外文翻譯---什么是忠誠(chéng)

1、<p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)</b></p><p>　　What's Loyalty? </p><p>　　Michael J. Withey 1 and William H. Cooper </p><p>　　Loyalty in organizations has proved difficult to predi

2、ct. One reason is that loyalty is complex and poorly understood. We report two studies that attempt to understand and predict loyalty by focusing on two components of the construct: active-constructive loyalty and passiv

3、e-constructive loyalty. In the first study, we found that active acts of loyalty were predicted by variables quite different from those that predicted passive loyalty. The second study found that people identified by pee

4、rs as </p><p>　　KEY WORDS: loyalty ; commitment; active; passive.</p><p>　　INTRODUCTION </p><p>　　What is loyalty? In this article, we will suggest some ways to consider this qu

5、estion. Our starting point is Hirschman's (1970) treatment of exit, voice, and loyalty. Hirschman offers exit and voice as distinct responses when firms, organizations, and states are facing decline. What Hirschman m

6、eans by loyalty is less clear. He first refers to loyalty as a form of attachment that makes voice more attractive when exit is available (Hirschman, 1970, p. 77). He describes loyalty as the product of (p</p><

7、;p>　　Other treatments of loyalty have also been varied. They include, for example, Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, and Mainous's (1988) characterization of loyalty as pas- sive-constructive behavior (e.g., being quietly

8、 supportive and being patient); Kolar- ska and Aldrich's (1980) work, which, referring to the response, "silence" rather than loyalty; and Graham's (1990) discussion of loyalty as an attitude without an

9、y behavioral component. </p><p>　　These depictions of loyalty mirror the ambiguity of the construct in ordinary language. We sometimes speak of loyalty as an attitude, other times of loyalty as behavior. Wit

10、hin the loyalty behavior domain, there are both active elements (doing things that are supportive of someone or something) and passive elements (being quiet while exhibiting patient forbearance). In the present research,

11、 we will consider loyalty as a behavior and discuss the attitudinal elements of loyalty in terms of organiz</p><p>　　Summary of the Loyalty Literature </p><p>　　Recently, several studies have co

12、nsidered Hirschman's loyalty construct. Far- reU (1983) classified exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect with the use of multidimensional scaling techniques. This study measured loyalty in passive terms, such as "qu

13、ietly doing my job and letting higher-ups make the decisions," and found that loyalty is indeed conceptually separable from the other responses. Loyalty, however, did not conform exactly to expectations, being shown

14、 to be passive (as expected) but slightly</p><p>　　nature of the loyalty construct and how to measure it.</p><p>　　Loyalty has been investigated in two recent studies of exit, voice and loyalty.

15、 In the first, Rusbult et al. (1988) found support for investment model predictions of loyalty. Specifically, loyalty was more likely to occur under conditions of high prior satisfaction, high investments, and relatively

16、 few alternatives. This view of loy- alty is consistent with a passive, constructive construct. In the second study, Withey and Cooper (1989) found quite different results. Loyalty was associated with </p><p&g

17、t;　　The measurement problem has been described by Cooper, Dyke, and Kay (1990) in terms of construct validity: loyalty has been operationalized in ways that do not match the loyalty construct. While loyalty is defined as

18、 supporting the or-ganization, items used to measure loyalty are too narrow and do not conform to most people's notion of support. The Cooper, Dyke, and Kay study used the act frequency methodology (Buss & Craik,

19、 1983) to assess the prototypicality of a num- </p><p>　　ber of acts of loyalty, including the acts used by Farrell (1983) to measure loyalty. Interestingly, the three items used in both the Farrell and the

20、Withey and Cooper studies cited above (e.g., "say nothing to others and assume things will work out") ranked 99th, 101st, and 102nd among 103 acts of loyalty. More prototypical were acts such as "give some

21、thing extra when the organization needs it" (lst) and "do things above and beyond the call without being asked" (4th). </p><p>　　The Cooper et al. study supports the claim that there is a cons

22、truct validity problem and suggests that previous research on loyalty has left much of the domain of loyalty unassessed. One promising way to approach this problem is to make a distinction between active and passive loya

23、lty. This distinction was first raised by Farrell (1983) in categorizing the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect responses, but it may also prove useful in interpreting loyalty. The distinction between active and passiv<

24、;/p><p>　　In summary, more attention is needed at both the conceptual and the mea-surement level. On the conceptual level, loyalty needs to be investigated as both active and passive (and possibly as both const

