Occupational commitment (OCC), which is defined as the “psychological link between an individual and his/her occupation” (Lee, Carswell, & Allen, 2000, p. 800), has received increasing attention in research over the past two decades (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Yousaf, Sanders, & Yustantio, 2018). Researchers have demonstrated that OCC is associated with positive organizational behavior, such as low turnover and high job satisfaction (Duffy, Dik, & Steger, 2011). Researchers have also suggested that potential links between OCC and performance outcomes require further research (Cohen & Liu, 2011; Lee et al., 2000). In our research, we focused on the OCC–job performance relationship.

We were surprised to find few relevant quantitative reviews of OCC. In only two meta-analyses researchers simply tapped the correlation between OCC and performance-related variables (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Lee et al., 2000), and these researchers reported correlation coefficients of .22 and .06, respectively. These apparent differences may be because the two meta-analyses were published well over 10 years ago and were based on limited studies; for instance, Lee et al. (2000) derived their conclusions from only two empirical studies, and their findings should, therefore, be interpreted with caution. In addition, the focus in these studies was either overly restrictive or on comprehensive performance: Lee and colleagues were concerned with supervisor-rated performance, and Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) synthesized only overall performance. It is problematic to measure overall performance because job performance has been divided into task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Williams & Anderson, 1991), each of which contributes differently to organizational efficiency. Researchers have, thus, recommended addressing them separately (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016; Organ, 1988).

There are potential moderators, such as cultural background, that may shape the relationship between OCC and job performance (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004). For example, prior researchers have shown that OCC–task performance relationship correlations range from r = .12 to r = .40 in studies conducted separately in Western versus Asian countries (Ellemers, de Gilder, & van den Heuvel, 1998; Van Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009). Gender is another potential moderator of the relationship. Researchers have suggested that men generally have a greater need for power and achievement (Greene & DeBacker, 2004), whereas women primarily work for intrinsic value (Sortheix, Dietrich, Chow, & Salmela-Aro, 2013). Because high-level task performance and active OCB effectively contribute to recognition and further promotion (Organ, 1988), it is reasonable to argue that men are more motivated than women are to achieve a higher level of job performance to gain promotion. Another moderating effect is organizational tenure: Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) found that, as employees’ organizational service length increases, they are likely to have increasing autonomy and opportunities to take on more challenging tasks, which facilitates a higher level of job performance.

Methodological factors in research (i.e., rating source, measurement scales) should also be considered. For example, others (i.e., supervisors and peers) have limited opportunities to comprehensively observe the performance of a coworker. Accordingly, the correlations with OCC should be downward for other-rated job performance, compared to self-rated performance. The scale developed by Blau and colleagues (G. Blau, 1985, 1988, 1989; G. Blau, Paul, & St John, 2003) and that developed by Meyer and colleagues (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) are frequently used in OCC research. However, as the content that they measure does not completely overlap, it is reasonable to argue that the measurement scales used moderate the relationship between OCC and job performance. Overall, more research is needed to understand the predictive value of OCC in job performance.

In this research we also compared the validity of OCC and organizational commitment in predicting job performance, which includes both task performance and OCB. Affective organizational commitment (AOC) as the initial focus in individuals’ commitment to their field has been widely recognized as a predictor of workplace outcomes (Meyer et al., 2004; Van Scotter, 2000). However, in previous meta-analyses researchers have shown that the relationship between AOC and organizational behavior is not strong (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Riketta, 2002). Previous researchers concluded that, on the basis of social exchange theory (P. Blau, 1964), individuals who are psychologically attached to their organization are willing, and feel obliged, to perform well and help colleagues as well as groups (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). However, it is possible that individuals are not capable enough to support their willingness to fulfill organizational goals. It is stated in career development theory (Super, 1957) that employees’ knowledge and experience determine their performance ceiling. However, we proposed that OCC adds incremental validity beyond AOC to job performance, because OCC is associated more with job-related skills and abilities.

