《（毕业论文）-外文翻译--什么是忠诚》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《（毕业论文）-外文翻译--什么是忠诚（16页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、外文原文0外文文献外文文献 Whats Loyalty? Michael J. Withey 1 and William H. Cooper Loyalty in organizations has proved difficult to predict. One reason is that loyalty is complex and poorly understood. We report two studies that attempt to understand and predict loyalty by focusing on two components of the cons
2、truct: active-constructive loyalty and passive-constructive loyalty. In the first study, we found that active acts of loyalty were predicted by variables quite different from those that predicted passive loyalty. The second study found that people identified by peers as high-loyalty employees perfor
3、med many more active sets of loyalty than did those who were identified as low-loyalty employees. We conclude that loyalty consists of both active-constructive and passive-constructive behavior. KEY WORDS: loyalty ; commitment; active; passive. INTRODUCTION What is loyalty? In this article, we will
4、suggest some ways to consider this question. Our starting point is Hirschmans (1970) treatment of exit, voice, and loyalty. Hirschman offers exit and voice as distinct responses when firms, organizations, and states are facing decline. What Hirschman means by loyalty is less clear. He first refers t
5、o loyalty as a form of attachment that makes voice more attractive when exit is available (Hirschman, 1970, p. 77). He describes loyalty as the product of (primarily economic) factors that wed the individual to the organization, making exit costly and reducing voice. At times, Hirschman describes lo
6、yalty as an attitude that affects the extent to which exit and voice are made use of. At other times he speaks of loyalty as a form of behavior in which the individual sup- ports the organization. Other treatments of loyalty have also been varied. They include, for example, Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers,
7、 and Mainouss (1988) characterization of loyalty as pas- sive-constructive behavior (e.g., being quietly supportive and being patient); Kolar- ska and Aldrichs (1980) work, which, referring to the response, “silence“ rather than loyalty; and Grahams (1990) discussion of loyalty as an attitude withou
8、t any behavioral component. 河南理工大学万方科技学院本科毕业论文1These depictions of loyalty mirror the ambiguity of the construct in ordinary language. We sometimes speak of loyalty as an attitude, other times of loyalty as behavior. Within the loyalty behavior domain, there are both active elements (doing things th
9、at are supportive of someone or something) and passive elements (being quiet while exhibiting patient forbearance). In the present research, we will consider loyalty as a behavior and discuss the attitudinal elements of loyalty in terms of organizational commitment, defined as sharing the values of
10、the firm (Porter, Steers, Mowday, the loyalty measures were based on frequency of engaging in the behavior. With the exceptions noted below, all scales achieved a satisfactory level of interitem re-liability. Low internal consistency would be expected to attenuate correlation coef- ficients. The ind
11、ependent variables .and the measure of passive loyalty used were those reported by Withey and Cooper (1989). The measure of active loyalty was based on Cooper et al. (1990). A description of the variables follows. Examples of scale items are provided when the scale is new to the literature. A total
12、of nine independent variables was included. “Exit costs“ include skill specificity (e.g., “My present job involves skills which would be useful in many other organizations,“ reversed) and sunk costs (e.g., “If I left this job, my pension plan losses would be significant.“), which are both aspects of
13、 Beckers (1960) side bets, and investments (Rusbult et aL, 1988). The sunk costs scale had low internal con-sistency. “Voice costs“ asked about the effort required to bring about change and the likelihood of punitive responses to such efforts (e.g., “It is risky to say too much about working conditi
14、ons in this office“). “Belief in the possibility of improvement“ was measured by a 9- item combi- nation of measures of receptiveness to change (e.g., “This office is organized so as to be receptive to employee input“) and Graen, Liden, and Hoers (1982) measure of leader/member relations. “Job satis
15、faction“ was measured using Brayfield and Rothes (1951) 18-item scale. “Locus of control“ was measured using Rotters (1966) standard 23-item forced choice instrument. “Organizational commitment“ was measured using Porter et al.s 外文原文4(1974) scale. The “availability of alternative jobs“ was measured
16、using the two items of Price and Bluedorns (1979) scale that refer to alternatives that are better than the present job. Analysis was conducted by using correlations and regression analysis to assess the ability of the independent variables to predict each form of loyalty. Further, correlations between independent variables and loyalty measured in 1984 and forms of loyalty measured in 1990 are reported. Several indep
