Vol. 11(12), pp.
1161-1167, 23 June,
2016 DOI: 10.5897/ERR2016.2808
Article Number: A9DCE0F59036
ISSN 1990-3839
Copyright © 2016
Educational Research and Reviews
Author(s) retain the copyright of this
article
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
Full Length Research Paper
Teachers’ loyalty to their supervisors and
organizational commitment
1 2
Nurhayat ÇELEBİ * and Mithat KORUMAZ
1
Department of Educational Administration Supervision Planning and Economics, Faculty of Literature, Karabuk
University, Turkey.
2
Department of Educational Administration, Supervision, Planning and Economics, Faculty of Education, Yıldız
Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey
Received 8 April, 2016; Accepted 2 June, 2016
A numbers of studies on teachers’ organizational commitment based some findings of western context
in Turkey. But some of the characteristics prove that organizational issues cannot be resulted with the
terms in Western World. One of the new concepts in organizational issues for Eastern culture is loyalty
to supervisor (in school context supervisor means principals). That new term focus on employees’
commitment to a person rather than system or organization. Therefore this research aims to reveal
relationship between the teachers’ loyalty to supervisors and commitment to their organizations. The
participants of the study consist of 412 teachers who serve in a city in Turkey. The results of the study
showed that there were strong and significant relationships between the dimensions of loyalty to
supervisors and teachers’ organizational commitment in Turkish context. But one of the most
fundamental result showed that affective, continuance and normative commitments were predicted by
different dimensions of teachers’ loyalty to their principals.
Key words: Loyalty to supervisor, organizational commitment, teachers, Turkish context.
INTRODUCTION
In 21st century, organizational paradigms have Bambacas, 2000), job satisfaction (Mc Guinness, 1998),
resuscitated in the light of the terms such as governance, motivation (Becker et al., 1996) and so on as a result of their
collaboration, effectiveness and competition with the loyalty. Two of the most effective ways of getting success are
effects of post-modernist point of view. Over the years, organizational commitment and loyalty to supervisor. These
loyalty in organization and organizational commitment two terms have been discussed in education administration
has gained a reasonable reputation among the topics in studies. Especially organi-zational commitment has been
organizational behavior research and educational commonly investigated by the researchers (Gupta and
administration. Most of the studies have focused on Gehlawat, 2013; Steyrer et al., 2008; Wasti, 2003). On the
employee outcomes such as organizational effectiveness other hand loyalty to supervisor is a hot topic for the studies
(Carmeli and Freund, 2004), performance and turnover in education and educational organizations. First
(Ceylan and Doganyılmaz, 2007; Hartmann and organizational commitment
Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 International License
1162 Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 1. Participants.
Variables f % N
Female 210 51
Gender 412
Male 202 49
Undergraduate 311 75
Level of Education 412
Graduate 101 25
sounds so familiar with the organizational theories. But its cultures, loyalty refers to employees’ loyalty to
meaning is being discussed nowadays. Before discussing organization. But in eastern cultures is it enough? Chen
about the theories of “commitment” and “loyalty”, a brief et al. (2002) do not think so. The concept of loyalty to
definition and origin of the terms should be made clear. supervisor comes from the study of commitment to
The term commitment dates back 15th century in the supervisor. But with a little difference. Commitment refers
meaning of "action of officially consigning to the custody the mutual dependence but loyalty refers unilateral
of the state,". The term is a combination of commit + - dependence from subordinate to leader. Based on a
ment (Anglo-French had commettement). The current study conducted in a Chinese setting, Chen et al. (2002)
meaning of the word is “the willingness to work hard and suggested that loyalty to supervisor is composed of five
give your energy and time to a job or an activity”. Another dimensions. The first of the dimensions is dedication0.
