitment represents the noticeable costs of leaving an organization and normative commitment reflects a sensed obligation, perhaps even a call to remain in the organization. When compared to the other two, AC is more strongly correlated with key organization and individual outcomes, such as turnover, turnover intentions, absenteeism, job performance, organizational citizenship, stress, and work-family conflict (Meyer et al., 2002). As such, AC seems to exceed continuance commitment and normative commitment in importance. Put simply, AC is an indicator of having a favorable attitude, which is desiring to be affiliated with the organization (Meyer, 2017). Indeed, Solinger et al. (2008) identified AC as the most crucial of the organizational commitment components because the construct validity of the other two kinds of commitment has been questioned. As a result, numerous studies have included AC as their only measure of organizational commitment (Solinger et al., 2008). Due to these considerations, AC is the priority of this research effort and serves as this study’s dependent variable.
Understanding the antecedents of AC can be of benefit to employees and the organization fostering a better person-organization fit via human resource management processes. In their critique of past meta-analyses, Choi et al. (2015) noted the dearth of personality antecedents in prior commitment research. In their meta-analysis, Meyer et al. (2002) examined the relationship of two personality traits (i.e., locus of control and self-efficacy) to AC. External locus of control (i.e., belief that events occur beyond an individual’s control) was discovered to be negatively associated with AC, whereas self-efficacy (i.e., belief that an individual can perform competently) was positively correlated with AC. Paying attention to their own counsel, Choi et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis findings revealed that five personality traits (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) are correlated with AC. Panaccio and Vandenberghe’s (2012) study showed that two personality traits, extraversion and agreeableness, indirectly and positively relate to AC through a mediator (positive affectivity [PA]), and the personality trait, neuroticism, indirectly and negatively relates to AC through another mediator (negative affectivity [NA]).
Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis Development
Affective Commitment
A review of the literature indicates that situational-and-experiential antecedents of AC (e.g., leadership, empowerment, trust) have captured more of the research attention when compared to personality predictors (Choi et al., 2015). In a recent study of lower-order personality traits, Albrecht and Marty (2020) reported that sentimentality (i.e., propensity to have deep emotional connections with other people) is directly related to AC as well as indirectly associated with AC via self-efficacy and work engagement. Social boldness (i.e., speaking up in group deliberations) and diligence (i.e., persistence in striving to accomplish a goal) were also found to be related to AC through self-efficacy and work engagement. T.-Y. Kim et al.’s (2015) research design included a CSE predictor and a situational-experiential moderator (i.e., leadership). They found that CSE is positively correlated with AC; however, the relationship between CSE and AC was even stronger when the employee’s boss was considered a transformational leader.
Big-Five Personality Model
The Big-Five model includes five personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism (emotional instability), and openness to experience (Goldberg, 1990). This model has had a growing presence in workplace literatures, predicting prime workplace outcomes such as job performance (Barrick et al., 2001) and turnover (Zimmerman, 2008).
Extraversion is a tendency to display features of sociability, assertiveness, cheerfulness, talkativeness, optimism, and high activity (Bruck & Allen, 2003). Magnus et al.’s (1993) four-year longitudinal study demonstrated that extraverted persons are inclined to experience more positive life events such as marriage, graduate school, promotions at work, and pay raises. In another longitudinal study, Kokkonen and Pulkkinen (2001) reported that a high level of extraversion led to a greater use of social support (e.g., friendships) to maintain positive emotions and minimize negative emotions. Furthermore, extraverted individuals are likely to be trusted and to have good-natured relationships in the workplace (Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012). Persons scoring high on the extraversion scale tend to “get along with others … and behave prosocially” (Choi et al., 2015, p. 1546).
The principal focus of the agreeableness trait is preserving positive dealings with others (Tobin et al., 2000). Bruck and Allen (2003) describe agreeableness in terms of soft-heartedness and cooperativeness whereas disagreeableness is characterized by egocentrism, irritability, and competitiveness. At work, individuals with an agreeable personality tend to have reciprocating friendships: liking others while being liked. These individuals are highly engaged in their work teams – accepted and highly trusted.
According to Zimmerman et al. (2012), individuals scoring high in neuroticism seem more attentive to negative stimuli and more likely to form negative attitudes. Those with neurotic tendencies will “experience emotional instability and will show characteristics of worrying, fear, guilt, sadness, anger, embarrassment, and disgust” (Bruck & Allen, 2003, p. 461). Magnus et al.’s (1993) longitudinal study indicated that a neurotic disposition increased the likelihood of the occurrence of negative life events, meaning that suicide attempts, abortion, encounters with violent crimes, various forms of organizational termination, among others, are more probable. In another longitudinal study, Kokkonen and Pulkkinen (2001) discovered that a high level of neuroticism increased reliance on dysfunctional, maladaptive emotion regulation (e.g., choosing strategies that are ineffective in regulating emotions).
