Autorid märgistavad üsna teksti alguses, et organisatsiooniline keskkond on sageli selline, kus opereeritakse töötajatega, kes ei ole organisatsiooni palgal ja ei opereerita palgaliste töötajatega. Siinviidatu võiks küll huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonidest huvitatutele ainuüksi põhjusel, et ükski organisatsioon või ametnik ei saa kindlustada tööd ühelegi töötajale. Vähemalt avalikes organisatsioonides. Sestap võiks huvi pakkuda, kuidas sellises kontekstis toimivates organisatsioonides toime tulla.
Consequently, organizations often manage people they do not employ and employ people they do not manage (Kinnie and Swart, 2012; 2019). Such triadic arrangements among the individual, the organization, and their client(s) have important implications for the management of workers’ commitments (van Rossenberg et al., 2018).
The recently developed Commitment System Theory (CST) (Klein, Solinger and Duflot, 2020b) provides a fitting theoretical grounding for this purpose. CST views the overall construct of commitment as a dynamic system, in which multiple commitments are interconnected structures developing over time.
Following a pragmatist abductive approach, we draw on CST (Klein, Solinger and Duflot, 2020b) with the aim of extending this theory in the light of the cross-boundary context.
We specifically ask: How do individuals experience commitment systems when working between the boundaries of the organization and the client?
Organisatsioonide piire ületav töökeskkond:
Cross-boundary work poses a managerial dilemma to the employing organization of how to service its clients’ needs while retaining the commitment of their employees to the organization (Doorewaard and Meihuizen, 2000; Olsen, Sverdrup and Kalleberg, 2019; Swart and Kinnie, 2013).
Research on workplace commitment can be divided into three approaches (van Rossenberg, Cross and Swart, 2022). First, commitment is increasingly viewed as a set of multiple targets (Becker, 2009; 2018; Olsen et al., 2016). Second, commitment is assessed as consisting of multiple types (Loscher, Ruhle and Kaiser, 2020), often focusing on a single target. The Three Component Model (Allen and Meyer, 1996) is the most commonly used typology of commitment, consisting of affective commitment (i.e., an emotional attachment), normative commitment (i.e., a sense of moral obligation to continue), and continuance commitment (i.e., commitment based on the costs of leaving) (Allen and Meyer, 1996). The third approach is the least common and studies the nature of the interrelation between commitments (conflicting, neutral, or synergistic) (Donnelly, 2011; Johnson, Groff and Taing, 2009).
We argue that when commitments are experienced as conflicting in nature, this may lead to an adjustment in commitment to one or multiple commitments in the system. For example, when the interrelation between two commitments is experienced as conflicting, the individual may decide to choose commitment to one target at the expense of the other (i.e., negative coupling) as a way to deal with the experienced conflict. […] Alternatively, commitments that are experienced as conflicting in nature may be decoupled such that commitment to one target may be adjusted independently from the other target. In this way, the nature and coupling may be related but, crucially, the nature and coupling between commitments are not one and the same construct.
Rõhuasetused võivad muutuda:
It is hardly surprising that for the employees working across boundaries, closely with clients, the organization is no longer the primary target of their commitment. Instead, the organization and the client are the two central targets of their commitment.
The key contributions of this paper are: (1) the clarification and development of the interrelationship dimension of the commitment system, identifying and developing coupling and the nature of the commitment experience; (2) the development of the nature of the commitment experience, consisting of three types of conflict; (3) the quantitative discovery of three prototypical commitment systems in the cross-boundary work setting; and (4) insights into the drivers of commitment systems. […] Our research has managerial and practical implications for those seeking to manage the organizational dilemma of needing to retain as well as to develop professionals and to satisfy the requirements of their clients at the same time (Donnelly, 2011; Doorewaard and Meihuizen, 2000; Swart and Kinnie, 2013).
van Rossenberg, Y. G., Swart, J. A., Yalabik, Z. Y., Cross, D., & Kinnie, N. (2022). Commitment Systems in Cross‐boundary Work. British Journal of Management.