key word of this research is “loyalty” which originally That includes subordinate’s willingness to dedicate him or
stems from a French word (loyauté). The original herself to the supervisor and to protect the supervisor’s
meaning of “loyalty” includes “fidelity; legitimacy; honesty; welfare even at the expense of personal interests. The
good quality". The current meaning of loyalty is “a strong second dimension is effort. This dimension contains a
feeling of support or allegiance”. The definition and the subordinate’s willingness to exert considerable effort on
origin of the words are supposed to contribute the behalf of the supervisor. The third dimension is following
discussions about the terms organizational commitment supervisor. This focus on subordinate’s desire to be
and loyalty to supervisors in organizational contexts. attached to and follow the supervisor. The forth of the
The theory of organizational commitment includes two dimensions is identification with supervisor. This
different points of views. The first one assumes dimension includes subordinate’s respect for the
organizational commitment as behavior. According to accomplishments of the supervisor, and a feeling of pride
behavioral perspective organizational commitment is in being a subordinate to that supervisor. And the last
observable and measurable behavior. This model is dimension is internalization. It refers to value congruence
revealed and developed by Meyer and Allen (1991) and between the subordinate and the supervisor. In Turkish
called as three-component model of commitment0. This is culture or context teachers’ loyalty to their supervisors
most commonly used perspective in organizational might affect the commitment of teachers to their schools.
research. In this study researcher preferred to use this In educational context employee refers teachers and
model as theoretical framework. This perspective supervisor refers school principals. Hence, the studies
suggests commitment as an attitude towards which investigated teachers’ loyalty to their supervisors
organization. And it stresses the goals of the organization and their organizational commitment together in Turkish
and individual’s commitment to these goals (Blau and setting hasn’t been found out up to now. But loyalty to
Boal, 1987). The most common definition of supervisor can be a key mediating concept for schools
organizational commitment has been made by Mowday et with organizational commitment in Turkey. The widely
al. (1979). They defined commitment consists of an used and investigated terms such as organizational
individual to combine with the goal of organization and commitment in educational research needs to be related
retention. This combination and retention includes three with contextual based term which is commitment to the
factors; perfect belief for organizational goals; readiness supervisor for Eastern cultures like Turkey to understand
to work for organization; and willingness to become a part teachers’ organizational behaviors. The results of the
of the organization. Setting the fundamentals of study are expected to contribute both for the decisions of
organizational commitment both individual need to the policy makers and other researchers for further
understand organizational goals, value, requirement and research on loyalty to supervisor in educational context.
organizational structure take importance of individual’s Loyalty to supervisor might directly influence the
goals, value and needs (Morrow, 2011). Organizational organizational outcomes, so the study aims to answer
commitment has three dimensions; affective, continuance these following questions:
and normative commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990).
Recent discussions on loyalty concentrate on how 1. What is the level of teachers’ loyalty to their
much the concept covers all of the contexts in different supervisors?
cultures. According to Xıe et al. (2012), in western 2. What is the level of teachers’ organizational
Çelebi and Korumaz 1163
commitment? conditions of normality according to the levels of the independent
3. Is teachers’ loyalty to supervisor the significant variables. Whether the distributions were linear was examined with
scatter plots, and it was observed that dependent variables showed
predictor of their organizational commitment?
a linear distribution for each independent variable. Additionally, in
order to determine the homogeneity of the variances, the Levene
METHODS OF THE STUDY test was performed, and it was determined that the test results met
the homogeneity in the independent variables.
This descriptive study was conducted in correlational design. The
correlational design examines the relations between at least two
separate phenomenon (McMillan and Schumacher, 2006). It Process
examines the significance of correlation between teachers’ loyalty to
their supervisors and their organizational commitment. At the same The data collection tools used in the study were applied to total 412
according to some organizational and personal variables the level voluntary teachers by visiting the schools in the sample after taking
of teachers’ loyalty to their supervisors and their organizational permission from the Directorate of National Education in İstanbul in
commitment are investigated. the fall and spring semester of 2014-2015 academic year.
Participants FINDINGS
Convenience sampling as one of the probability sampling type is The findings of the research as a result of statistical
used in this exploratory research where the researchers are analysis of the data are presented in this section. First of
interested in getting an inexpensive approximation of the truth. “This
category of sample relies on available subjects who are close at all descriptive values of the scales are measured via
hand or easily accessible. Under certain circumstances this descriptive test in dimensions. Descriptive values are
category is an excellent means of obtaining preliminary information shown in Table 2.
about some research question quickly and inexpensively” (Berg, Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for observed
2001, s.32). Data was collected just before a meeting of teachers variables of the present study. Dimensions of loyalty to
for an official district seminar in the fall semester.
supervisor’s minimum and maximum scores, means and
Participants in the current study are 412 teachers who serve in
state schools in Kadıkoy, Uskudar and Umraniye provinces in standard deviation score s are presented. Participant
İstanbul. 210 (51%) of the participants are female and 202 (49%) of teachers’ minimum score is 5 in the dimensions of
them are males. Another personal variable is teachers’ academic dedication, effort and following supervisor. In the
level of education that can change the loyalty and commitment0. dimensions of identification with supervisor and
311 (75%) of the teachers have undergraduate level of education internalization minimum score is 30. Maximum scores
and other 101 (25%) of the teachers have graduate level of show the same results except for the dimension of effort.
education. All of the participants take part in the study voluntary.
