See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249828474

Knowledge Workers: What Keeps Them Committed;

What Turns Them Away

Article  in  Work Employment & Society · March 2007

DOI: 10.1177/0950017007073623

CITATIONS READS

73 519

2 authors, including:

Michelle Brown
University of Melbourne
50 PUBLICATIONS   1,101 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michelle Brown on 17 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Work, Employment &
Society http://wes.sagepub.com/

Knowledge workers: what keeps them committed; what turns them away
John Benson and Michelle Brown
Work Employment Society 2007 21: 121
DOI: 10.1177/0950017007073623

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://wes.sagepub.com/content/21/1/121

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

British Sociological Association

Additional services and information for Work, Employment & Society can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://wes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://wes.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://wes.sagepub.com/content/21/1/121.refs.html

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Work, employment and society
Copyright © 2007
BSA Publications Ltd®
Volume 21(1): 121–141
[DOI: 10.1177/0950017007073623]
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore

Knowledge workers: what keeps them committed;

what turns them away
■ John Benson
University of South Australia

■ Michelle Brown
University of Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT
There is a well established literature on the antecedents of organizational commitment,
though the relative importance of these antecedents to particular groups of workers
remains unclear. Relying on a general set of antecedents for all workers may result in
the application of inappropriate HRM policies and practices. Our focus is on knowl-
edge workers as they have been identified as important to organizational success.The
literature is, however, divided on what constitutes knowledge work so we develop
and apply a measure that focuses on what these workers do.We then use this mea-
sure to examine attitudinal and behavioural commitment. We find, using responses
from 1969 employees, knowledge workers have higher attitudinal commitment and
lower intention to quit than routine-task workers. Further, the antecedents of com-
mitment for knowledge workers and routine-task workers differ in many important
respects, creating challenges for organizational decision makers.

KEY WORDS
attitudinal commitment / HRM / intention to quit / knowledge workers / routine-task
workers

Introduction

nderpinning many human resource management (HRM) policies is the

U proposition that organizations need to develop and retain a highly com-

mitted workforce (Coopey and Hartley, 1991; Guest, 1992). This stems

121
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011
122 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

from the belief that organizations must adopt strategies that enhance employees’
commitment if they are to be competitive in a globalized world (Porter, 1990;
Rayton, 2006; Walton, 1985; Womack et al., 1991). While the literature has
debated the meaning of commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Morris et al.,
1993; Porter et al., 1974) it is now generally accepted that commitment refers
to two distinct although related concepts: attitudinal commitment which rec-
ognizes an individual’s identification with an organization, and behavioural
commitment which focuses on an individual’s actions and the maintenance of
organizational membership (Iverson and Buttigieg, 1999: 308). A substantial
body of research has now been undertaken that has established many of the
antecedents of commitment and the positive organizational consequences of
having a highly committed workforce.
While organizational commitment has now become a key HRM outcome the
commitment literature has generally treated the employees as homogeneous and
ignored the nature of the work undertaken by employees. This point was first
made by Reichers (1985: 469) who pointed out that the organization in the com-
mitment literature ‘is viewed as a monolithic, undifferentiated entity that elicits
an identification and attachment on the part of the individual’. Similarly, Coopey
and Hartley (1991: 20) reiterated this concern and contended that the commit-
ment literature must address the nature of the organization. This deficiency in the
literature is surprising given that numerous management writers have pointed to
the complexity and multi-faceted nature of the modern organization and that
with this complexity comes diversity in employees (Pfeffer and Baron, 1988).
The diversity in an organization’s workforce can be seen in a variety of
ways: personal characteristics, position in the organization, or the type of work
undertaken. While commitment research has made some attempt to accommo-
date these differences it is this latter division which has largely remained unex-
plored. Our article focuses on differences based on the type of work undertaken,
with a particular examination of knowledge work. Knowledge work is identified
by the emphasis on information processing, problem solving and the production
of knowledge (Barley, 1996; Fleming et al., 2004; Reed, 1996; Tam et al., 2002).
Two questions will be addressed: first, are knowledge workers as committed to
the organization as those workers who undertake more routine tasks? And
second, whether the antecedents of commitment vary between these two groups
of workers. These are important questions for organizational policy makers as
understanding the antecedents of organizational commitment of different groups
of workers can help them ‘fine tune’ their HRM policies and practices.

Organizational commitment and knowledge work

Organizational commitment
Workers, it has long been argued, are more likely to remain with an organiza-
tion and increase work effort where management adopt strategies that enhance
their commitment (Porter, 1990; Walton, 1985; Womack et al., 1991). Typically

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 123

commitment refers to ‘the strength of an individual’s identification with and

involvement in a particular organization’ (Porter et al., 1974: 604). Commitment
can be characterized by three factors: a belief in and an acceptance of the orga-
nizations’ goals and values; a willingness to exert considerable effort; and a
desire to maintain organizational membership (Porter et al., 1974: 604).
To overcome confusion between the concept and outcomes (Reichers,
1985; Morrow, 1993) a distinction has been made between attitudinal and
behavioural commitment (Coopey and Hartley, 1991; Iverson, 1996; Mowday
et al., 1982). Attitudinal commitment emphasizes an individual’s identification
with and involvement in the organization. On the other hand, behavioural com-
mitment is where the individual has a desire to maintain organizational mem-
bership (Iverson, 1996; Salancik, 1977). Commitment has also been broken
into affective, continuance and normative commitment (Meyer and Allen,
1997). These categories refer to the psychological underpinning of attitudinal
commitment: individuals remain with an organization because they want to,
they need to or they feel they ought to (Allen and Meyer, 1990: 4).
A substantial body of research now exists on the antecedents and outcomes
of organizational commitment (see Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al.,
2002). The research has shown that age, tenure, education, job satisfaction, dis-
tributive justice, job security, role ambiguity and role conflict are consistent
antecedents of commitment (Morrow, 1993). Moreover, this research shows
that high commitment is related to lower turnover (Jaros, 1997; Michaels and
Spector, 1982; Mueller and Price, 1990; Porter et al., 1974; Williams and
Hazer, 1986), lower absenteeism (Angle and Perry, 1981; Sagie, 1998), higher
motivation and involvement (Farrell and Rusbult, 1981; Somech and Bogler,
2002; Stumpf and Hartman, 1984), higher job performance (Angle and Perry,
1981; Mowday et al., 1974; Steers, 1977), a willingness to accept change
(Brewer and Hensher, 1998; Iverson, 1996), organizational citizen behaviour
(Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Schappe, 1998), and ethical corporate values
(Valentine et al., 2002).
This literature has also debated the meaning of commitment (Meyer and
Allen, 1997; Morris et al., 1993; Porter et al., 1974), the relevance of the con-
cept (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Morrow, 1983 and 1993), and the adequacy of
existing measures (Morrow, 1993; Reichers, 1985). While these issues have
now been generally settled (see Meyer and Allen, 1997; Morrow, 1993) the
commitment literature has generally treated the organization as comprised of
homogeneous employees and ignored the possibility that different groups of
workers may have different levels of commitment. While studies have explored
the commitment of particular groups of workers within organizations such as
engineers (Baugh and Roberts, 1994), contract labour (Benson, 1998; Pearce,
1993), teleworkers (Golden, 2006), nurses (Iverson, 1996), psychiatric techni-
cians (Porter et al., 1974), teachers (Somech and Bolger, 2002), and lawyers
(Wallace, 1995) little attempt has been made to compare these groups with
other workers within the organization. One exception was Koslowsky (1990),
although in this case the comparison was between police officers in the field and