25、ructive and destructive, again following Farrell's categorization). On the measurement level, distinct measures of the dif- ferent forms of loyalty are necessary. The present research is designed to begin to answer t

26、hese needs.</p><p>　　Goals of the Present Research </p><p>　　To begin the investigation of active and passive loyalty, the present research poses the following general questions. First, can diff

27、erential predictors of active- constructive and passive-constructive loyalty be identified? Second, what is the re- lationship between active and passive loyalty and to what extent are they related over time? Third, in w

28、hat ways are the actions of people who are defined as loyal different from actions of people who are defined as not being loyal? Two studies were c</p><p><b>　　STUDY 1 </b></p><p>　　

29、The first study is a cross-sectional study which measures the different forms of loyalty and a set of independent variables that are thought to predict loyalty. Because Study 1 is a follow-up study on the sample reported

30、 by Withey and Cooper (1989), it is possible to assess relationships among active and passive loyalty over a six-year time lapse. It is also possible to conduct a six-year longitudinal study of the predictors of active a

31、nd passive loyalty. </p><p>　　Methodology </p><p>　　Data were collected during the summer of 1990 through a survey mailed to those graduates of the Queen's University Bachelor of Commerce pr

32、ogram who had, in 1984, participated in the study reported by Withey and Cooper (1989). Of the 360 potential respondents, 210 returned their questionnaires representing a re- sponse rate of 58.0%. Sixty-eight percent of

33、the respondents were male, all had undergraduate degrees, their average age was approximately 33 and their average work experience was approxi</p><p>　　Descriptive statistics for all measures appear in Table

34、 I. All, excepting locus of control which uses a 23-item forced choice format, are 5-point Likert scales. The independent variables were measured in terms of agreement with the statement; the loyalty measures were based

35、on frequency of engaging in the behavior. With the exceptions noted below, all scales achieved a satisfactory level of interitem re-liability. Low internal consistency would be expected to attenuate correlation coef- fic

36、ients</p><p>　　A total of nine independent variables was included. "Exit costs" include skill specificity (e.g., "My present job involves skills which would be useful in many other organizatio

37、ns," reversed) and sunk costs (e.g., "If I left this job, my pension plan losses would be significant."), which are both aspects of Becker's (1960) side bets, and investments (Rusbult et aL, 1988). The

38、 sunk costs scale had low internal con-sistency. "Voice costs" asked about the effort required to bring about change and t</p><p>　　Analysis was conducted by using correlations and regression analy

39、sis to assess the ability of the independent variables to predict each form of loyalty. Further, correlations between independent variables and loyalty measured in 1984 and forms of loyalty measured in 1990 are reported.

40、 Several independent variables were associated with passive loyalty (see Table II). The passive loyalist emerged as being dissatisfied and uncommitted, having a relatively external locus of control, and facing high </

41、p><p>　　Finally, the zero-order correlation between the two forms of loyalty is negative and significant .Because the present study is a follow-up of an earlier study, it is possible to present six-year longitu

42、dinal results. All measures described above (except active loyalty) were measured in the earlier study. In spite of the long time lag, a strong positive correlation was found between passive loyalty in 1984 and in 1990 ,

43、 and a negative correlation was found between passive loyalty in 1984 and acti</p><p>　　Further, some modest correlations were found between the independent vari-ables measured in 1984 and both forms of loya

44、lty measured in 1990. Specifically, passive loyalty was negatively related to belief in the possibility of improvement, organizational commitment , and locus of control , and positively related to skill specificity . Act

45、ive loyalty was related only to skill specificity . </p><p>　　Study 1 provides clear evidence for two distinct types of loyalty. First, the findings for passive loyalty that Withey and Cooper (1989) reported

46、 as counterin- tuitive were replicated. The earlier study had expected to find loyalty as a passive but essentially supportive behavior; instead loyalty emerged as something that re-sembled entrapment rather than support

47、. Loyalty as entrapment was found in the present study as well, but a more constructive and active form was identified as an </p><p>　　alternative behavior. The contribution of Study 1, then, is to distingui

48、sh between two types of loyalty and to demonstrate that each is associated with different in- dividual characteristics. These findings appear more robust when it is realized that at least some of them hold over a six-yea

49、r time lag. </p><p>　　The results suggest future directions for research. In particular, it becomes necessary to relate the different forms of loyalty to other behavioral constructs within the exit, voice, a

50、nd loyalty framework. While passive loyalty resembles ne-glect, active loyalty resembles voice. Such relationships need clarification in future research.</p><p>　　In addition, the loyalty typology could be b