In this study we have contributed to the literature in three ways: First, we separately meta-reviewed the relationship of OCC with task performance and of OCC with OCB. Second, we recognized potential moderators of the relationship of OCC with job performance. Third, we compared the predictive power of organizational commitment and OCC in explaining job performance.

Method

Literature Search

To obtain coefficients from published and unpublished studies, we conducted electronic and manual searches. Taking into consideration that the terms “occupational commitment,” “professional commitment,” and “career commitment” are used interchangeably in prior literature, and that occupation means a line of work (Lee et al., 2000), and, moreover, that task performance usually represents in-role performance, and organizational citizenship behavior or helping behavior usually represents extrarole behavior (Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman, & Haynes, 2009), we conducted a literature search using the databases PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, ABI Inform, and ProQuest with the Boolean statements (occupational commitment or professional commitment or career commitment or work commitment) and (attitudinal organizational commitment or affective organizational commitment or task performance or in-role performance or organizational citizenship behavior or extrarole behavior or helping behavior). The publication years were limited to from 1980 to 2018, because occupation-related variables were not given attention prior to 1980 (G. Blau, 1989; Lee et al., 2000). We then manually reviewed the references of all previous relevant qualitative and quantitative reviews, but did not uncover any additional literature.

We excluded studies in which the authors did not (a) report data (i.e., theory papers) or examine any of the associations that we were meta-analyzing (i.e., experimental studies), (b) report sufficient data (e.g., full correlation matrix) to calculate an effect size for at least one correlation involving OCC, or (c) publish their paper in English. Finally, we selected 69 independent studies, of which 65 were journal articles and four were doctoral dissertations. The mean sample size was 655.19 (range = 73–16,389), with a mean gender ratio of 52.26% women, and a mean organizational tenure of 8.68 years.

We coded the following information for each study: performance dimension (i.e., task performance), OCB, correlations involving OCC, sample size, percentage of women, scale reliabilities for all recorded variables, mean organizational tenure, country where the study was conducted, data reporting source, and measurement scale. In terms of cultural values, the countries/regions where the studies were conducted were coded as either collectivistic or individualistic, according to their cultural scores in the GLOBE project (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).

Procedure

In conducting the meta-analysis, we followed Schmidt and Hunter’s (2014) procedure. We corrected each observed correlation for unreliability in the measurement of OCC, AOC, task performance, and OCB, by obtaining the alpha values reported in each study. We used corrected sample size-weighted mean correlations as the estimate of population mean correlation, and we calculated bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CI) to determine the statistical significance of effect sizes. For OCB we calculated both organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the organization (OCBO) and organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the individual (OCBI).

We conducted several subgroup analyses to test for categorical moderators. Examined correlations were grouped by culture (collectivism vs. individualism), source of performance measurement (self-report vs. other report) and OCC measurement scale, that is, the scale developed by Blau and colleagues (G. Blau, 1985, 1988, 1989; G. Blau et al., 2003) versus the scale developed by Meyer and colleagues (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 1993). We synergized correlations within each group separately. Further, we used the Hotelling–Williams test (Steiger, 1980) to compare the subgroup correlations.

To examine continuous moderators (i.e., gender and organizational tenure), we used weighted least squares regression analysis, as suggested by Steel and Kammeyer-Mueller (2002). This is a reliable method for testing potential continuous moderators in a meta-analysis. When testing the moderating effect of gender, we followed previous approaches (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005), and adopted the percentage of women as an independent variable to predict Fisher’s z-transformed correlation coefficients for the relationships of both task performance and OCB with OCC. If the percentage of women in the study samples is significantly related to the correlation coefficients of the OCC–job performance relationships, this suggests that the relationships are stronger for women. A similar process was applied to test the moderating role of average organizational tenure.

We used hierarchical multiple regressions (Johnson & Lebreton, 2004) to investigate the incremental validity of OCC. In each regression, one performance dimension was regressed on AOC in the first step, and OCC was added in the second step. The sample size used to conduct each hierarchical regression analysis was the harmonic mean associated with the input correlation matrix.

