Although the majority of empirical commitment research has adopted a variable-centered approach, the person-centered or profiles approach is gaining traction. One challenge in the commitment profiles literature is that names are attached to profiles based on the within-study comparison among profiles and their relative levels and shapes. Thus, it is possible that different studies name the same profiles differently or different profiles similarly because of the context of the other profiles in the study. A meta-analytic approach, combined with multilevel latent profile analysis (LPA) that accounts for both within- and between-sample variability, is used in this study to examine the antecedents and outcomes of commitment profiles. This helps solve the naming problem by examining multiple data sets (K = 40) with a large sample (N = 16,052), obtained by contacting commitment researchers who voluntarily supplied primary data to bring further consensus about the phenomenology of profiles. LPA results revealed 5 profiles (Low, Moderate, AC-dominant, AC/NC-dominant, and High). Meta-analytic results revealed that high levels of bases of commitment were associated with value-based profiles whereas low levels were associated with weak commitment profiles. Additionally, value-based profiles were associated with older, married, and less educated participants than the weak commitment profiles. Regarding outcomes of commitment, profiles were found to significantly relate to focal behaviors (e.g., performance, tenure, and turnover) and discretionary behaviors (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviors). Value-based profiles were found to have higher levels of both focal and discretionary behaviors for all analyses. Implications for the commitment and profile literature are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

Although the authors of the focal article provide a comprehensive definition of 360° feedback, one exclusionary criterion results in an overly narrow definition of 360° feedback. Specifically, Point 3 in their definition described the criticality of strictly using quantitative methods in collecting 360° feedback. The authors provided a brief rationale by stating, “Data generated from truly qualitative interviews would not allow comparisons between rater groups on the same set of behaviors” (Bracken, Rose, & Church, 2016, p. 765). Although there is little doubt about the value in taking a quantitative approach for gathering 360° feedback, it is not clear why this has to be the sole approach. Below, I outline three issues with taking this constricted methodology. That is, first, excluding qualitative methods is not in line with the purpose of 360° feedback, which is directed at minimizing criterion deficiency. Second, qualitative methodologies (in conjunction with quantitative methodologies) are more equipped to provide and inspire a call to action (supporting the change component addressed by the authors). Finally, there are qualitative methods that allow for rigorous quantitative analysis and can provide an additional source of macro organizational-level data.

No abstract

No abstract