51、roadened to investigate constructive and destructive forms of loyalty as well. Given that clear differences have been found between active and passive loyalty, there is reason to expect that loyalty is a multi-dimensiona

52、l construct. The potential exists to identify four distinct types of loyalty, each with its own unique characteristics. For example, the active constructive type of loyalty might resemble voice while passive constructive

53、 loyalty would b</p><p><b>　　STUDY 2 </b></p><p>　　Study 2 is designed to assess whether people who are perceived as loyal en-gage in different acts than do people who are perceived

54、as not being loyal. In essence, the study asks what it is that loyal people do that defines them as loyal. </p><p>　　To assess differences between employees with high and low loyalty, 200 questionnaires were

55、 mailed to recent graduates of Queen's University's School of Business. One hundred questionnaires asked respondents to think of a target person who, to them, typified high organizational loyalty (defined for res

56、pondents as pro- viding support for the organization, including active and passive support); the remaining 100 questionnaires asked respondents to think of a target person who, to them, typified low</p><p>　

57、　Sixty-three per cent of the respondents were male. The average age of the respondents was 35.4 years and they had an average work experience of 11.8 years. The respondent had observed his or her target person for an ave

58、rage of 5.4 years. The average age and organizational tenure of the target persons were 39.6 and 10.0 years, respectively. Eighty-three percent of the target persons were male. </p><p>　　The questionnaire co

59、ntained, among other things, 105 behavioral acts. The acts included the 100 loyalty acts reported in Cooper et al.'s act frequency study (1990), Farrelrs (1983) three items, and two test acts designed to detect carel

60、ess respondents. </p><p>　　The analysis was designed to allow the identification of loyalty acts that dif- ferentiated between high and low loyalty. Comparisons were made to determine which items had signifi

61、cantly different scores for high- and low-loyalty target persons. All 105 acts were included in the analysis. Thus, the analysis will determine which active and/or passive acts of loyalty distinguish people who are loyal

62、 from those who are not. </p><p>　　The results indicate that a clear pattern was found regarding which of the 105 acts differentiated between high- and low-loyalty target persons. In particular, the acts tha

63、t were best able to differentiate were those that were in the top quartile of the Cooper et al. (1990) prototypicality study, that is, the most prototypical loyalty acts. Of the 10 most prototypical acts, all are clearly

64、 active in nature (and three comprised the active loyalty measure in Study 1) and all differentiated between</p><p>　　None of the three acts used to measure passive loyalty in Study 1 (those adapted from Far

65、rell, 1983) nor the two test acts were able to differentiate people described as loyal from those described as not loyal. The failure of the test acts to differentiate lends credibility to the methodology employed in Stu

66、dy 2; the failure of the passive loyalty acts to differentiate will be discussed below. </p><p>　　The results of Study 2 must be considered in only a tentative way because of the small sample size. Nonethele

67、ss, the clear pattern of the results, given the small sample, lends them credibility. The results of Study 2 are consistent with Buss and Craik's (1983) idea of validity gradients. For Buss and Craik, the centrality

68、of acts for a domain is indexed by the act's prototypicality: the higher the prototypicality, the more central the act is to the domain. When acts are central, they are more r</p><p>　　An implication is

69、that central acts will have a higher construct validity than will acts at the periphery. This is precisely what we found. The top 25 acts all differed in the predicted direction for high- and low-loyalty individuals. The

70、 middle quartiles differed less, and the acts in the bottom quartile were the least successful. In addition, the Farrell acts (which ranked very low in prototypicality) did not differentiate between high and low loyalist

71、s. </p><p>　　Thus, the more central the acts were, the more likely they were to be per- formed more by high loyalists than low loyalists. This was not true for the peripheral acts of loyalty, including the t

72、hree Farrell acts. These results are as predicted by Buss and Craik's validity gradient concept. They point to the usefulness of the act frequency method as a basis for developing measures of organizational behaviors

73、, including loyalty. </p><p>　　The results of Study 2 increase our confidence in both the measures of loyalty used in Study 1 and our ability to predict the different forms of loyalty. Further, the distincti

74、on between active and passive loyalty made in Study 1 ig supported. Finally, because the most prototypical acts are much more active than the least prototypical acts, the conclusion can be drawn that it is active and not

75、 passive loyalty that is used by observers to determine loyalty in co-workers. </p><p>　　The two studies reported in this article begin to distinguish between active and passive forms of loyalty. In Study 1,

76、 it was shown that active loyalty and passive loyalty are associated with different individual characteristics. In Study 2, it was shown that only the loyalty items that are central to the loyalty construct, that is, loy