Teachers get 20 maximum scores in the dimensions
dedication and following the supervisors and 15
Instruments maximum score in the dimensions of effort, identification
with supervisor and internalization. The means of the
Loyalty to supervisor (LS) was measured by the 17-item scale with dimensions are quite different0. Mean of the dimensions;
five dimensions developed by Chen et al. (2002). This scale was
adopted into Turkish by Ceylan and Doğanyılmaz in 2007. Another
the dedication is 14, 23; effort is 8,48; following the
scale is “Organizational Commitment Scale” originally developed by supervisor is 16,77; identification of the supervisor is 9,87
Meyer and Allen (1997) and adopted into Turkish by Pelit et al. and internalization is 9,970. Another result presented in
(2007). Both of the questionnaires consist of five-point Likert scale table 2 is the descriptive scores of the dimensions of
ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Factor organizational commitment. Minimum and maximum
analyses showed that Loyalty to supervisor (LS) scale and scores of affective and continuance commitments are the
Organizational Commitment Scale have the same dimensions as
same. Minimum value is 10 and maximum score is 350.
suitable for the original scales. Cronbach Alpha was measured
for each of the dimensions. Loyalty to Supervisor’s dimensions; Minimum scores teachers get in the dimension of
dedication’s Cronbach Alpha value is 0.87; Effort’s Cronbach Alpha normative commitment is 6 and maximum value is 270.
value is 00.82; following supervisor’s Cronbach Alpha value is Mean scores of the dimensions; affective commitment is
00.77; Identification with supervisor’s Cronbach Alpha value is 21, 85; continuance is 20, 31; normative is 18,200.
00.89 and Internalization’s Cronbach Alpha value is 00.87. On the
other side the dimensions of organizational commitment are
affective commitment’s Cronbach Alpha value is 00.90; continuance Prediction level of teachers’ loyalty to supervisor to
commitment’s Cronbach Alpha value is 00.89 and normative affective commitment
commitment’s Cronbach Alpha value is 810. For reliable test scores,
the magnitude of Cronbach’s alpha is suggested to be at least
Researchers used multiple regression analysis to test the
00.70 (Büyüköztürk, 2013; Pallant, 2001).
Before the research questions were tested, whether the prediction level of teachers’ loyalty to their supervisor
distributions related to dependent variables had normal distribution dimensions to their affective commitment. The results of
according to independent variable levels (gender and level of multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 3. The
education) was examined and the values of standard deviation, result of multiple regression analysis showed that there is
skewness, and kurtosis belonging to distributions were analyzed a significant relationship between two of the dimensions
together with histogram graphics and it was determined that the
of loyalty to supervisor and affective
distributions of both of the dependent variables provided the
1164 Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 2. Descriptive values of the dimensions.
N Min. Max. x ss
Scale
Dedication 412 5 20 14.23 1.244
Effort 412 5 15 8.48 1.028
Loyalty to Supervisors Following supervisor 412 5 20 16.77 2.629
Identification with supervisor 412 3 15 9.87 1.854
Internalization 412 3 15 9.97 1.445
Affective commitment 412 10 35 21.85 4.730
Organizational
Continuance commitment 412 10 35 20.31 4.821
Commitment
Normative commitment 412 6 27 18.20 3.988
Table 3. Regression results of teachers’ loyalty to supervisor to their affective commitment.
