The Impact of Management Development Practices on Organizational Commitment

• Published date: 01 May 2016
• Date: 01 May 2016
• Author: Jie Cao,Monika Hamori
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21731

Human Resource Management, May–June 2016, Vol. 55, No. 3. Pp. 499–517

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21731

Correspondence to: Monika Hamori, IE Business School, IE University, 4 Alvarez de Baena, Madrid 28006 Spain,

Phone: +34 91 568 9600, Fax: +34 91 563 2214, E-mail: monika.hamori@ie.edu

THE IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT

DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES ON

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

JIE CAO AND MONIKA HAMORI

Social exchange theorists argue that organizations that provide developmen-

tal assignments raise employee commitment. But such assignments may also

undermine commitment by increasing the recipients’ value in the external labor

market. We compare the effect of developmental assignments on organizational

commitment with that of other development practices: coaching, mentoring,

training, and support from the direct superior and senior management. We also

test whether synergies arise when developmental assignments are combined

with the other development practices. Using a sample of 312 highly skilled pro-

fessionals working in over sixty countries, in a variety of industries and fi rms of

various sizes, we fi nd that developmental assignments are the strongest driver

of organizational commitment, together with support from senior management.

The positive relationship between developmental assignments and organiza-

tional commitment is weaker in the presence of other development practices.

©2015Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: management development, developmental assignments, organiza-

tional commitment

Highly skilled managers who can adapt to

changing situations, manage multiple

lateral relationships, and set and imple-

ment agendas are a key source of firms’

competitive advantage. With about 70

percent of managerial skills being acquired through

on-the-job experiences (Robinson & Wick, 1992),

developmental assignments (i.e., the develop-

ment of employee skills and abilities through

challenging job assignments or job-related experi-

ences) are the major source of managerial learn-

ing, more important than other development

practices such as training (McCauley, Ruderman,

Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994). Organizations report

that developmental assignments are among their

three most effective development methods, after

in-house development programs and coaching

(CIPD, 2012).

At the same time, developmental assignments

boost recipients’ employability in the external

labor market by increasing their human capital:

on-the-job learning, leadership skills, and mana-

gerial competencies (Becker, 1962; DeRue &

Wellman, 2009; Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, & Oh,

2009; Preenen, De Pater, Van Vianen, and Keijzer,

2011). As a result, recipients may lose focus on

their jobs while searching for external opportuni-

ties and may even leave. Given that organizations

invest considerable money, time, and effort in hir-

ing and developing their managers, it is important

to understand how to safeguard this investment.

It is also important for organizations to ensure

500 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2016

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Comparing the impact

of developmental

assignments on

organizational

commitment with

that of mentoring,

coaching, training,

and support from the

direct supervisor and

senior management

controls for the

presence of the other

approaches and helps

HRM professionals

identify the practices

that are the most

likely to increase

organizational

commitment.

The Aims of This Article

We contribute to the literature on management

development practices and organizational com-

mitment in four ways: First of all, we test the effect

of developmental assignments on organizational

commitment. The relationship between these two

concepts has not been empirically tested before,

even though developmental assignments are the

most common method of management develop-

ment and organizational commitment is a key

work-related outcome.

Second, we measure the comparative effects

(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) of developmen-

tal assignments and five other commonly used

management development practices on orga-

nizational commitment. This comparison is

important because organizations rarely use devel-

opmental assignments in isolation. Most corpo-

rate management development efforts combine

several approaches. Previous research, however,

either has not distinguished between the various

approaches (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003)—thus

giving no usable guidance to HRM practitioners—

or has addressed the effect of a single practice.

Comparing the impact of developmental assign-

ments on organizational commitment with that

of mentoring, coaching, training, and support

from the direct supervisor and senior manage-

ment controls for the presence of the other

approaches and helps HRM professionals identify

the practices that are the most likely to increase

organizational commitment.

Third, we test how the previously listed vari-

ous development practices moderate the rela-

tionship between developmental assignments

and organizational commitment. The few stud-

ies that have examined moderators in the rela-

tionship between development practices and

organizational commitment have looked only at

individual attributes such as volition (Ehrhardt,

Miller, Freeman, & Hom, 2011) or individual

learning and performance orientations (Maurer

& Lippstreu, 2008), on the argument that the

value of an organizational reward, and therefore

commitment, depends on individual preferences

(Ehrhardt etal., 2011). Our article is the first to

look at moderators that are tied not to individu-

als, but to organizations. Fourth, we compare the

strength of various moderation effects. Our analy-

ses of the interaction effects are of utmost impor-

tance for HRM practitioners because they indicate

what combination of management development

practices most strongly affects organizational

commitment. In sum, we aim to link develop-

mental assignments to a yet unexplored outcome

variable, organizational commitment, and we

that recipients will be motivated to use the knowl-

edge and skills developed through these assign-

ments. One way to attain these two objectives is

to maintain or increase recipients’ organizational

commitment after development efforts.

We define organizational commitment as

individuals’ emotional attachment to, iden-

tification with and involvement in an organi-

zation (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). We

focus on affective commitment, i.e., employ-

ees’ willingness to continue in an organiza-

tion because they “want to,” as

opposed to because they “need

to” or “ought to do so” (Meyer &

Allen, 1991, p. 67). Organizational

commitment is a key outcome

for organizations to track after

development efforts, since it sig-

nificantly predicts not only vol-

untary turnover (Koch & Steers,

1978; Porter, Steers, Mowday, &

Boulian, 1974), but also dedication

to work and organizational effec-

tiveness in general (Meyer, Stanley,

Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002;

Van Dierendonck & Jacobs, 2010).

Yet researchers so far have not

examined the relationship between

developmental assignments and

recipients’ organizational commit-

ment. Extant research on develop-

mental assignments has explored

either its antecedents (Preenen,

Van Vianen, & De Pater, 2014),

most commonly, gender (De Pater,

Van Vianen, & Bechtoldt, 2010;

De Pater, Van Vianen, Fischer,

& Van Ginkel, 2009; Ohlott,

Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994), or

certain specific consequences, most

impor tantly the managerial and

leadership skills developed (DeRue

& Wellman, 2009; Dragoni et al.,

2009) and respondents’ subsequent

perceived promotability (De Pater,

Van Vianen, Bechtoldt, & Klehe,

2009; McCauley et al., 1994) or advancement

potential (Dong, Seo, & Bartol, 2014). Meyer and

Allen (1988) and Dixon, Cunningham, Sagas,

Turner, and Kent (2005) linked a related concept,

job challenge, to organizational commitment, but

their two-item scale captured the “excitement”

and “challenge” provided by jobs to improve

employee morale rather than the amount of

development from task and job characteristics,

as the measure by McCauley and colleagues

(1994) does.1