Kurt Lewin (1947) described 3 responses to organizational change.
According to this model, the 3 components are (1) affective, (2) continuance, and (3) normative.
1. Affective commitment is a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent value.
2. Continuance commitment is a recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide support for the change.
3. Normative commitment is a sense of obligation to provide support for the change employees can feel bound to support a change because they want to, have to, and/or ought to.
The Limits of Scholarship
First, I would like to say that John Meyer, from the University of Western Ontario, should be commended with his work on this subject. Next, my job as a researcher is to look for gaps in his work and make it better. With that being said, I will refer back to this post frequently as I explain the many facets of my exploration of Meyer's concept.
My first issue is with the explanations. I do not think that "want to," "have to," and "ought to" describe one concept. In fact, I think they describe the 3 forms of commitment as contained in this model:
Want to = Affective
Have to = Continuance
Ought to = Normative
My main line of inquiry will be "which of these forms of commitment result in the highest level of sustainable performance?"
What do you think?
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-42.