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

124 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

those that undertook administrative work. More recently, the commitment of

knowledge workers has attracted some research interest including knowledge
workers’ discretionary work effort and job satisfaction (Tam et al., 2002), and
their perceptions of organizational justice (Thompson and Heron, 2005). In
these cases, however, an occupational or sector-based definition of knowledge
work was used and again no attempt was made to compare the commitment of
knowledge workers with other employees in the organization.

Knowledge work
The term knowledge work is often used to characterize the shift from routine
operational tasks to more varied and complex work (Barley, 1996; Cortada,
1998; Frenkel et al., 1995; Mohrman et al., 1995). This change is seen as nec-
essary if firms are to optimize the value of employees and so develop a com-
petitive, global advantage (Horibe, 1999). The growth in certain professions,
occupations and the so-called ‘new economy’ sectors of finance and informa-
tion technology is cited as evidence of the growth and importance of knowledge
work (Barley, 1996; Frenkel et al., 1999; Thompson and Heron, 2005).
The critical management literature has questioned the growth in this type
of work (Alvesson, 2004; Fleming et al., 2004; Sewell, 2000; Thompson and
Warhurst, 1998; Thompson et al., 2001). Thompson and Warhurst argued that
many jobs in these new ‘knowledge’ occupations still require routine tasks to be
performed and that labelling an ever increasing range of jobs as knowledge
work provides ‘a misleading appearance of the growth of more knowledgeable
workers’ (1998: 4). This theme is echoed by Alvesson (2004) who claimed that
much work in many knowledge intensive firms is routine, and Fleming et al.
(2004) who found that by ‘going below the surface’ the growth in occupations
that were deemed to be knowledge work revealed a growth in many of the more
routine aspects of work.
Despite these arguments knowledge work is often equated with work in
‘high-tech’ or professional, business and informational service sector companies
(Frenkel et al., 1999; Reed, 1996), with workers’ professional status such as
engineers, scientists and lawyers (Lee and Maurer, 1997), or with particular
occupations such as R&D workers, software designers, telecommunication spe-
cialists and financial analysts (Reed, 1996; Tam et al., 2002; Thompson and
Heron, 2005). This broad occupational approach to determining knowledge
work, as pointed out by Sewell (2000: 9), ‘belies a degradation in the nature of
some “knowledge work” while simultaneously ignoring the increasing cogni-
tive demands placed on many employees in traditional employment’. As a con-
sequence, ‘for the critics, the term ‘‘knowledge worker’’ itself is precisely where
the trouble starts, leading to scholastic debates about the nature of knowledge,
not to research on knowledge workers’ (Rose, 2002: 156).
One way around this impasse is to focus on areas of agreement rather than
on the issues that divide researchers. One area of agreement is that, in some
fields and some jobs, emphasis is increasingly placed on information processing,

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 125

problem solving and the production of knowledge (Barley, 1996; Fleming et al.,
2004; Reed, 1996; Tam et al., 2002). Workers undertaking these tasks are
defined as knowledge workers as they perform complex tasks that require
increasing amounts of knowledge and problem solving abilities (Reich, 1991;
Reed, 1996), where the main tool and output is knowledge (Parker, 1994) and
where the core task is thinking (Fisher and Fisher, 1998). In short, knowledge
workers add value to the enterprise through ‘their ideas, their analyses, their
judgement, their syntheses, and their design’ (Horibe, 1999: xi). As such these
workers are key organizational assets and the retention of these workers a
prime organizational objective (Alvesson, 2000, 2004; Amar, 2002; Lee and
Maurer, 1997).
This definition is similar to the distinction between routine and non-routine
work proposed by Pava (1983) and Mohrman et al. (1995), where routine work
(programmed, repeated patterns, analysable, well understood, static) is contrasted
with the emergent, variable, unique, interdependent, uncertain and dynamic
nature of knowledge work (Mohrman et al., 1995: 17). This distinction allows
knowledge work to be broken into three distinct, but inter-related dimensions.
The first dimension is the variation and dynamic nature of the work undertaken
(Frenkel et al. 1999; Horibe, 1999; Reed, 1996; Scarbrough, 1999; Tam et al.,
2002). Knowledge work will involve considerable variety and the key tasks will
often be characterized by ‘incomplete cause–effect understanding, which intro-
duces uncertainty into the work’ (Mohrman et al., 1995: 16). The second
dimension is the degree of reciprocal interdependence of work with other tasks
being performed in the team or organization (Cortada, 1998; Frenkel et al.
1999; Scarbrough, 1999; Tam et al., 2002; Wallace, 1995). This interdepen-
dence is due to the ‘multiple, concurrent conversion processes that influence
each other’ (Mohrman et al., 1995: 17) and that are taking place at any one
time. Interdependency may well extend to activities beyond the team and at
times it may seem ‘as though everything totally depends on everything else’
(Pava, 1983: 51). The third dimension is the degree of autonomy employees
have in carrying out their work (Frenkel et al., 1999; Kubo and Saka, 2002;
Reed, 1996; Thompson and Warhurst, 1998; Wallace, 1995). Knowledge
workers will need to make numerous judgments about a variety of job-related
issues and it is this uncertainty in the decision making process that is a key char-
acteristic of knowledge work (Mohrman et al., 1995: 17).
Classifying work by these three dimensions overcomes the problems asso-
ciated with occupational or sector-based definitions of knowledge work. The
adoption of this definition means, however, that the little we know about the
commitment of knowledge workers may now be inaccurate as research on
knowledge workers has focused on employees of ‘new economy’ sectors or
occupations such as scientists and IT experts (Alvesson, 2000; Lee and Maurer,
1997; Tam et al., 2002). As a consequence, many workers in these studies may
have been involved in quite routine work which would confound the results and
prohibit the drawing of definite conclusions on the attitudinal or behavioural
commitment of knowledge workers.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