Both conscientiousness and openness to experience were omitted in Panaccio and Vandenberghe’s (2012) study due to a lack of theoretical and empirical justification. Cropanzano and Dasborough (2015, p. 844) noted that “Some personality traits impact workplace affect (…) not all are `affectively relevant´.” In line with this thinking, conscientiousness relates to AC through cognitive mediators instead of affective states (Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012). Panaccio and Vandenberghe’s data also showed that the openness trait is unrelated to both PA and NA, making this trait less relevant to the mediation models proposed in their study as well as ours. Therefore, both traits will not be considered in the present study.
Choi et al. (2015) stated that one dimension of national culture, individualism and collectivism, is a situational factor that could influence the association between personality and AC. Members of collectivist societies tend to prize loyalty, pride, and cohesiveness to the family, whereas members of individualist societies have a more egalitarian, less exclusive view to valuing persons in the family versus persons outside of the family (Gelfand et al., 2004). Choi et al. (2015) reported further that the Big Five-AC studies in their meta-analysis were chiefly conducted in individualist (e.g., U.S., Canada, England) or East Asian collectivist cultures (e.g., China, South Korea, Japan). The Panaccio and Vendenberghe´s (2012) study, for example, was conducted in individualistic Canada. The sample in our study is drawn from a unique collectivist location, Middle Eastern Turkey, giving some pause on how well Panaccio and Vandenberghe´s findings travel across different collectivist cultures.
According to Gurbuz et al. (2021), it might be a mistake to assume that East Asian and Middle Eastern cultures are invariant. Scholars such as Kagitcibasi (1997), Triandis (1995), and Uskul et al. (2010) have long proffered that there are subtle distinctions between Middle Eastern and East Asian collectivism. Uskul et al. (2010) deepened this insight, stating that there is a collectivism grounded in East Asian Confucianism that prizes self-effacement; then, there is a Middle Eastern form of collectivism that values family honor and protection of the family’s good name. Considering Turkey’s geographic positioning, we think that it is primarily an honor-based culture instead of Confucian-based (i.e., self-effacement), heightening interest in this research. Discovering if Turkey’s distinct collectivist culture alters the effects found in Panaccio and Vandenberghe’s (2012) study is an aim of this study.
The focus of Confucian-based collectivism is a culture of modesty which entails maintaining harmony within the group whereas the focus of honor-based collectivism is maintaining a good reputation, both personally and for the benefit of the group (Uskul et al., 2010). The commonality between honor-based collectivism and Confucian-based collectivism is that both give priority to interpersonal connectedness (Uskul et al., 2010). Interpersonal connectedness is emphasized within family, organizational, and community groups. According to Uskul et al. (2010), the mutual theme of connectedness in honor-based and Confucian-based collectivism can produce the same cognitive outcomes for the two, suggesting that the effects of the two collectivist cultures on AC may not differ. Consequently, we think that the results of the Big-Five traits examined in the present study on the AC outcome via positive and negative affect will be similar in honor-based and Confucian-based societies.
Mediating Role of Affective States
PA and NA can be either affective states or affective traits (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Not unlike Panaccio and Vandenberghe’s (2012) study, we have defined PA and NA as affective states composed of “short-lived episodes of positive and negative mood” (Barr, 2018, p. 773). PA and NA states can be explained by work events such as a pay raise, promotion, reprimand, or downsizing (see Affective Events Theory, Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) or by personality such as extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Hengartner et al., 2017; Herrbach, 2006; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Personality traits predispose individuals to experience specific events and influence how they respond to these events which, in turn, induces certain emotions and moods (Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012). Mood, emotions, and feelings which make up PA and NA states tend to “flow in a more or less regular fashion” from personality (Cropanzano & Dasborough, 2015, p. 845). Feeling excited, inspired, and determined are examples of a PA state whereas feeling irritable, upset, and ashamed typify a NA state (Barr, 2018).
Extraverts and agreeable types tend to seek out and enact work environments in line with their personalities, yielding a positive affective state over time (Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012). Neurotics, on the other hand, tend to place themselves in work settings allowing their neurotic tendencies to continue, resulting in a negative affective state. Not only do the three personality types find work sites that fit their disposition but they also respond to coworkers in a manner consistent with a trait, contributing more emotion to their positive or negative state. In line with Cropanzano and Dasborough’s (2015) thinking, the three personality traits form individuals’ affective states with higher or lower moods and the waxing-and-waning of mood changes over time. In turn, these affective states can spill over into a particular AC attitude that the individual holds. Indeed, the Panaccio and Vandenberghe´s (2012) study found support for these personality—affective state—AC relationships.
