Direct participation quality and organisational commitment: the role of leader‐member exchange

Abstract

Purpose

The relationship between participation quality and commitment has received relatively limited attention in the industrial relations (IR) and human resource management (HRM) literature. This paper seeks to fill some of the gaps in prior research. It aims to answer three questions: How do participation justice and satisfaction influence affective and normative organisational commitment? Does leader‐member exchange (LMX) influence satisfaction and perceived justice with participation? Do the three assumed indicators of participation quality mediate the relationship between LMX and affective and normative organisational commitment?

Design/methodology/approach

The research was conducted at three faculties of a Dutch university, and involved faculty staff. E‐mails and online questionnaires were distributed in Dutch. Hypotheses were tested. Three indicators of direct participation quality: satisfaction with participation, perceived distributive justice concerning participation, and procedural justice were included.

Findings

It was found that two indicators of participation quality mediate the LMX and affective organisational commitment relationship: satisfaction with direct participation and perceived distributive justice concerning direct participation. As a consequence, it can be concluded that supervisors' skills in fostering direct participation quality contribute to employees' positive attitudes towards the overall employment relationship and thereby perhaps also to organisational performance.

Originality/value

The paper explores the relationships between LMX, direct participation quality, and affective and normative organisational commitment.

Citation

Torka, N., Schyns, B. and Kees Looise, J. (2010), "Direct participation quality and organisational commitment: the role of leader‐member exchange", Employee Relations, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 418-434. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451011051622