126 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

Research hypotheses and explanatory model

Research hypotheses
Employees undertaking ‘knowledge work’, such as highly skilled tradespersons, com-
puter experts and professionals were thought to have low organizational commitment
and be more committed to their occupation or profession (Cook, 1996; Gouldner, 1957;
Hebden et al., 1969). As Cook (1996: 25) argued, ‘Occupational commitment may eas-
ily provide points of conflict with the value and goals of employers and non-professional
colleagues.’ Other research suggested that professional commitment may, however, rein-
force notions of organizational commitment, particularly for those who are satisfied in
their work (Baugh and Roberts, 1994; Herriot and Pemberton, 1995). Similarly, Wallace
(1995) found that professional and career fulfilment enhanced organizational commit-
ment while Thompson and Heron (2003) found a link between innovative behaviour
and organizational commitment. In contrast, Koslowsky (1990) found that police offi-
cers in the field had higher levels of job commitment than those serving as administra-
tors although the two groups did not differ in their level of organizational commitment.
These mixed findings provide some support to Alvesson’s (2004: 146) claim
that ‘there appears no reason to see the most typical characteristics of profession-
als in organizations in terms of tensions between loyalty to the profession and to
the bureaucracy’. Nevertheless, the complexity and ambiguity of knowledge work,
coupled with knowledge workers strong professional orientation, would tend to
promote less identification with the organization (attitudinal commitment) and
higher levels of intention to quit (behavioural commitment) relative to routine
workers. It is therefore hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1: Employees undertaking knowledge work will have lower attitu-
dinal commitment than employees undertaking routine work.
Hypothesis 2: Employees undertaking knowledge work will have higher inten-
tions to quit (behavioural commitment) than employees under-
taking routine work.
The literature has established many of the factors influencing commitment
(Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Mottaz, 1988) though it has not, with
a few exceptions (Frenkel et al., 1999), considered whether these factors are more
applicable to particular groups of workers. However, studies on service workers, sci-
entists, R&D workers and professional lawyers (Frenkel et al., 1999; Randle and
Rainnie, 1997; Thompson and Heron, 2005; Wallace, 1995) suggest that work orga-
nization factors, such as co-worker support, are important influences on the com-
mitment of knowledge workers. The nature and organization of knowledge work
would therefore suggest these factors would be more important to the level of com-
mitment of knowledge workers. It is therefore hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3: Work organization factors will be more important antecedents of
attitudinal commitment and intention to quit (behavioural com-
mitment) for knowledge workers than for those employees under-
taking routine work.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 127

The explanatory model

A single multivariate model, based on the literature, was developed to test the
impact of type of work on attitudinal commitment and the intention to quit
(hypotheses 1 and 2). This model will also be used to explore whether different
factors effect attitudinal commitment and the behavioural commitment (‘inten-
tion to quit’) of knowledge workers when compared to that of those employees
undertaking routine work (hypothesis 3). Antecedents of commitment can be
broken into three broad categories: employee characteristics, general organiza-
tional variables and work organization. Our focus is on work organization
variables as these appear to be the major differentiating factors between knowl-
edge and routine-task workers (Frenkel et al., 1999; Randle and Rainnie, 1997;
Thompson and Heron, 2005; Wallace, 1995). Employee characteristics and
organizational variables will therefore act as controls.
The four work organization variables included in the model were role ambi-
guity, role conflict, co-worker support, and supervisor support. Role ambiguity
and role conflict relate to the nature and impact of work organization and have
been found to correlate negatively with job satisfaction and positively with
propensity to leave (Rizzo et al., 1970). Given the relationships of job satisfaction
and propensity to leave with organizational commitment (Michaels and Spector,
1982; Williams and Hazer, 1986) it is expected that both these variables will be
negatively related to organizational commitment. Co-worker and supervisor sup-
port relate to the way the employee and work organization interact. A friendly
and supportive work environment has been found to be instrumental in develop-
ing commitment (Benson, 1998; Frenkel et al., 1999; Iverson and Buttigieg, 1999;
Mottaz, 1988; Reichers, 1985).
The control variables included in the model were based on the findings of
previous research (see Benson, 1998; Iverson, 1996; Iverson and Buttigieg, 1999;
Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1997; Mottaz, 1988; Mowday
et al., 1982). These included five employee characteristics – age, education,
union membership, emotional state (negative affectivity) and job motivation,
and five organizational variables – job security, pay level satisfaction, satisfac-
tion with benefits, promotional opportunity and resource adequacy. Definitions
of all variables are provided in Table 1 while the proposed relationships of these
variables to commitment and intention to quit are indicated in Table 3.

Methods

Setting and subjects

The case study approach is an appropriate methodology when a researcher
wants to investigate ‘a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context’
(Sarantakos, 1998: 192). As the objective of this research was to explore the
commitment of different groups of workers it was considered preferable to
conduct the research in one organization so as to control for ‘extraneous’

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

128 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

variables that may impact on commitment and to locate the findings within
their organizational context. Moreover, given that the research would involve
developing a multivariate model for testing a case study approach was appro-
priate as it relies on the ‘prior development of theoretical propositions to guide
data collection and analysis’ (Yin, 1994: 13).
The case study site was a large Australian semi-governmental, scientific
research organization (PSR). PSR’s primary roles are to carry out scientific
research, to assist Australian industry, and to encourage and facilitate the appli-
cation and use of scientific research. PSR was considered an appropriate case
study site given its size (6957 employees), the nature of the work and the occu-
pational diversity of its workforce: tradespersons, technicians, clerical staff, and
managerial and scientific research workers. The size and diversity of PSR pro-
vided the opportunity to effectively compare and contrast the antecedents of
organizational commitment of knowledge and routine-task workers in a real
world context using a quantitative data collection method (Yin, 1994).
Moreover, PSR had a standard set of HR policies and practices and so the case
study design provided effective control of these factors. Notwithstanding its
semi-governmental status, PSR could not be considered a typical ‘public sec-
tor’ organization as it worked closely with private industry, derived more
than 30 percent of its income from commercial activities, and operated under
its own industrial and enterprise agreements that had been negotiated with the
local union.
A questionnaire was mailed to the work address of all employees in the
period December 1998 to March 1999. Questionnaires were returned directly
to the researchers by 3335 employees, a response rate of 47.9 percent. No sig-
nificant differences between the sample and the population were found on
gender and geographical location (t-test, p < .05). Variable definitions and their
source, together with their alpha reliability coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) are
presented in Table 1.

