Commitment to Organization Versus Commitment to Profession: Conflict or Compatibility?

Department of Management
Faculty of Business Management
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor D.E
Malaysia


Department of Management
Faculty of Business Management
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor D.E
Malaysia


Abstract

There has been an interesting debate in organizational behavior literature on whether conflict or compatibility characterizes the relationship between employees’ commitment to the organization and their commitment to the profession. To address this issue, a survey was conducted on a sample of research scientists in research institutions in the Klang Valley of Malaysia. Based on the analysis involving a sample size of 545 research scientists, the findings confirmed the assumption that there is no conflict between these concepts. A significant relationship exists between commitment to profession and the affective, continuance and normative dimensions of commitment to the organization (cofficients of 0.43, 0.15, and 0.52 respectively). In other words, the results suggest that commitment to organization is compatible with commitment to profession. The outcome of the survey further suggests the relevance of assessing the relationship in the context of multidimensionality of, not only organizational commitment, but also of commitment to profession.

Keywords

Citation

Ab. Rahman, N. M., & Hanafiah, M. H. (2002). Commitment to Organization Versus Commitment to Profession: Conflict or Compatibility?. Jurnal Pengurusan, 21, 79–96.

@article{abrahman2002commitment,
  title={Commitment to Organization Versus Commitment to Profession: Conflict or Compatibility?},
  author={Ab. Rahman, Nik Mutasim and Hanafiah, Mohd. Hizam},
  journal={Jurnal Pengurusan},
 

volume={21},
  number={},
  pages={79—96},
  year={2002},
  doi={},
  publisher={Penerbit UKM},
}

Export Bibliography:

No. of views: 137

   

Article received:  
Accepted for publication:  
Available online: 

Issue logo

21 (2002) 79 – 96

Download PDF

Share via:

Receive updates when new articles are published