Organizational identification, commitment and orientations of professional military personnel

Dušan Todorović; Milanko Dmitrov Čabarkapa; Milica Tošić-Radev; Ines Miladinović

doi:10.2298/VSP160616365T

Dušan Todorović University of Niš, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, Niš, Serbia
Milanko Dmitrov Čabarkapa University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, Belgrade, Serbia
Milica Tošić-Radev University of Niš, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, Niš, Serbia
Ines Miladinović Serbian Armed Forces, ‡Special Brigade, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP160616365T

Keywords: military personnel, psychology, military, administrative personnel, organization and administration, surveys and questionnaires, job satisfaction,

Abstract

Background/Aim. All military organizations seek such employees who will advocate for the organization's mission and act responsibly in the direction of achieving the objectives of operational and working groups to which they belong. Accordingly, the primary task of the military organization management is not only the cultivation of the members who would be committed to the organization, but also the officers and soldiers who identify with the organizational mission. The aim of this study was to examine differences in organizational identification, commitment to the organization and organizational orientations of the professional military personnel and employees in service and administrative activities. Methods. The research sample consisted of 450 respondents, of whom 150 were professional soldiers, 150 civilian employees in the service sector and 150 employees in the civil sector in administration. For statistical analysis of the data, the analysis of variance and canonical discriminant analysis were used. Results. Professional military personnel was characterized by a high degree of both organizational commitment and organizational identification, compared with employees in the civil sector - service and administrative activities. Through the process of canonical discriminant analysis, it was found that the professional military personnel are different from the other personnel in the sense that they identify with their colleagues and they feel a high degree of loyalty to the military organization, as key aspects of organizational identification. In addition, professional military personnel have pronounced affective commitment to the organization. Conclusion. Human resources are the key and the essential factor of advantage in the context of strong competitiveness in the field of military defense's reality. Given that they are more adaptable and flexible, compared with the technological and structural resources, a high degree of experienced similarity with the other members of the organization, pronounced loyalty and affective commitment to the organization, to a large extent guarantee new successes and the progress of the military organization.

References

Lojić R. Career planning and development. Vojno Delo 2009; 2: 171‒96.

Mael FA, Ashforth BE. Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification and turnover amog newcomers. Pers Psychol 1995; 48(2): 309‒33.

Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member identification. Admin Sci Quart 1994; 39(2): 239‒63.

Alessandri SW. Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication and theoretical explanation. Corp Commun Int J 2001; 6(4): 173‒82.

Hatch MJ, Schultz M. Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. Eur J Market 1997; 31(5‒6): 356‒65.

Hatch MJ, Schultz M. The dynamics of organizational identity. Hum Relat 2002; 55(8): 989‒1018.

Hatch MJ, Schultz M. Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. Eur J Market 2003; 37(7‒8): 1041‒64.

Pruzan P. Corporate reputation: image and identity. Corp Reput Rev 2001; 4(1): 50‒64.

Stuart H. Employee identification with the corporate identity: Issues and implications. Int Stud Manage Organ 2002; 32(3): 28‒44.

Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev 1989; 14(1): 20‒39.

Brown M. Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Admin Sci Quart 1969; 14(3): 346‒55.

Hall DT, Schneider B, Nygren HT. Personal factors in organizational identification. Admin Sci Quart 1970; 15: 176‒89.

O'Reilly III CA, Chatman J. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. J Appl Psychol 1986; 71(3): 492‒9.

Patchen M. Participation, achievement and involvement on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1970.

Taylor DM, Moghaddam FM. Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspectives. New York: Praeger; 1987.

Mrmak I. Fundamentals of Military Psychology. Belgrade: Center for Andrago Psychological and Sociological Research in the JNA; 1973. (Serbian)

Dedić G. Soldier's social adaptation during the military service. Vojnosanit Pregl 2004; 61(6): 637‒43. (Serbian)

Dunham RB, Grupe JA, Casteneda MB. Ortanizatioanl commitment: the utility of an integrative definition. J Appl Psychol 1994; 79(3): 370‒80.

Mathieu J, Zajac DM. A review and meta-analyiss of the antecedents, vorrelates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychol Bull 1990; 108(2): 171‒94.

Cheney G. On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Commun Monogr 1983; 50(4): 342‒62.

Cheney G. The rhetoric of identificaion and the study of organizational communication. Quart J Speech 1983; 69(2): 143‒58.

Tompkins PK, Cheney G. Account analysis of organizations: Decision-making and identification. In: Putnam L, Pacanowsky M, editors. Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1983. p. 123‒46.

Tompkins PK, Cheney G. Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In: McPhee RD, Tompkins PK, editors. Organizational communicattion: Traditional themes and new directions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985. p. 179‒210.

Barker JR, Tompkins PK. Identification in the self - managing organization: Characteristics of target and tenure. Hum Commun Res 1994; 21: 247–264.

Simon HA. Administrative behavior, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press; 1976.

Mael FA, Alderks CE. Leadership team cohesion and subordinate work unit morale and performance. Mil Psychol 1993; 5: 141‒58.

Little W, Fowler HW, Coulson J, Onions CT. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historical Principles. London: Oxford University Press; 1959.

Wilkes G, Krebs W. The Collins Concise Dictionary of the English Language. 2nd ed. London: William Collins & Sons; 1988.

Allen NJ, Meyer JP. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J Occup Psychol 1990; 63(1): 1‒18.

Allen NJ, Meyer JP. Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. J Vocat Behav 1996; 49(3): 252‒76.

Meyer JP, Allen NJ. A three-componet conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum Resour Manag Rev 1991; 1(1): 61‒89.

Beck K, Wilson C. Development of an affective organizational commitment: A cross-sequential examination of change with tenure. J Vocat Behav 2000; 56(1): 114‒36.

Metcalfe B, Dick G. Exploring Organisation Commitment in the Police: Implications for Human Resource Strategy. Policing 2001; 24(3): 399‒419.

Mowday R, Porter L, Steers R. Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1982.

Bojanović R. Psychology of human relations. Belgrade: Nolit; 1979. (Serbian)

Papa JM, Daniels DT, Spiker BK. Organizational Communication perspectives and trends. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008.

Presthus RV. Toward a theory of organizational behavior. Admin Sci Quart 1958; 3(1): 48‒72.

McCroskey JC, Richmond VP, Johnson AD, Smith HT. Organizational orientations theory and measurement: Development of measures and preliminary investigations. Commun Quart 2004; 52(1): 1‒14.