Results

As shown in Table 1, OCC was significantly related to better task performance and more OCB. Specifically, OCC was more strongly correlated with OCBO than with OCBI. As the 95% CI of these correlations were both significantly different from zero, employees’ OCC was positively correlated with their task performance, OCB, OCBI, and OCBO.

We carried out Q-statistic tests to examine the likelihood of the moderators’ existence. Results shown in Table 1 indicate a significant level of variability in the relationships of OCC with task performance and of OCC with OCB. Further, both the OCC–task performance and OCC–OCB relationships for occupationally committed employees were higher in the individualism cultural context than in collectivism. The moderating effect results of the data reporting source were significant for both self-report and other-report samples (see Table 1). Compared with data reported by others, the correlation of OCC with both task performance and OCB was higher when self-reported. In regard to the moderating role of the measurement scale (see Table 1), both the OCC–task performance and OCC–OCB relationships were significant when measured by the two scales. The effect sizes measured by the scale developed by Meyer and colleagues (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 1993) were higher than those measured by the scale developed by Blau and colleagues (G. Blau, 1985, 1988, 1989; G. Blau et al., 2003).

In addition, the Hotelling–Williams test results show that the correlations of OCC with task performance and OCB were significantly different when conducted in the two different cultural contexts (t = 11.52, p < .01; t = 10.56, p < .01, for task performance and OCB, respectively), data report source (t = 6.07, p < .01; t = 12.08, p < .01, respectively), and measurement scale (t = 14.03, p < .01; t = 15.29, p < .01, respectively).

The continuous moderator effects are presented in Table 2. The percentage of female participants predicted the tested correlations of OCC–task performance, β = -.43, F(1, 15) = 3.40, p < .10, and OCC–OCB, β = -.57, F(1, 24) = 11.63, p < .05. The findings suggest that gender was a significant moderator, with the negative beta values indicating stronger results for men than for women.

Average tenure significantly predicted the observed correlation between OCC and task performance, β = .65, F(1, 8) = 5.91, p < .05, but not between OCC and OCB, β = -.10, F(1, 15) = 0.19, ns. The results of incremental validity analysis are displayed in Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses based on the corrected correlation matrices (see Table 3) showed that the R² for AOC alone in the prediction of task performance was .03. When OCC was added to the model, R² increased to .13. Similarly, in the prediction of OCB, R² for AOC alone was .06, and the addition of OCC led an increase in R² to .10.

Discussion

We conducted a meta-analytic review of the OCC literature to explore the relationship between OCC and job performance, and found that OCC was positively related to both in-role and extrarole performance, suggesting that OCC can be a reliable predictor of employees’ task performance and OCB. We have advanced previous meta-analyses in which the researchers tested only the OCC–overall performance relationship (Lee et al., 2000) by examining separately the OCC–task performance and OCC–OCB relationships to illustrate how OCC contributes to organizations in relation to both in-role and extrarole work outcomes.

To further investigate the OCC–job performance relationship, we focused on demographic, cultural, and methodological moderators. We found it interesting that gender was a significant moderator in both the relationship of OCC and task performance and the relationship of OCC and OCB, such that the two links were stronger for men. This may be attributable to men generally being more achievement-oriented than are women (Greene & DeBacker, 2004), which helps to strengthen the OCC–job performance relationship for men. Women are likely to place more attention on family issues than men do (Eagly & Wood, 2016) and, thus, may have fewer available personal resources for further improving the level of their job performance. Therefore, this dampens the positive relationship of OCC and job performance among women and, for men, the OCC–job performance links tend to be strengthened by power and achievement aspirations.

Although our results show the OCC–task performance relationship was strongly moderated by organizational tenure, the moderating role of tenure in the OCC–OCB relationship was not supported. This may be because working skills and professional knowledge that are accumulated from work experience may correlate more with task-related activities than with OCB. Another possibility, suggested in the job experience model (Louis, 1980), is that core in-role tasks tend to broaden with job experience. It is likely that some behaviors, such as helping coworkers and organizations, which were once treated as OCB for newcomers, may count as senior workers’ task performance. Therefore, the OCC and OCB correlations did not significantly change as tenure became longer.