Dependent Standard Zero Order Partial
Independent B β T p
variables Error r R
variables Constant 310.498 10.082 - 290.104 00.000 - -
Dedication -00.387 00.075 -00.466 -50.143 00.356 -00.657 -00.425
commitment
Affective
Effort -00.295 00.088 -00.356 -40.465 00.225 -00.421 -00.329
Following supervisor -00.355 00.102 -00.366 -40.867 00.135 -00.488 -00.402
Identification with supervisor -00.312 00.097 -00.295 -30.877 00.001 -00.571 -00.500
Internalization -00.335 00.109 -00.280 -30.085 00.003 -00.598 -00.271
R=0.660 2
R =0.215
F(5-408)=54.062 p=0.000
commitment (R=00.660, R2=00.215) his relationship The result of multiple regression analysis showed that there
addresses (F (5-408)=540.062, p<00.01). That means all of is a significant relationship between two of the dimensions of
the independent variables together explain 210.5% of the loyalty to supervisor and continuance commitment
change in affective commitment. According to (R=00.432, R2=00.154). This relationship addresses (F(5-
standardized regression coefficient, the order of 408)=470.695, p<00.01). That means all of the independent
importance of predictor variables are dedication variables together explain 150.4% of the change in
(β=00.466), following the supervisors (β=00.366), effort continuance commitment. According to standardized
(β=00.356), identification with supervisor (β=00.295) and regression coefficient, the order of importance of predictor
internalization (β=00.280). In view of the regression variables are dedication (β=00.221), following the
coefficient significance, as predictor variables supervisors (β=00.256), effort (β=00.663), identification with
identification with supervisor and internalization are found supervisor (β=00.381) and internalization (β=00.476). In
to be significant predictors (p<00.05). The correlation view of the regression coefficient significance, as predictor
level between significant predictors and dependent variables effort and following the supervisor are found to be
variable (controlling the effects of other independent significant predictors (p<00.05). The correlation level
variables) shows that correlation level is r=00.500 between significant predictors and dependent variable
between identification with supervisor and affective (controlling the effects of other independent variables) shows
commitment; r=00.271 between internalization and that correlation level is r=0.387 between effort and
affective commitment. The regression equation is: continuance commitment; r=0.322 between following the
Affective Commitment = (00.312 x Identification with supervision and continuance commitment. The regression
Supervision) + (00.335 x Internalization) + 31.498. equation is: Continuance Commitment = (00.465 x effort) +
(00.233 x Following the Supervision) + 32.124.
Prediction level of teachers’ loyalty to supervisor to
continuance commitment
Researchers used multiple regression analysis to test the Prediction level of teachers’ loyalty to supervisor to
prediction level of teachers’ loyalty to their supervisor normative commitment
dimensions to their continuance commitment. The results
of multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 4. Researchers used multiple regression analysis to test the
Çelebi and Korumaz 1165
Table 4. Regression results of teachers’ loyalty to supervisor to their continuance commitment.
Dependent Standard
Independent B β T p Zero order r Partial R
variables error
variables Constant 320.124 20.100 - 300.821 0.000 - -
Dedication -0.455 0.149 -0.221 -30.551 0.332 -0.521 -0.465
Commitment
Continuance
Effort -0.465 0.133 -0.663 -40.663 0.002 -0.555 -0.387
Following supervisor -0.233 0.091 -0.256 -50.855 0.003 -0.375 -0.322
Identification with supervisor -0.356 0.478 -0.381 -40.741 0.855 -0.965 -0.490
Internalization -0.299 0.102 -0.476 -40.663 0.445 -0.426 -0.562
R=0.432
2
F(5-408)=47.695 R =0.154
p=0.001
Table 5. Regression results of teachers’ loyalty to supervisor to their normative commitment0.
Dependent Standard Zero order
Independent variables B β T p Partial R
variables error r
Constant 300.564 10.758 - 320.021 0.000 - -
Dedication -0.223 0.185 -0.521 -30.560 0.000 -0.489 -0.366
Commitment
Normative
Effort -0.335 0.169 -0.452 -30.932 0.125 -0.462 -0.415
Following supervisor -0.562 0.123 -0.462 -30.569 0.352 -0.655 -0.466
Identification with supervisor -0.196 0.099 -0.469 -30.711 0.221 -0.854 -0.422
Internalization -0.285 0.142 -0.511 -30.533 0.345 -0.425 -0.365
R=0.341 2
R =00.112
F(5-408)=44.451
p=00.001
prediction level of teachers’ loyalty to their supervisor relationship between dimensions of loyalty to supervisor
dimensions to their normative commitment. The results of and organizational commitment of teachers. Identification
multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 5. with supervisor and internalization as dimensions
The result of multiple regression analysis showed that teachers’ loyalty to their supervisor are the significant
there is a significant relationship between one of the predictors of affective commitment. On the other side
dimension of loyalty to supervisor and normative effort and following the supervisor as dimensions of
commitment (R=00.341, R2=00.112). This relationship teachers’ loyalty to their supervisors are the significant
addresses (F(5-408)=440.451, p<00.01). That means all of predictors of continuance commitment. Finally the results
the independent variables together explain 110.2% of the show that dedication as a dimension of teachers’ loyalty
change in normative commitment. According to to their supervisor is a significant predictor of normative
standardized regression coefficient, the order of commitment. Chen et al. (2002) states loyalty to a person
importance of predictor variables are dedication (supervisor or principal) is much more important for the
(β=00.521), following the supervisors (β=00.462), effort employee (teacher in this research) than committing a
(β=00.452), identification with supervisor (β=00.469) and system or an organization.