Moderating Role of Core Self-evaluations
The CSE construct is described as the “fundamental appraisal of one’s worthiness, effectiveness, and capability as a person” (Judge et al., 2003, p. 304). It is “a broad, latent, higher-order trait indicated by four well established traits in the personality literature” (Judge et al., 2003, p. 303). The four lower-order traits are self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control. CSE is not simply a combination of these lower-order traits but is more accurately defined as the principal source of the four.
Results of past research indicate that CSE predicts a long list of positive and negative outcomes such as life satisfaction, performance, and burnout (Joo et al., 2012). Moreover, the CSE literature is replete with examples of significant moderator effects for this construct (e.g., Boyar et al., 2016; Debusscher et al., 2017; Duffy et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2009; Joo et al., 2012; Liang & Gong, 2013; Peng et al., 2016; Rey et al., 2012; Selvarajan et al., 2016; Valls et al., 2020; Volmer 2015; Yuan et al., 2014). For instance, Selvarajan et al.’s (2016, p. 39) results indicated that CSE moderated two relationships: (1) "perceived organization support and work interfering with family conflict" and (2) "perceived supervisor support and work interfering with family conflict". Volmer (2015) reported that CSE moderated the relationship of social conflicts with supervisors to negative affect. Valls et al.’s (2020) findings revealed that CSE moderated the negative relationship of proactive personality to perceived overqualification through career planning.
To explain CSE’s potential as a moderator, Aryee et al. (2017) argued that CSE is the basis for an individual’s sense of agency. This sense of agency refers to the control that one can exert to impact their environment. Individuals with a strong CSE possess a robust self-worthiness, effectiveness, and capability, indicating that they can and do shape their surroundings. Chang et al.’s (2012) research has shown that high CSE individuals are better able to discover and pursue opportunities as they occur. Duffy et al.’s (2012) results give a different twist that supports the agency perspective. The belief that one is vocationally called via some kind of external force (i.e., a force coming from outside the individual) is more strongly associated with life satisfaction for low CSE persons than mid-to-high CSE individuals, suggesting that a path to increased life satisfaction for the low self-concept persons (i.e., low CSEs) could be the absence of agency and personal control.
Judge and Hurst’s (2007) findings suggest that high-CSE individuals are better at capitalizing on the resources available to them and they can take advantage of opportunities coming their way. Accordingly, we can see that the high-CSE participants in the present study might gain from the advantages of having certain personality traits (i.e., extraversion and agreeableness) whereas low CSE persons may be less likely to grasp or wield any benefit from these traits. Having a strong CSE may give individuals a keen self-awareness of the advantages to being an extravert or agreeable, allowing them to capitalize on those advantages, which in our study means a more positive affective state and, in the end, a higher AC.
Several CSE moderator studies (Boyar et al., 2016; Harris et al., 2009; Selvarajan et al., 2016; Volmer 2015) were conducted in individualist cultures, such as the U.S. and Germany, while other CSE moderator studies (Joo et al., 2012; Liang & Gong, 2013; Peng et al., 2016) were conducted in East Asian collectivistic cultures such as China, Taiwan, and South Korea. Regardless of geographic location, these studies found strong support for the CSE moderator effects, suggesting that these effects may not be confined to certain cultures.
Our study attempts to extend the cultural boundaries of CSE moderator research, beyond the U.S., Germany, China, Taiwan, and South Korea, to a Middle Eastern collectivist society. Considering the number of studies finding support for CSE’s moderator effects, we are hypothesizing that its effects will also be significant in the current study. That is, a sense of agency and being able to take advantage of opportunities and capitalize on available resources, which characterizes high CSE individuals, is likely not unique to Western and Far East cultures and is an acceptable trait to exhibit in Middle Eastern collectivism that values family honor. According to Kagitcibasi (1997), exhibiting cooperative resourcefulness is an acceptable behavior across collectivist cultures (i.e., Middle Eastern and East Asian); this behavior also appears to relate to the taking advantage of opportunities and capitalizing on available resources which is characteristic of a strong CSE personality. Accordingly, we formally propose that:
H1: The indirect effect of extraversion on AC through PA will be moderated by CSE. Specifically, we predict that the positive indirect effect of extraversion on AC through PA will be stronger for workers who have high CSE.
H2: The indirect effect of agreeableness on AC through PA will be moderated by CSE. Specifically, we predict that the positive indirect effect of agreeableness on AC through PA will be stronger for workers who have high CSE.
Note that a moderation-mediation model is not proposed for the third Big-Five trait in our study (i.e., neuroticism) because past research (Judge et al., 2003) has demonstrated that the latent, higher-order CSE trait forms the lower-order neuroticism trait. This overlap in the two constructs makes a causal connection of CSE’s moderation of the neuroticism trait’s linkages problematic from both a conceptual and analytical perspective. Therefore, we limit our moderated mediation hypotheses to two traits (i.e., extraversion and agreeableness), not formed from the CSE variable.