Measures

(a) Commitment and intention to quit

The nine-item version of Porter’s organizational commitment scale (Mowday
et al., 1979; Porter et al., 1974) was used to measure attitudinal commitment.
This scale was used because of its reliability and validity (Beck and Wilson,
2000; Mowday et al., 1979), and its widespread use and acceptance (Beck and
Wilson, 2000; Morris et al., 1993). Intention to quit was measured by two
additional items taken from Porter’s index (Mowday et al., 1979; Porter et al.,
1974). Factor analysis was performed on the 11 items with a clear division
occurring between the attitudinal commitment and intention to quit items.
Scale scores were calculated by averaging the responses to the items. The relia-
bility coefficient was .86 for commitment and .68 for intention to quit.1
Descriptive statistics for both scales are presented in Table 2.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Table 1 Variable definitions

Variable Definition and construction

Knowledge workers The degree to which an employee’s job is repetitive (three items from Price and Mueller, 1981), the degree to which the job relies
on others (three items from Kanungo, 1982), and the degree to which an employee has influence over his or her job (four items
from Tetrick and LaRocco, 1987), alpha = .75. A five-point scale where 5 = high knowledge work. Respondents with score of 3.92
and above are classified as knowledge workers and those with scores of 3.40 and below as routine-task employees.
Dependent variables
Commitment The extent to which an employee believes in, and accepts an organization’s goals and values, together with a willingness to exert
considerable effort for that organization as measured by nine items from Porter et al. (1974), alpha = .86. Five-point scale with
5 = highly committed.
Quit Intention to quit as measured by two items from Porter et al. (1974), alpha = .68. Five-point scale with 5 = high willingness to leave.
Personal characteristics
Age Age measured in years.
Education Nine levels of education ranging from year 10 or lower ( = 1) to PhD ( = 9).
Union Dichotomous variable where 1 = union member.
Negative affect Negative affectivity (the extent to which an individual experiences aversive emotional states over time and across situations) as
measured by three items from Watson et al. (1987), alpha = .86. Five-point scale with 5 = high negative affectivity.
Job motivation An employee’s normative belief in the importance of work. Measured by seven items from Kanungo (1982), alpha = .89. Five-point
scale where 5 = high job motivation.
Organizational variables

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Job security The extent to which an employee perceives long-term, stable employment with the organization. Job security is measured by three
items from Oldman et al. (1986), alpha = .85. Five-point scale with 5 = high job security.
Pay level satisfaction An employee’s general satisfaction with pay level. Satisfaction with pay level is measured by two items from Heneman and Schwab
(1985), alpha = .75. Five-point scale with 5 = very satisfied.

(continued)

129
 130
Table 1 (continued)

Variable Definition and construction

Satisfaction with benefits An employee’s satisfaction with benefits as measured by two items from Heneman and Schwab (1985), alpha = .66. Five-point scale
with 5 = very satisfied.
Promotional opportunities An employee’s perception of promotional opportunities within the organization. Promotional opportunities are measured by three
items from Price and Mueller (1981), alpha = .70. Five-point scale with 5 = good promotional opportunities.
Resource adequacy The degree to which an employee perceives resources are adequate to perform the job. Resource adequacy is measured by three
items from Iverson (1992), alpha = .80. Five-point scale where 5 = high resource adequacy.
Work organization
Role ambiguity The degree to which employees understand clearly their role expectations. Role ambiguity is measured by three items from Rizzo,
House and Lirtzman (1970), alpha = .70. Five-point scale with 1 = high role ambiguity.
Role conflict Degree to which an employee’s role expectations are incompatible. Role conflict is measured by three items from Kahn et al.
(1964), alpha = .74. Five-point scale where 5 = high role conflict.
Co-worker support Degree of consideration expressed by co-workers. Co-worker support is measured by three items from House (1981), alpha = .86.
Five-point scale where 5 = high level of co-worker support.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Supervisory support Degree of consideration expressed by the employee’s immediate supervisor. Supervisory support is measured by three items from
Michaels and Spector (1982), alpha = .90. Five-point scale with 5 = high levels of supervisory support.
 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 131

(b) Knowledge workers

To accommodate the three dimensions of knowledge work proposed earlier
10 items from the scales measuring the degree of job repetition (Price and
Mueller, 1981), task interdependence (Kanungo, 1982) and autonomy (Tetrick
and LaRocco, 1987) were utilized. The 10 items were subjected to principal
components factor analysis with three factors being extracted (eigen values > 1).
The factor loadings corresponded to the three underlying dimensions of knowl-
edge work. The major factor, however, accounted for 49.2 percent of the
explained variance and all 10 items loaded substantially on this factor with fac-
tor loadings ranging from 0.41 to 0.71. The alpha reliability coefficient
(Cronbach, 1951) for the 10 items was 0.75. These 10 items were summated
and divided by 10. Individual scores thus ranged between 1 and 5 with a mean
of 3.66 and standard deviation of 0.52.
Respondents were classified as knowledge workers if their score was more
than half a standard deviation above the mean while workers whose score was
more than half a standard deviation below the mean were classified as routine-
task workers. This classification led to 28.5 percent of respondents (N=920)
being classified as knowledge workers and 32.5 percent of respondents
(N=1049) being labelled as routine-task workers. The remaining respondents
were excluded from this study, resulting in an effective sample size of 1969.2

(c) Independent and control variables

Age, education, and union membership were single-item variables. The remaining
11 variables were modifications of established scales (see Table 1) and included
negative affectivity (Watson et al., 1987), job motivation (Kanungo, 1982), job
security (Oldman et al., 1986), pay level satisfaction (Heneman and Schwab,
1985), satisfaction with benefits (Heneman and Schwab, 1985), promotional
opportunities (Price and Mueller, 1981), resource inadequacy (Iverson, 1992), role
ambiguity (Rizzo et al., 1970), role conflict (Kahn et al., 1964), co-worker support
(House, 1981), and supervisor support (House, 1981). The reliability of the scales
(Cronbach, 1951) ranged from .66 for satisfaction with benefits3 to .90 for super-
visor support. Descriptive statistics for these variables are presented in Table 2.