We also compared the relationships between OCC and job performance across collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Our findings show that these relationships tended to be slightly stronger in the countries with a culture of individualism (vs. collectivism). We did not find this surprising because individuals’ behavior depends more on their innate goals when they are in an individualistic culture, which is characterized by less emphasis on norms and homogeneity (Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000). OCC encapsulates individuals’ innate attitudes toward their occupation and career. Therefore, in an individualistic culture, such attitudes and organizational behavior (e.g., task performance and OCB) are more closely linked. Our findings in regard to the influence of individualism and collectivism provide culturally related possible topics for future research, for example, how OCC influences organizational behavior in different cultural dimensions, such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity–femininity, as proposed in Hofstede’s (2001) framework. Moreover, as workplace cultures differ across organizations and industries, future researchers can investigate relationships between OCC and work outcomes (i.e., task and contextual performance) in two- or three-level hierarchical models, to simultaneously evaluate group- and country-level effects.

Research design factors, for example, data report sourcing and the measurement scale used, are also important. Our results show that OCC–performance relationships were significantly stronger when (a) the participants themselves rather than others reported task performance and OCB, and (b) the two types of performance were measured with the scale developed by Meyer and colleagues (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 1993) rather than the scale developed by Blau and colleagues (G. Blau, 1985, 1988, 1989; G. Blau et al., 2003). These findings are a reminder to researchers of the importance of paying attention to common method bias and scale quality.

Last, compared with organizational commitment, OCC contributed incrementally to the prediction of both task performance and OCB. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to compare the predictive power between OCC and organizational commitment in performance outcomes, in a meta-analysis. However, we believe that more work is needed. For example, researchers can broaden the foci of commitment, and gauge which of the two types of commitment is more powerful in predicting other workplace outcomes. Researchers can also investigate interactive effects between the different foci of commitment, because individuals are usually engaged in multiple commitments (Meyer & Maltin, 2010; Van Dick, Becker, & Meyer, 2006).

There are also implications for career and industrial–organizational counselors and practitioners in our findings, for example, that individuals perform better in their job if they are more committed to their occupation. As high performance is a prerequisite for promotion and career development, career counselors should emphasize the significance for the individual of making the right choice of occupation. Their clients should screen recruitment information and recognize the occupations most suitable for them during the job search process. Evidence from tests on boundary conditions of gender, organizational tenure, and cultural background also indicate that organizational counselors should advise managers to adjust their practices flexibly, along with taking individual differences into account. For example, opportunities and activities that boost OCC may help enhance the task performance among men and long-time employees, in particular.

Further, human resource practitioners once viewed AOC as a sign of loyalty, and conducted extensive research regarding how to shape and improve employees’ AOC (Beck & Wilson, 2000). However, as OCC is more powerful than AOC in predicting job performance, practitioners should move beyond focusing solely on AOC. The adoption of measures aimed at assessing candidates’ OCC in personnel selection may help improve staffing efficiency. The formulation of policies and strategies that cultivate both organizational and occupational commitment in other human resource functional processes, such as coaching and career development guidance, may help to augment employees’ job performance, which finally benefits the organization.

There are limitations in this study. First, we could not test the exact causal correlations, which is consistent with previous meta-analyses. Although our findings support our predictions regarding the OCC–job performance relationships, they should be interpreted with caution, owing to several moderating effects and the incremental validity of OCC. Second, in regard to the studied samples, one study consisted of a large sample (N = 16,389). This may have distorted the weighted average mean, because it occupied a greater weight than other studies with smaller sample sizes. We conducted robust tests when this sample was removed, and the results (see Table 1) showed that the removal did not significantly alter the aggregated correlations. Third, when we examined the moderating role of gender, we referenced other meta-analyses and regressed the percentage of women in the OCC–job performance relationship. However, owing to the limited studies available, the female percentage was unevenly distributed. For example, of 33 studies that reported the percentage of women, four reported a female percentage that was more than 90%. These extreme values may have distorted the regression results to some extent. Finally, we included only two measurement scales. Although other scales, such as those developed by O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) and Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974), have been used in other studies, the frequencies were relatively low (k < 3). For the sake of parsimony, we did not conduct subgroup analyses of studies in which these scales had been used.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

