Organizational commitment in the military: A discussion of theory and practice

It is both a pleasure and a challenge to discuss the body of work that appears in this issue of Military Psychology. Taken together, it encompasses a wide scope, both substantively and methodologically. Various commitment-related issues are addressed, including the conceptualization and assessment of work commitment among military personnel, its behavioral consequences for those personnel (and hence those they serve), and the impact on commitment of military policies and practices. Further, the research makes scientific and practical contributions, reminding us that the blending of the two is both possible and desirable within applied research. Finally, for military "outsiders" like me, the issue represents an opportunity to add to one's repertoire of acronyms, always a humbling experience. The following discussion is organized around four general themes. Three of these will be familiar to those who follow the commitment literature; the fourth is more specific to the military context. Within each theme, I offer a mix of observations about the relevant research, noting strengths, challenging assumptions, and raising specific questions. In addition, and rather more presumptuously, I identify directions that work commitment research in the military may usefully take in the future. Before beginning, I feel compelled to note my bias toward a three-component model of commitment that John Meyer and I developed several years ago. According to the model, the commitment an individual feels toward an entity, such as an organization, can be thought of in terms of three psychological ties that bind: emotional attachment (affective commitment [AC]), perceived costs associated with leaving (continuance commitment [CC]), and feelings of obligation (normative commitment [NC]). Further, it is argued that the three components of the commitment profile develop on the basis of different antecedents and, beyond their link with staying or leaving, have different consequences for behavior.