Statistical analysis and model estimation

Hypotheses 1 and 2 will be evaluated by a combination of t-tests and ordinary
least squares (OLS) regression techniques. OLS allowed us to partial out the
effects of the employee characteristics and general organizational variables and
to focus our attention on work organization.4 The testing of Hypothesis 3 also
used OLS techniques with the knowledge work variable being used to catego-
rize the data into two groups; knowledge workers and routine-task workers.
The possibility of multicollinearity rendering the estimates unreliable appeared
low for two reasons. First, a variance inflation test (vif) was run for all models

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

132 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

Table 2 Descriptive statistics

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Variable Full sample Knowledge workers Routine-task workers

Dependent variables
Commitment 3.37 (0.64) 3.57 (0.56)* 3.20 (0.66)
Quit 2.73 (0.88) 2.47 (0.82) 2.96 (0.87)*

Employee characteristics
Age 42.11 (10.04) 44.27 (9.52)* 40.18 (10.11)
Education 6.36 (2.45) 7.21 (2.45)* 5.61 (2.42)
Union member 0.56 (0.5) 0.61 (0.49)* 0.52 (0.50)
Negative affect 2.78 (0.82) 2.65 (0.95) 2.90 (0.87)*
Job motivation 2.68 (0.82) 2.96 (0.76)* 2.43 (0.79)

Organizational variables
Job security 2.73 (0.99) 2.92 (1.01)* 2.57 (0.95)
Pay level satisfaction 3.14 (0.92) 3.34 (0.92)* 2.97 (0.88)
Satisfaction with benefits 3.45 (0.77) 3.54 (0.78)* 3.36 (0.74)
Promotional opportunity 2.90 (0.89) 3.25 (0.88)* 2.59 (0.77)
Resource adequacy 3.26 (0.87) 3.14 (0.86) 3.36 (0.93)*

Work organization
Role ambiguity 3.67 (0.69) 3.85 (0.67)* 3.51 (0.66)
Role conflict 2.79 (0.81) 2.67 (0.85) 2.89 (0.78)*
Co-worker support 3.51 (0.80) 3.76 (0.72)* 3.29 (0.80)
Supervisor support 3.65 (0.94) 3.90 (0.86)* 3.43 (0.96)
Notes: a. N ranged between 1827 and 1969 for individual items in the full sample (knowledge and routine-task
workers).
b. *p < .01 (t-test, two-tail) between the knowledge and routine-task worker samples.

(reported in Table 3). In all cases the mean vif was below 1.5; substantially
below the level at which problems can occur (Chatterjee et al., 2000). Second,
the correlations between all variables in the model were relatively small and
were well below the .80 figure at which multicollinearity can be considered a
problem (Studenmund and Cassidy, 1987).5

Results

Hypothesis 1 was not supported. As shown in Table 2, knowledge workers had a sig-
nificantly higher attitudinal commitment than routine-task workers (0.37, p < .01). This
difference remained statistically significant after controlling for the 14 employee and
organizational variables discussed in Section 3. Hypothesis 2 was also not supported
with knowledge workers having a significantly lower intention to quit (behavioural
commitment) than routine-task workers (0.49, p < .01). Again, this difference remained
statistically significant after controlling for the 14 variables discussed above.6

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 133

Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Separate OLS regressions were car-

ried out for knowledge workers and routine-task workers for both dependent vari-
ables. The model explained substantial amounts of variance in the attitudinal
commitment of knowledge workers (24%) and of routine-task workers (37%).
Results are presented in the first two columns of Table 3. Three important differ-
ences between the two groups of workers were identified. First, the explanatory
power of the model, as measured by the adjusted R2, was substantially higher for
routine-task workers than for knowledge workers. Second, three of the four work
organization variables (role ambiguity, co-worker and supervisor support) were
significant determinants of attitudinal commitment for knowledge workers; only
role ambiguity and supervisor support were significant for routine-task workers.
Third, while there were a number of significant common control variables in both
models negative affectivity was an important determinant of knowledge workers’
attitudinal commitment while job security and satisfaction with benefits were
important determinants of the attitudinal commitment of routine-task workers.
A similar pattern was found with intention to quit (behavioural commit-
ment) (see columns 3 and 4 of Table 3). Two key differences existed between
the two groups of workers. First, the explanatory power of the model was again
substantially higher for routine-task workers (23%) than for knowledge work-
ers (17%). Second, for knowledge workers, two work organization variables
(co-worker and supervisor support) were significant determinants of intention
to quit; neither of these factors was significant for routine-task workers. Third,
while again there were a number of significant common control variables in
both models the one difference was that role ambiguity was an important
determinant of intention to quit for routine-task workers.

Discussion and conclusion

Using a measure of knowledge work based on its key attributes (variation,

interdependency and autonomy) we found that knowledge workers were dis-
tributed across all occupational groups. This finding provided support for those
who argued that the growth in knowledge work cannot be measured by occu-
pational changes (Fleming et al., 2004). Contrary to our hypotheses knowledge
workers had a significantly higher attitudinal commitment than routine-task
workers and a lower intention to quit. This finding suggests that the attitude
and values of knowledge workers may be different to their professional coun-
terparts (Cook, 1996) and supported the notion that job commitment may rein-
force organizational commitment (Baugh and Roberts, 1994; Herriot and
Pemberton, 1995). The lower level of intention to quit may, however, be a
reflection of the external labour market and the prestigious status of PSR: its
international standing has been important in retaining knowledge workers even
in the face of increased competition from private and better funded research
organizations. Alternatively, the semi-governmental status of PSR may mean
that knowledge workers are more risk averse when it comes to considering

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

134 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

Table 3 Organizational commitment and intention to quit of knowledge workers (KW)

and routine-task workers (RTW): OLS regression

Commitment Intention to Quit

Variable KW RTW KW RTW

Intercept 2.53 1.34 4.46 4.91

(0.23) (0.26) (0.36) (0.37)
Age (+/−) –0.00 0.01 –0.01** –0.01**
(0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Education (−/+) –0.05** –0.04** 0.05** 0.05**
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
Union member (−/+) –0.02 –0.00 –0.08 –0.04
(0.04) (0.04) (0.06) (0.06)
Negative affect (−/+) –0.04* –0.02 0.07* 0.12**
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03)
Job motivation (+/−) 0.26** 0.37** –0.16** –0.30**
(0.02) (0.02) (0.04) (0.04)
Job security (+/−) 0.00 0.06** –0.01 0.02
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03)
Pay level satisfaction (+/−) –0.00 0.03 –0.12** –0.12**
(0.02) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04)
Satisfaction with benefits (+/−) 0.02 0.07* –0.02 –0.00
(0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04)
Promotional opportunity (+/−) 0.05* 0.12** –0.16** –0.18**
(0.02) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04)
Resource adequacy (+/−) 0.07** 0.05* –0.01 0.02
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.04)
Role ambiguity (−/+) –0.08** –0.11** 0.03 0.11*
(0.03) (0.03) (0.05) (0.05)
Role conflict (−/+) –0.02 –0.03 0.05 0.06
(0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.04)
Co-worker support (−/+) 0.07* 0.01 –0.09* –0.04
(0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04)
Supervisor support (−/+) 0.07** 0.07** –0.08* –0.05
(0.02) (0.02) (0.04) (0.03)