*Aranya, N., & Ferris, K. R. (1983). Organizational-professional conflict among U.S. and Israeli professional accountants. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1983.9922816

*Aranya, N., Pollock, J., & Amernic, J. (1981). An examination of professional commitment in public accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(81)90007-6

*Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1994). An investigation of the predictors and outcomes of career commitment in three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1001

*Aryee, S., & Tan, K. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of career commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 288–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(92)90052-2

*Ballout, H. I. (2009). Career commitment and career success: Moderating role of self-efficacy. Career Development International, 14, 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430911005708

Beck, K., & Wilson, C. (2000). Development of affective organizational commitment: A cross-sequential examination of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 114­–136. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1712

Blau, G. (1989). Testing the generalizability of a career commitment measure and its impact on employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(89)90050-x

Blau, G. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1985.tb00201.x

*Blau, G. (1988). Further exploring the meaning and measurement of career commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 384–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(88)90020-6

*Blau, G., Paul, A., & St John, N. (1993). On developing a general index of work commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1021

Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

*Bogler, R., & Nir, A. E. (2015). The contribution of perceived fit between job demands and abilities to teachers’ commitment and job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43, 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214535736

*Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003

*Chang, E. (1999). Career commitment as a complex moderator of organizational commitment and turnover intention. Human Relations, 52, 1257–1278. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016908430206

*Chang, H.-T., Chi, N.-W., & Miao, M.-C. (2007). Testing the relationship between three-component organizational/occupational commitment and organizational/occupational turnover intention using a non-recursive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.10.001

*Chen, C. C., Lee, M. S., Wu, P. J., & Lin, X. H. (2010, June). Antecedent and outcome of employees’ occupational commitment. Paper presented at the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers’ International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMIT.2010.5492755

Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004

Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600106

*Cho, V., & Huang, X. (2012). Professional commitment, organizational commitment, and the intention to leave for professional advancement: An empirical study on IT professionals. Information Technology & People, 25, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841211204335

*Cohen, A. (1993). Work commitment in relation to withdrawal intentions and union effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 26, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(93)90044-P

Cohen, A. (2000). The relationship between commitment forms and work outcomes: A comparison of three models. Human Relations, 53, 387–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700533005

*Cohen, A. (2007a). An examination of the relationship between commitments and culture among five cultural groups of Israeli teachers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106295440

*Cohen, A. (2007b). One nation, many cultures: A cross-cultural study of the relationship between personal cultural values and commitment in the workplace to in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Cross-Cultural Research, 41, 273–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397107302090

*Cohen, A., & Liu, Y. (2011). Relationships between in-role performance and individual values, commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior among Israeli teachers. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2010.539613

*Conklin, A. M., Dahling, J. J., & Garcia, P. A. (2013). Linking affective commitment, career self-efficacy, and outcome expectations: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Development, 40, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845311423534

*Cooper, J. T., Stanley, L. J., Klein, H. J., & Tenhiälä, A. (2016). Profiles of commitment in standard and fixed-term employment arrangements: Implications for work outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.990443

Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.241

*Darden, W. R., Hampton, R., & Howell, R. D. (1989). Career versus organizational commitment: Antecedents and consequences of retail salespeople’s commitment. Journal of Retailing, 65, 80–106.