internalization (β=00.511). In view of the regression Teachers’ affective commitment to their organizations or
coefficient significance, as predictor variables effort and schools contains their characteristics and perceptions
following the supervisor are found to be significant towards their schools. It addresses their support to the
predictors (p<00.05). The correlation level between goals of school (Mir et al., 2002). Yung et al. (1998) and
significant predictors and dependent variable (controlling Lyons et al. (2006) suggest that organizational commit-
the effects of other independent variables) shows that ment for the ones who work in public organizations is
correlation level is r=0.489 between dedication and effected by their inner thoughts and perceptions. So
normative commitment. The regression equation is: teachers’ identification with their supervisor and
Normative Commitment = (00.521 x Dedication)+32.124. internalization the thoughts and feelings of their own
supervisors address the inner thoughts and perceptions
of teachers. Meyer et al. (1993; 2002) argue that strong
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION affective commitment to an organization arises because
teachers share values with both the organization and its
The findings of the study show that there is a significant members and principals and it is therefore predicted to be
1166 Educ. Res. Rev.
positively associated with the loyalty of teachers to their Berg BL (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences.
Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
supervisors in eastern culture. Teachers’ commitment Blau GJ, Boal KB (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and
and loyalty thus arguably play an important role in the organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. Acad.
principal-agent issues surrounding the separation Manage. Rev. 12:288-300.
between the ownership and control of an organization Brown S, McHardy J, McNabb R, Taylor K (2011). Workplace
Performance, Worker Commitment And Loyalty. Bonn: IZA
(Brown et al., 2011).
Büyüköztürk Ş (2013). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El kitabı
Continuous commitment is explained as teachers’ İstatistik:
preferences to keep on working for their organization Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum0. (18th ed) Pegem
and their needs to stay in their workplace (Sezgin, Akademi, Ankara.
Carmeli A, Freund A (2004). Work commitment, job satisfaction and job
2010). Weng et al. (2010) suggest that teachers’
performance: an empirical ınvestigation, Int. J. Organ. Theory Pract.
continuous commitment become stronger and stronger 7(3):289-309.
via social networks at workplace but career expectations Ceylan H, Doganyılmaz A (2007). Yöneticiye sadakat ve işgören
can be defined as fundamental determinants as performansı arasındaki ilişkilere yönelik bir araştırma. Yönetim,
continuous commitment. As a relational-oriented culture 18(56):18-39.
Chen ZX, Tsui AS, Farh JL (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs.
in Turkish context principals or supervisors might be organizational commitment: relationships to employee performance
more important factors to effect teachers’ commitment. in China. J. Occupational Organ. Psychol. 75:339-356.
The effort of teachers and their followings to their Chovwen C (2012). Predictors of organizational commitment of factory
supervisors may be one of the most important employees. Ife Psychologia, 20(2):105-112.
Gupta M, Gehlawat M (2013). A study of the correlates of
determinants of continuance commitment. That means organizational commitment among secondary school teachers.
these factors keep teachers in their school and Issues and Ideas in Educ. 1:59-71.
strengthen their continuance commitment. Teachers’ Hartmann LC, Bambacas M (2000). Organizational commitment: a
normative commitment can be explained as a multi method scale analysis and test of effects. Int. J. Organ. Anal.