Adjusted R2 0.24 0.37 0.17 0.23

Mean vif 1.27 1.33 1.27 1.32

* p < .05; ** p < .01. Note: unstandardized coefficients; standard errors in parentheses.
Note: the signs in parentheses after each variable represent the proposed relationship between the variable and
commitment and intention to quit respectively.

changing employment. There is, however, no reason to believe that this would
not equally apply to both groups of employees. Finally, it was found that the
level of attitudinal and behaviour commitment of knowledge workers was more
likely to be determined by work organization factors such as the relationship
with supervisors and co-workers than was the case for routine-task employees.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 135

These findings have important implications for the management of knowledge

workers. While these workers have a strong attitudinal commitment to the
organization and a lower intention to quit the key factor in maintaining this
commitment was work relationships. A positive relationship with co-workers
was crucial to attitudinal commitment while this coupled with a positive rela-
tionship with their supervisor were crucial to knowledge workers’ lower inten-
tions to quit. Factors previously found to be important for attitudinal
commitment, such as job security and satisfaction with benefits, and for inten-
tion to quit such as role ambiguity were not important to knowledge workers,
although they were important for routine-task workers.
These findings suggest that managerial policies to enhance commitment
(Becker et al., 1996; Iverson and Buttigieg, 1999) may need to be tailored to the
needs of different groups of workers. While Guest (1992) raised doubts as to
whether commitment can be managed the research showed that the commit-
ment of knowledge workers was related to aspects of work organization and
the way these workers were managed. The development of strong systems of
co-worker support via such mechanisms as teams will clearly be important for
building and maintaining stronger organizational commitment among knowl-
edge workers. In addition, supervision must accommodate a higher degree of
freedom so as to allow knowledge workers to carry out their work unimpeded.
In contrast, providing job security or improving benefits, factors important to
the commitment of routine-task workers, will be unlikely to have an apprecia-
ble effect on knowledge workers. The challenge for organizations is thus to
develop and apply policies that recognize the different antecedents of commit-
ment without creating conflict between them. For organizational commitment
researchers, the theoretical and empirical challenge is to develop and test
models that recognize the heterogeneous nature of work. A set of HRM poli-
cies that might be effective in promoting commitment of one group of employees
may be detrimental to the commitment of another group of employees within
the same organization.
This research has provided a means to further advance our understanding
of the commitment of knowledge workers by defining knowledge workers on
the basis of what they do rather than who they are (Blackler, 1995: 1023).
Nevertheless, further research is required in three areas to test and extend these
findings. First, future commitment research will need to extend this line of
inquiry by examining knowledge workers in a range of private sector organiza-
tions where there exists a greater capacity to differentiate on pay, working con-
ditions and employment contracts than there was in PSR. Second, more
attention must be focused on understanding the key attributes of knowledge
work and how these characteristics are played out in the work setting. This will
allow for further refinement of the definition and measure of knowledge work
used in this article. Finally, the model developed in this article explained sub-
stantial amounts of variance in commitment and intention to quit. For knowl-
edge workers the amount of variance explained was lower than that for
routine-task workers. As such, research will need to explore more deeply the

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

136 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

processes involved in knowledge work if we wish to more fully understand

what keeps these workers committed and what turns them away.

Notes

1 The alpha coefficient for the scale ‘intention to quit’ was slightly lower than the
0.70 recommended as the lower bound for the acceptance of a scale (Cortina,
1993). Following the method outlined by Cortina (1993) the inter-item and
item-total correlations were examined for the two items making up this scale.
The inter-item correlation was 0.52 and the item-total correlations in both
cases exceeded 0.86 thus indicating this scale had acceptable reliability.
2 Analysis using the full sample and distinguishing on the basis of the mean
yielded no meaningful differences to that reported in this article.
3 In this case the inter-item correlation was 0.51 and the item-total correlations in
both cases exceeded 0.84. This indicates that this scale had acceptable reliability.
4 The dependent variables were attitudinal commitment and intention to quit. As
both variables were made up of a number of items the process of summating
scores and dividing by the number of items meant that resultant scores approx-
imated interval data. As such OLS regression was selected as this technique is
sufficiently robust to handle this type of data (Berry and Feldman, 1985).
5 A full correlation matrix is available from the authors upon request.
6 Ten of the 14 variables proved to be significantly related to either commitment
or intention to quit, with seven of these variables being statistically significant
in both models. The number of significant variables in the model indicates the
robustness of these findings.

References

Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990) ‘The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective,

Continuance, and Normative Commitments to the Organization’, Journal of
Occupational Psychology 63(1): 1–8.
Alvesson, M. (2000) ‘Social Identity and the Problem of Loyalty in Knowledge-
Intensive Companies’, Journal of Management Studies 37(8): 1101–23.
Alvesson, M. (2004) Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Amar, A. (2002) Managing Knowledge Workers. New York: Quorum.
Angle, H. and Perry, J. (1981) ‘An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Com-
mitment and Organizational Effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly
26(1): 1–14.
Barley, S. (1996) The New World of Work. London: British-North American
Committee.
Baugh, S. and Roberts, R. (1994) ‘Professional and Organizational Commitment
Among Engineers: Conflicting or Compensating?’, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 41(2): 108–14.
Beck, K. and Wilson, C. (2000) ‘Development of Affective Organizational Commit-
ment: A Cross-Sequential Examination of Change with Tenure’, Journal of
Vocational Behavior 56(1): 114–36.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 137