*Duffy, R. D., Dik, B. J., & Steger, M. F. (2011). Calling and work-related outcomes: Career commitment as a mediator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.013

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2016). Social role theory of sex differences. In N. Naples, R. C. Hoogland, M. Wickramasinghe, W. Ching, & A. Wong (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies (Vol. 2, pp. 1–3). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss183

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42

*Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.717

*Gakovic, A. (2003). Social exchange, transformational leadership, and employee behavior: The role of organizational identification and career commitment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, TX. Retrieved from https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=5388206

Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). Gender and orientations toward the future: Links to motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 91–120. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000026608.50611.b4

*Grover, S. L. (1992). The effect of increasing education on individual professional behavior and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(92)90043-Y

*Hackett, R. D., Lapierre, L. M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (2001). Understanding the links between work commitment constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 392–413. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1776

*Hekman, D. R., Bigley, G. A., Steensma, H. K., & Hereford, J. F. (2009). Combined effects of organizational and professional identification on the reciprocity dynamic for professional employees. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 506–526. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41330897

*Hekman, D. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). Channeling identification: How perceived regulatory focus moderates the influence of organizational and professional identification on professional employees’ diagnosis and treatment behaviors. Human Relations, 69, 753–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715599240

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, J. W., & Lebreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104266510

*Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., Ilgen, D. R., Meyer, C. J., & Lloyd, J. W. (2006). Multiple professional identities: Examining differences in identification across work-related targets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 498–506. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.498

Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013115

*Kerr, V. O. (2005). Influence of perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, and professional commitment on turnover intentions of healthcare professionals in Jamaica (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, FL. Retrieved from https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9384422

*Kim, S., Egan, T. M., Kim, W., & Kim, J. (2013). The impact of managerial coaching behavior on employee work-related reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9286-9

*Kim, S.-W., & Mueller, C. W. (2011). Occupational and organizational commitment in different occupational contexts: The case of South Korea. Work and Occupations, 38, 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888410383367

*Kim, T., & Chang, K. (2014). Turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behaviours in Korean firms: The interactional effects of organizational and occupational commitment. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2011.640538

*Kim, T., Park, S., & Chang, K. (2011). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviours among part-time employees of service organizations in Korea. Asia Pacific Business Review, 17, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2010.495198

*Koslowsky, M. (1987). Career commitment as a predictor of behavioral outcomes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1987.9713728

*Lammers, J. C., Atouba, Y. L., & Carlson, E. J. (2013). Which identities matter? A mixed-method study of group, organizational, and professional identities and their relationship to burnout. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 503–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318913498824

*Lazar, B. L. (2005). Occupational and organizational commitment and turnover intention of employees (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 66(3-A), 1073. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-99017-014

*Lee, H.-J., Iijima, Y., & Reade, C. (2011). Employee preference for performance-related pay: Predictors and consequences for organizational citizenship behaviour in a Japanese firm. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 2086–2109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.560861

Lee, K., Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. (2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment: Relations with person- and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.799

*Liu, Y., & Cohen, A. (2010). Values, commitment, and OCB among Chinese employees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.001

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392453

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171

*McCloskey, J. C., & McCain, B. (1988). Variables related to nurse performance. The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 20, 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.1988.tb00077.x

*McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., Power, M. L., & Iqbal, Z. (1993). Commitment and insurance agents’ job perceptions, attitudes, and performance. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 60, 363–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/253034

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z

*Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991

Meyer, J. P., & Maltin, E. R. (2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.007

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkage: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

*Mrayyan, M. T., & Al-Faouri, I. (2008). Career commitment and job performance of Jordanian nurses. Nursing Forum, 43, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6198.2008.00092.x

*Nägele, C., & Neuenschwander, M. P. (2014). Adjustment processes and fit perceptions as predictors of organizational commitment and occupational commitment of young workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.011

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

*Ok, A. B., & Vandenberghe, C. (2016). Organizational and career-oriented commitment and employee development behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 930–945. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2015-0157

*Olsen, K. M., Sverdrup, T., Nesheim, T., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2016). Multiple foci of commitment in a professional service firm: Balancing complex employment relations. Human Resource Management Journal, 26, 390–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12109

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492

Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14, 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638801400405

*Park, I.-J., & Jung, H. (2015). Relationships among future time perspective, career and organizational commitment, occupational self-efficacy, and turnover intention. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 43, 1547–1561. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.9.1547

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037335

*Prentice, C., Chen, P.-J., & King, B. (2013). Employee performance outcomes and burnout following the presentation-of-self in customer-service contexts. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.06.007

*Rhee, J., Park, T., & Hwang, S. H. (2011). Non-regular professionals’ dual commitment in South Korea: Antecedents and consequences. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 612–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.543638

*Rideout, L. H. (2010). Employee commitment: An examination of the relationships among organizational commitment, occupational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource professionals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations Publishing (Order No. AAI3418879).

