Co-operative difference and organizational commitment: The filter of socio-demographic variables

Abstract

Even though several differences exist between co-operatives and capitalist enterprises, such as the democratic governance style of the co-operatives, both types of enterprises compete with each other. In this context, how can the co-operatives distinguish themselves from private enterprises? Based on the AMO bundles model (for Abilities, Motivation and Opportunity to participate) and on the three-component model of organizational commitment, this study collected data from 578 respondents of financial service co-operatives in eastern Canada. This research had two primary objectives. First, it seeks to examine if employees perceive a co-operative difference through HRM practices which influences their commitment. Second, it aims to evaluate the relations between HRM practices, employees’ perception of a co-operative difference, and their organizational commitment through the influence of some socio-demographic variables. The main findings are that: (1) the employees perceived a co-operative difference through HRM practices that influenced their commitment; (2) the more the employees had work experience, the more they perceived a co-operative difference, and the more they displayed affective and normative commitment; (3) the higher the hierarchical status of the employees, the less they displayed calculative commitment; (4) the employees with union membership displayed lower affective and normative commitment.

Keywords:

• HRM practices
• socio-demographic variables
• co-operative difference
• organizational commitment

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 In New Brunswick, credit unions are organized on a geographic basis instead of being associated to a profession or a large business. This means that at a local level, caisses populaires and credit unions are similar.

2 These authors mentioned that managers in human resources ‘(…) concerned with the measurement of commitment levels must always control for tenure and, ideally, other cohort defining factors that may affect the outcomes (e.g. gender, job group, age, salary, etc.)’ (Beck & Wilson, 2001, p. 274).

3 The employment relationship is here understood as the basis of any individual work contract in which there is a subordination link between the employer – who directs the work – and the salaried – who does the work according to the employer’s prescriptions (Coiquaud, 2009, p. 55).

4 For example, the New Brunswick credit unions Act respects the first principle of voluntary and open membership by imposing no limitations on ‘the number of membership shares it may issue’ (New Brunswick, 2015, par. 30.2) but does not include obligation towards the principle of member education.

5 According to these authors, employees in service organizations ‘are co-creators of value, sources of innovation, and organizational knowledge. (…) There is a competitive advantage if the employees who are dedicated to the organization are non-imitable and rare’ (Kumar & Pansari, 2014, p. 56). Satisfied employees may positively affect their identification and commitment to the organization. In turn, this could develop their sense of loyalty and contribute to the performance of the enterprise because employees in the service sector are responsible to create a direct experience with customers.

6 The psychological withdrawal concept corresponds to a depersonalization and to a lower organizational commitment (affective or normative) from employees coping with stress or with difficult situations at work (Taris, Schreurs, & Van Iersel-Van Silfhout, 2001). Employees with psychological withdrawal will ‘distance themselves from their work’ (p. 288) in becoming cynical or in showing a lower level of affective commitment. In our study, the calculative commitment corresponds to a sense of guilt. The sense of guilt in a social way would be correct for the organization as it could be based on meaningful interactions with the members of the organization (Kahn, 1990). However, a sense of guilt for economic motives could mean keeping a job for the survival of oneself or one’s family. Leaving could lack in alternatives with the risk of losing financial advantages. Such a situation could become frustrating for the employee and then, detrimental for the organization.

7 A full presentation of the questionnaire is available in Leclerc et al. (2013).

8 Please refer to Appendix 1 for the statements.

9 Please refer to Appendix 1 for the statements.

10 Although the Cronbach alpha is lower than the usually acceptable limit of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978), the statistic is considered valid down to 0.60 (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). The main reason to explain this low value is that only two items composed the measuring scale (Hair et al., 2010). Future research should contain additional statements to measure the concept.