Becker, T., Billings, R., Eveleth, D. and Gilbert, N. (1996) ‘Foci and Bases of Employee
Commitment: Implications for Job Performance’, Academy of Management
Journal 39(2): 464–82.
Benson, J. (1998) ‘Dual Commitment: Contract Workers in Australian Manufacturing
Enterprises’, Journal of Management Studies 35(3): 355–75.
Berry, W. and Feldman, S. (1985) Multiple Regression in Practice. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Blackler, F. (1995) ‘Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview
and Interpretation’, Organization Studies 16(6): 1021– 46.
Brewer, A. and Hensher, D. (1998) ‘The Importance of Organizational Commitment
in Managing Change: Experience of the NSW Private Bus Industry’, Logistic
and Transport Review 34(2): 117–30.
Chatterjee, S., Hadi, A. and Price, B. (2000) Regression Analysis by Example. 3rd
edition. New York: Wiley.
Cook, P. (1996) The Industrial Craftsworker: Skill, Managerial Strategies and
Workplace Relationships. London: Mansell.
Coopey, J. and Hartley, J. (1991) ‘Reconsidering the Case of Organizational Com-
mitment’, Human Resource Management Journal 1(3): 18–32.
Cortada, J. (ed.) (1998) Rise of the Knowledge Worker. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Cortina, J. (1993) ‘What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and
Applications’, Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 98–104.
Cronbach, L. (1951) ‘Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests’,
Psychometrika 16(3): 297–334.
Farrell, D. and Rusbult, C. (1981) ‘Exchange Variables as Predictors of Job Satis-
faction, Job Commitment and Turnover: The Impact of Rewards, Costs, Alter-
natives and Investments’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
28(1): 78–95.
Fisher, K. and Fisher, M. (1998) The Distributed Mind. New York: American
Management Association.
Fleming, P., Harley, B. and Sewell, G. (2004) ‘A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous
Thing: Getting Below the Surface of the Growth of ‘‘Knowledge Work’’ in
Australia’, Work, Employment and Society, 18(4): 725–47.
Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Donohue, L. and Shire, K. (1995) ‘Re-constituting
Work’, Work, Employment and Society 9(4): 773–96.
Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Shire, K. and Tam, M. (1999) On the Front Line: Orga-
nization of Work in the Information Economy. Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press.
Golden, T. (2006) ‘Avoiding Depletion in Virtual Work: Telework and the
Intervening Impact of Work Exhaustion on Commitment and Turnover
Intention’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 69(1): 176–87.
Gouldner, A. (1957) ‘Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent
Social Roles’, Administrative Science Quarterly 2(3): 281–306.
Guest, D. (1992) ‘Employee Commitment and Control’, in J. Hartley and
G. Stephenson (eds), Employment Relations, pp. 111–35. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hebden, J., Rose, M. and Scott, W. (1969) ‘Management Structure and
Computerization’, Sociology 3(3): 377–96.
Heneman, H., and Schwab, D. (1985) ‘Pay Satisfaction: Its Multidimensional
Nature and Measurement’, International Journal of Psychology 20(2): 129–41.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

138 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

Herriot, P. and Pemberton, C. (1995) Competitive Advantage through Diversity.

London: Sage.
Horibe, F. (1999) Managing Knowledge Workers: New Skills and Attitudes to
Unlock the Intellectual Capital in your Organization. Toronto: Wiley.
House, J. (1981) Work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Iverson, R. (1992) Employee Intent to Stay: An Empirical Test of a Revision of the
Price and Mueller Model. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa.
Iverson, R. (1996) ‘Employee Acceptance of Organizational Change: The Role of
Organizational Commitment’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 7(1): 122–49.
Iverson, R. and Buttigieg, D. (1999) ‘Affective, Normative and Continuance
Commitment: Can the ‘‘Right Kind’’ of Commitment be Managed?’, Journal of
Management Studies 36(3): 307–33.
Jaros, S. (1997) ‘An Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three-Component
Model of Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intentions’, Journal of
Vocational Behavior 51(3): 319–37.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. and Rosenthal, R. (1964) Organizational
Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Kanungo, R. (1982) ‘Measurement of Job and Work Involvement’, Journal of
Applied Psychology 67(3): 341–51.
Koslowsky, M. (1990) ‘Staff/line Distinctions in Job and Organizational Commit-
ment’, Journal of Occupational Psychology 63(2): 167–73.
Kubo, I. and Saka, A. (2002) ‘An Inquiry into the Motivations of Knowledge
Workers in the Japanese Financial Industry’, Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment 6(3): 262–71.
Lee, T. and Maurer, S. (1997) ‘The Retention of Knowledge Workers with the
Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover’, Human Resource Management
Review, 7(3): 247–75.
Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990) ‘A Review and Meta-analysis of the Antecedents,
Correlates and Consequences of Organizational Commitment’, Psychological
Bulletin 108(2): 171–94.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1997) Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research
and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002) ‘Affective,
Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-
Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences’, Journal of Vocational
Behavior 61(1): 20–52.
Michaels, C. and Spector, P. (1982) ‘Causes of Employee Turnover: A Test of the
Mobley, Griffeth, Hand and Meglino Model’, Journal of Applied Psychology
67(1): 53–9.
Mohrman, S., Cohen, S. and Mohrman, A. (1995) Designing Team-Based Organi-
zations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morris, T., Lydka, H. and O’Creevy, M. (1993) ‘Can Commitment be Managed: A
Longitudinal Analysis of Employee Commitment and Human Resource
Policies’, Human Resource Management Journal 3(3): 21–42.
Morrow, P. (1983) ‘Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of
Work Commitment’, Academy of Management Review 8(3): 486–500.
Morrow, P. (1993) The Theory and Measurement of Work Commitment.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 139