77、alty acts that are active, are able to distinguish loyal people from people who are not loyal. This distinction is an important step in the development of our un-</p><p><b>　　什么是忠誠(chéng)?</b></p>

78、<p>　　邁克爾·j . Withey 1和威廉·h·庫(kù)珀</p><p>　　忠誠(chéng)于組織已被證明是難以預(yù)測(cè)的。原因之一是,忠誠(chéng)是復(fù)雜和難以理解。我們報(bào)告兩項(xiàng)研究,試圖理解和預(yù)測(cè)忠誠(chéng)著眼于柔性的兩部分。在最初的研究中,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)積極行為的預(yù)測(cè)變量的忠誠(chéng)度,預(yù)測(cè)不同被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)。第二項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)人們識(shí)別的同學(xué)，員工進(jìn)行更多的積極套忠誠(chéng)比那些被確認(rèn)為low-loyalty員工。

79、我們認(rèn)為雙方組成的忠誠(chéng)。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞: 忠誠(chéng); 承諾; 主動(dòng); 被動(dòng)</p><p><b>　　介紹</b></p><p>　　什么是忠誠(chéng)?在這篇文章中,我們將提出一些方法來(lái)考慮這個(gè)問(wèn)題。我們的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是Hirschman的(1970)治療退出,聲音,和忠誠(chéng)度。Hirschman提供出口和聲音是截然不同的反應(yīng),企業(yè)、組

80、織和國(guó)家正面臨著衰退。什么Hirschman意味著忠誠(chéng)的關(guān)系尚不清楚。他指的是忠誠(chéng)的,作為一種連線,使聲音時(shí),出口更具吸引力,1970年,Hirschman(p。第77條)。他描述了忠誠(chéng)的產(chǎn)物(主要是經(jīng)濟(jì)因素的個(gè)體,使出口昂貴的組織和降低的聲音。有時(shí),Hirschman描述作為一種態(tài)度忠誠(chéng)影響程度進(jìn)行出口和聲音的使用。在其他時(shí)候他講的忠誠(chéng)是作為一種行為的個(gè)體見(jiàn)sub -端口的組織。</p><p>　　其他療法也

81、被不同的忠誠(chéng)。他們包括,例如,Rusbult,法瑞爾,羅杰斯和Mainous的(1988)的行為,如不e忠誠(chéng)(例如,支持和病人安靜;Kolar - ska(1980年),這里的工作,它的回應(yīng),"沉默”,而不是“忠誠(chéng)、格雷厄姆(1990)討論的忠誠(chéng)作為一種態(tài)度沒(méi)有任何動(dòng)作組成。</p><p>　　這些描寫(xiě)的忠誠(chéng)的鏡子里曖昧的構(gòu)建普通語(yǔ)言。我們有時(shí)會(huì)說(shuō)話的忠誠(chéng)度,有時(shí)作為一種態(tài)度忠誠(chéng)的行為。在忠誠(chéng)行為領(lǐng)域

82、,既有積極因素(在那些支持某人或某事)和被動(dòng)元件(安靜同時(shí)展出的病人寬容)。在目前的研究中,我們會(huì)考慮忠誠(chéng)為行為和討論態(tài)度的元素的組織承諾的忠誠(chéng),定義為共享價(jià)值觀的公司(波特.讓,1974年)。進(jìn)一步,我們將努力使我們的理解忠誠(chéng)的行為之間的區(qū)別主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)元件的忠誠(chéng)。</p><p>　　最近幾項(xiàng)研究已經(jīng)被認(rèn)為是Hirschman的忠誠(chéng)。目前拉(1983)的分類(lèi),出口,聲音,忠誠(chéng),而忽視了用多維尺度的技巧。本研究中

83、測(cè)量的忠誠(chéng)度,諸如“被動(dòng)靜靜地做我的工作,并讓上級(jí)做出的決定,”和發(fā)現(xiàn)的忠誠(chéng)是確實(shí)從其他反應(yīng)。離忠誠(chéng),但并不完全符合預(yù)期時(shí),被證明是被動(dòng)的(如預(yù)期的那樣),但是稍微破壞性的組織(不是有建設(shè)性的,如預(yù)期的那樣)。這個(gè)意想不到的情形,sification cla在后續(xù)的研究,忠誠(chéng)的真正問(wèn)題提出了質(zhì)疑大自然的構(gòu)建和如何衡量它。</p><p>　　忠誠(chéng)已被調(diào)查在最近的兩項(xiàng)研究的聲音和忠誠(chéng)度。出口,首先,Rusbult等