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.141

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2014). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

*Schmidt, J. A., & Lee, K. (2008). Voluntary retirement and organizational turnover intentions: The differential associations with work and non-work commitment constructs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9068-y

*Sezgin, M., & Ağar, C. C. (2012). Impact of affective organizational and occupational commitment on job satisfaction: PR specialists in metropolitan municipalities. International Journal of Business and Commerce, 2, 21–35. Retrieved from https://www.ijbcnet.com/2-2/IJBC-12-2202.pdf

*Snape, E., Lo, C. W.-H., & Redman, T. (2008). The three-component model of occupational commitment: A comparative study of Chinese and British accountants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108323789

*Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2003). An evaluation of a three-component model of occupational commitment: Dimensionality and consequences among United Kingdom human resource management specialists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 152–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.152

*Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316102237672

*Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related commitment and job performance: It’s also the nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(1998110)19:6<621::AID-JOB853>3.0.CO;2-B

Sortheix, F. M., Dietrich, J., Chow, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). The role of career values for work engagement during the transition to working life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.07.003

Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245

Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers: An introduction to vocational development. New York, NY: Harper.

*Sutton, M. J. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: A career development strategy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida, FL. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/880/

*Teng, C. I., Dai, Y.-T., Shyu, Y. I. L., Wong, M.-K., Chu, T.-L., & Tsai, Y.-H. (2009). Professional commitment, patient safety, and patient-perceived care quality. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 41, 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01289.x

*Tsoumbris, P., & Xenikou, A. (2010). Commitment profiles: The configural effect of the forms and foci of commitment on work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.07.006

*Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1994). A longitudinal assessment of the determinant relationship between employee commitments to the occupation and the organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150605

*Vandenberghe, C., & Ok, A. B. (2013). Career commitment, proactive personality, and work outcomes: A cross-lagged study. Career Development International, 18, 652–672. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2013-0013

Van Dick, R., Becker, T. E., & Meyer, J. P. (2006). Commitment and identification: Forms, foci, and future. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 545–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.384

Van Scotter, J. R. (2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-4822(99)00040-6

*Van Steenbergen, E. F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Feeling committed to work: How specific forms of work-commitment predict work behavior and performance over time. Human Performance, 22, 410–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280903248385

*Wallace, J. E. (1995). Organizational and professional commitment in professional and nonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 228–255. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393637

*Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and work outcomes—An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(80)90048-3

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305

*Yalabik, Z. Y., Swart, J., Kinnie, N., & van Rossenberg, Y. (2017). Multiple foci of commitment and intention to quit in knowledge-intensive organizations (KIOs): What makes professionals leave? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28, 417–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244918

*Yalabik, Z. Y., van Rossenberg, Y., Kinnie, N., & Swart, J. (2015). Engaged and committed? The relationship between work engagement and commitment in professional service firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1602–1621. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.953972

*Yousaf, A., Sanders, K., & Abbas, Q. (2015). Organizational/occupational commitment and organizational/occupational turnover intentions: A happy marriage? Personnel Review, 44, 470–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2012-0203

*Yousaf, A., Sanders, K., & Yustantio, J. (2018). High commitment HRM and organizational and occupational turnover intentions: The role of organizational and occupational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 1661–1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1256905

*Yousaf, A., Yang, H., & Sanders, K. (2015). Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on task and contextual performance of Pakistani professionals: The mediating role of commitment foci. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2012-0277

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (71871209

71373251

and 71422014).

Qingxiong Weng, School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, No. 96 Jinzhai Road, Baohe District, Hefei City, Anhui Province, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]