Mottaz, C. (1988) ‘Determinants of Organizational Commitment’, Human Relations

41(6): 467–82.
Mowday, R., Porter, L. and Dubin, R. (1974) ‘Unit Performance, Situational
Factors, and Employee Attitudes in Spatially Separated Work Units’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 12(2): 231–48.
Mowday, R., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982) Employee–Organization Linkages:
The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New York:
Academic Press.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979) ‘The Measurement of Organizational
Commitment’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 14(2): 224–47.
Mueller, C. and Price, J. (1990) ‘Economic, Psychological and Sociological Determi-
nants of Voluntary Turnover’, Journal of Behavioral Economics 19(3): 321–35.
Oldman, G., Kulik, C., Stepina, L. and Ambrose, M. (1986) ‘Relations between
Situational Factors and the Comparative Referents Used by Employees’.
Academy of Management Journal 29(3): 599–608.
Parker, D. (1994) ‘Designing the Future Workplace’, Bulletin of the American
Society for Information 20(5): 21–3.
Pava, C. (1983) Managing New Office Technology: An Organizational Strategy.
New York: Free Press.
Pearce, J. (1993) ‘Toward an Organizational Behavior of Contract Laborers: Their
Psychological Involvement and Effects on Employee Co-workers’, Academy of
Management Journal, 36(5): 1082–96.
Pfeffer, J. and Baron, J. (1988) ‘Taking the Workers Back Out: Recent Trends in the
Structuring of Employment’, in B. Staw and L. Cummings (eds) Research in
Organizational Behavior, pp. 257–303. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R. and Boulian, P. (1974) ‘Organizational
Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians’,
Journal of Applied Psychology 59(5): 603– 9.
Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: MacMillan.
Price, J. and Mueller, C. (1981) Professional Turnover: The Case of Nurses. New
York: SP Medical and Scientific.
Randle, K. and Rainnie, A. (1997) ‘Managing Creativity, Maintaining Control: A
Study in Pharmaceutical Research’, Human Resource Management Journal 7(2):
32–46.
Rayton, B. (2006) ‘Examining the Interconnection of Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment: An Application of the Bivariate Probit Model’,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(1): 139–54.
Reed, M. (1996) ‘Expert Power and Control in Late Modernity: An Empirical
Review and Theoretical Synthesis’, Organization Studies 17(4): 573–97.
Reich, R. (1991) The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st-Century
Capitalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Reichers, A. (1985) ‘A Review and Reconceptualization of Organizational
Commitment’, Academy of Management Review 10(3): 465–76.
Rizzo, J., House, R. and Lirtzman, S. (1970) ‘Role Conflict and Ambiguity in
Complex Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 15(2): 150–63.
Rose, M. (2002) ‘IT Professionals and Organizational Ascendancy: Theory and
Empirical Critique’, New Technology, Work and Employment 17(3): 154–69.
Sagie, A. (1998) ‘Employee Absenteeism, Organizational Commitment, and Job
Satisfaction: Another Look’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 52(2): 156–71.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

140 Work, employment and society Volume 21 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2007

Salancik, G. (1977) ‘Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and

Belief’, in B. Staw and G. Salancik (eds) New Directions in Organizational
Behavior, pp. 1–55. Chicago, IL: St Clair.
Sarantakos, S. (1998) Social Research. 2nd edition. Melbourne: Macmillan.
Scarbrough, H. (1999) ‘Knowledge as Work: Conflicts in the Management of
Knowledge Workers’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 11(1):
5–16.
Schappe, S. (1998) ‘The Influence of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment
and Fairness Perceptions on Organizational Citizenship Behavior’, Journal of
Psychology 132(3): 277–90.
Sewell, G. (2000) ‘Meet the New World of Work: Just Like the Old World of Work’,
unpublished paper, Department of Management, The University of Melbourne.
Somech, A. and Bogler, R. (2002) ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Teacher
Organizational and Professional Commitment’, Educational Administration
Quarterly 38(4): 555–77.
Steers, R. (1977) ‘Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment’,
Administrative Science Quarterly 22(1): 46–56.
Studenmund, A. and Cassidy, H. (1987) Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Stumpf, S. and Hartman, K. (1984) ‘Individual Exploration to Organizational
Commitment or Withdrawal’, Academy of Management Journal 27(2): 308–29.
Tam, M., Korczynski, M. and Frenkel, S. (2002) ‘Organizational and Occupational
Commitment: Knowledge Workers in Large Corporations’, Journal of
Management Studies 39(6): 775–801.
Tetrick, L. and LaRocco, J. (1987) ‘Understanding, Prediction, and Control as
Moderators of the Relationships between Perceived Stress, Satisfaction, and
Psychological Well-Being’, Journal of Applied Psychology 72(4): 538–43.
Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2003) ‘Knowledge Creation and the Employment
Relationship’, paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference,
Seattle.
Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2005) ‘The Difference a Manager Can Make:
Organizational Justice and Knowledge Worker Commitment’, International
Journal of Human Resource Management 16(3): 383–404.
Thompson, P. and Warhurst, C. (eds) (1998) Workplaces of the Future.
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Thompson, P., Warhurst, C. and Callaghan, G. (2001) ‘Ignorant Theory and
Knowledgeable Workers: Interrogating the Connection between Knowledge,
Skills and Services’, Journal of Management Studies 38(7): 923–42.
Valentine, S., Godkin, L. and Lucero, M. (2002) ‘Ethical Context, Organizational
Commitment, and Person–Organization Fit’, Journal of Business Ethics 41(4):
349–60.
Wallace, J. (1995) ‘Corporatist Control and Organizational Commitment among
Professionals: The Case of Lawyers Working in Law Firms’, Social Forces
73(3): 811–40.
Walton, R. (1985) ‘From Control to Commitment in the Workplace’, Harvard
Business Review 6(3): 60–66.
Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. and Folger, R. (1987) ‘Beyond Negative Affectivity:
Measuring Stress and Satisfaction in the Workplace’, Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management 8(2): 141–57.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

 Knowledge workers Benson & Brown 141

Williams, L. and Hazer, J. (1986) ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction

and Commitment in Turnover Models: A Re-analysis Using Latent Variable
Structural Equation Methods’, Journal of Applied Psychology 71(2): 219–31.
Womack, J., Jones, D. and Roos, D. (1991) The Machine That Changed the World.
New York: Harper Perennial.
Yin, R. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.

John Benson

John Benson is Professor and Head of the School of Management at the University of
South Australia. Previous appointments include Professor and Chair of the School of
International Business at the University of Tsukuba (Japan) and Reader in the Department
of Management and Marketing at the University of Melbourne. His major research inter-
ests are Japanese management and unions, the restructuring of Chinese industry, out-
sourcing and knowledge work. John has published numerous articles and monographs and
his most recent work is Unemployment in Asia (Routledge: London, 2006) with Ying Zhu.
Address: School of Management, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide,
South Australia, Australia, 5001.
E-mail: [email protected]

Michelle Brown

Michelle Brown is a an associate professor in the Department of Management and

Marketing at the University of Melbourne. Previous appointments have been with the
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and Victoria University. She has research interests in
labour market adjustments, employee participation and performance management sys-
tems. Recent work in these areas has appeared in Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
Group and Organization Management and the British Journal of Industrial Relations. A book
examining performance pay in eight countries (Paying for Performance: An International
Comparison) was published in 2002 (with John S. Heywood).
Address: Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Economics and
Commerce, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, 3010.
E-mail: [email protected]

Date submitted July 2005

Date accepted August 2006

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

View publication stats