8(1):89-108.
combination of an individual values and school values. Lyons ST, Duxbury LE, Higgins CA (2006). A comparison of the values
Ensuring normative commitment means to have and commitment of private sector, public sector and parapublic
individuals ready to keep their commitment for a long sector employees. Public Adm. Rev. 66(4):605-616. doi:
time. Chovwen (2012) addresses normative commitment 100.1111/j0.1540-62100.20060.006200.x
McMillan JH, Schumacher S (2014). Research in education: Evidence-
as an upper degree of other dimensions of the based inquiry. Pearson Higher Ed.
organizational commitment. McDonald and Gandz McDonald P, Gandz J (1992). Getting value from shared values0.
(1991) state that in case of consolidation of individual Organizational Dynamics, 20:64-77.
and organizational expectation normative commitment doi:
http://dx0.doi.org/100.1016/0090-2616(92)90025-I
becomes stronger naturally. With the result of the study it McGuinness BM (1998). The chance in employee loyalty, Nurse
can be assert that teachers’ dedication to themselves to Manage. 29(2):6-45.
their supervisor strengthen teachers’ normative commit- Meyer JP, Allen NJ (1991). A three-component conceptualization of
ment in Turkish context. organizational commitment. Hum. Resourc. Manage. Rev. 1-61.
doi:100.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z.
Depending on the results of the study, researchers Meyer JP, Allen N (1997)0. Commitment in the Workplace, Thousand
suggest that organizational commitment is not enough to Oaks. CA: SAGE Publications.
explain teachers’ behaviors, perceptions and attitudes at Meyer JP, Allen, NJ, Smith CA (1993). Commitment to Organizations
schools in Turkey. Subsequent research should be focus and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three Component
Conceptualization, J. Appl. Psychol. 78:538-510.
on teachers’ loyalty to their supervisors. And these Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Herscovıtch L, Topolnytsky L (2002). Affective,
studies should be designed according to qualitative Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A
research paradigm to get knowledge about the Meta Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences, J.
phenomena deeply. Second suggestion of the Vocat. Behav. 61:20-52.
Mir A, Mosca R, Joseph B (2002). The new age employee: An
researcher is that organizational commitment should be exploration of changing employee organization relations. Public
raised by enhancing the loyalty level of teachers to their Personnel Manage. 31(2):187-200. doi:
supervisors. Therefore new ways to promote teachers’ 100.1177/009102600203100205
loyalty to their supervisor should be investigated. Morrow PC (2011). Managing organizational commitment: insights
from
longitudinal research0. J. Vocat. Behav. 79(1):18-35.
doi:
Conflict of Interests 100.1016/j0.jvb0.20100.120.0080.
Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW (1979). The measurement of
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. organizational commitment0. J. Vocat. Behav. 14:224-247.
Pallant J (2001). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data
analysis using SPSS for Windows (Versions 10 and 11).
REFERENCES Maidenhead, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Pelit E, Boylu Y, Güçer E (2007). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ticaret ve Turizm
Allen NJ, Meyer JI (1990). The measurement and antecedents of Eğitim Fakültesi Akademisyenlerinin Örgütsel Bağlılık Düzeyleri
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Ticaret ve Turizm Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi.
organization. J. Occupational Psychol. 63:1-18. 1:86-1140.
Becker TE, Billings DM, Eveleth DM, Gilbert NL (1996). Foci and Sezgin F (2010). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılığın bir yordayıcısı
Bases of Employee commitment: Implications for Job Performance, olarak okul kültürü. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(156):142-159.
Acad. Manage. J. 39:464-482. Steyrer J, Schiffinger M, Lang R (2008). Organizational commitment- a
missing link betweenleadership behavior and organizational
performance? Scandinavian J. Manage. 24(4):364-374.
Wasti SA (2003). Organizational commitment, turnover intentions and
Çelebi and Korumaz 1167
the influence of cultural values. J. Occupational Organ. Psychol. Yung BS, Worchel S, Woehr D (1998). Organizational commitment
76(3):303-321. among public service employees. Public Personnel Manage.
Weng QX, McElroy JC, Morrow PC, Liu R (2010). The relationship 27(3):339-348.
between career growth and organizational commitment0. J. Vocat.
Behav. 77(3):391-400. doi: 100.1016/j0.jvb0.20100.050.003
Xıe J, Yang X, Chu X (2012). Loyalty to supervisor, loyalty to
organization and job satisfaction: an empirical study on small and
medium-size enterprises0. 2012 International Conference on
Engineering and Business Management.
