تعهد سازمانی در زمینه سازمان های موقت Understanding the antecedents of organizational commitment in the context of temporary organizations: An empirical study

1. Introduction Research in organizational behavior has increasingly been interested in better understanding the theoretical basis, determinants and effects of employees’ organizational commitment (Meyer, Becker & Vandenberghe, 2004; Suma & Lesha, 2013; Sharma, Mohapatra & Rai, 2013), and its related concepts such as organizational identification (Dick et al., 2006) or organizational citizenship (Lee et al., 2004; Mamman et al., 2012; Organ, 1988). A broad range of studies showed that organizational commitment (OC) has in general a significant and positive impact on performancerelated outcomes (Vandenberghe & Tremblay, 2008). It was also shown that the factors influencing the development of OC can be manifold and may include personal, job-related and organizational variables (Gonzales & Guillen, 2008; Sharma et al., 2013). While there is a rich literature on OC in permanent organizational settings, only a few studies have yet considered it in the context of temporary organizations (TOs), such as projects and programs (Dwivedula, Bredillet & Müller, 2013; Tyssen, Wald & Heidenreich, 2014). Though permanent organizations (POs) and TOs are somehow related to another, there are certain characteristics that distinguish both organizational forms (Packendorff, 1995). Due to the characteristics of TOs, some antecedents of OC to the TO can be assumed to be different from those of OC to the PO. First, TOs are characterized by their ex ante limitation in their duration (temporariness) and TO-members are usually aware of the impending termination (Bakker, 2010; Lundin & Söderholm, 1995). Second, tasks in TOs are unique, less routine and more complex than in POs which also includes more uncertainty and risk (Brockhoff, 2006; Hanisch & Wald, 2014). Third, TO work is often out in ambiguous hierarchies, i.e. TO members can have different hierarchical positions in the TO and the PO (Nuhn, Heidenreich & Wald, 2016). Fourth, TOs are composed of experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (Hobday, 2000; Zwikael & UngerAviram, 2010) and finally, coordination in TOs relies less on formal structures and processes than in the PO as TO members often have a high degree of autonomy (Bechky, 2006; Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker & Kenis, 2009). Prior research in organizational behavior has shown that the characteristics of TOs require a special attention when studying human resource management practices (Bredin & Söderlund, 2013; Huemann, 2015), citizenship behavior (Braun, Müller-Seitz & Sydow, 2012), leadership (Tyssen et al., 2014) or turnover intentions (Nuhn et al., 2016). In a similar vein, the antecedents of OC in POs are likely to differ in one or another way from those in TOs – whereas some of them might show similar effects, others might do the opposite. Identifying antecedents of OC in TOs not only contributes to the theoretical knowledge on the specificities of TOs but can also be valuable for practitioners. For instance, lacking OC can lead to high turnover between projects (Nuhn & Wald, 2016) and knowledge on the antecedents of OC may help to reduce turnover rates