84、。(1988)發(fā)現(xiàn)支持投資模型的預(yù)測(cè)的忠誠(chéng)。確切地說(shuō),忠誠(chéng)是更容易發(fā)生前的條件下,高滿意度較高,相對(duì)較少的投資選擇。這種觀點(diǎn)是一致的,alty何來(lái)是被動(dòng)的,也有建設(shè)性的建構(gòu)。在第二項(xiàng)研究,Withey和庫(kù)珀(1989)發(fā)現(xiàn)截然不同的結(jié)果。忠誠(chéng)與滿意度、低前低投資、低組織承諾,外部?jī)?nèi)外控,信仰的改善情況不太可能。沒(méi)有重新關(guān)系與選擇。因此,忠實(shí)呈現(xiàn)出一種清晰破壞性的外觀。這些結(jié)果導(dǎo)致Withey和庫(kù)珀看起來(lái)都一樣的測(cè)量和觀念化忠誠(chéng)的解釋。&

85、lt;/p><p>　　庫(kù)珀等研究支持這個(gè)聲稱(chēng)有一個(gè)建構(gòu)效度的問(wèn)題和建議以前的研究在忠誠(chéng)的還有很多領(lǐng)域的忠誠(chéng)。一個(gè)有前途的辦法來(lái)解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題是對(duì)這兩方面加以區(qū)分:主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)。這是首次提出的法瑞爾(1983)出境,聲音分類(lèi),忠誠(chéng),而忽視了反應(yīng),但是它也可以用于解釋的忠誠(chéng)。主動(dòng)與被動(dòng)的區(qū)別也明顯的物品時(shí),庫(kù)柏研究等。(1990)。那是一個(gè)關(guān)鍵的區(qū)別,法瑞爾項(xiàng)目和忠誠(chéng)地忠誠(chéng)度項(xiàng)目就是前者是活躍的,而后者是消極的。&l

86、t;/p><p>　　綜上所述,更注重的是需要在概念和測(cè)量水平。在這個(gè)概念的層次,忠誠(chéng)需要研究既是主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)(可能是破壞性的,又都有建設(shè)性的,下面的法瑞爾的分類(lèi))。在測(cè)量水平,不同的措施進(jìn)行不同形式的忠誠(chéng)度,是必要的。本研究旨在回答這些需求。</p><p>　　開(kāi)始調(diào)查的主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng),本研究提出下列問(wèn)題。首先,可微分的預(yù)測(cè),活躍——建設(shè)性忠誠(chéng)確認(rèn)嗎?第二,什么是再保險(xiǎn)——主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)忠誠(chéng)度

87、之間的關(guān)系到什么程度就相關(guān)?第三,在哪些方面是行動(dòng)的人定義為不同的行為忠誠(chéng)的人被定義為不忠誠(chéng)?兩項(xiàng)研究來(lái)解決這些問(wèn)題。</p><p><b>　　研究1</b></p><p>　　第一個(gè)研究是一個(gè)橫斷面研究方法的不同形式的忠誠(chéng)和一套獨(dú)立變量,它被認(rèn)為是預(yù)測(cè)的忠誠(chéng)。由于書(shū)房是后續(xù)研究樣本W(wǎng)ithey報(bào)告和庫(kù)珀(1989),它是可能的,來(lái)評(píng)估主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)忠誠(chéng)度之間的關(guān)系

88、,并在六年的時(shí)間間隔。它也可以進(jìn)行了六年的縱向研究的主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)。</p><p>　　“信仰”的可能性,提高測(cè)量的措施9-item稱(chēng)為雜合-國(guó)家的迅速接受新事物的能力去改變(如,“這辦公室組織如此接受員工的輸入”)和Graen,Liden,Hoers(1982)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)成員關(guān)系/?！肮ぷ鳚M意”是用Brayfield測(cè)量及大型的(1951年),18-item規(guī)模?！皟?nèi)外控”,應(yīng)用Rotter(1966年)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

89、23-item強(qiáng)迫選擇工具?！傲俊钡慕M織承諾用波特等的(1974年)?？蛇x擇的“工作”是用兩項(xiàng)衡量?jī)r(jià)格和Bluedorn(1979年)的規(guī)模,指的是比目前的工作?！蓚€(gè)從屬變量都包括在內(nèi)?！氨粍?dòng)的忠誠(chéng)”是測(cè)量法瑞爾的(1983)3-item測(cè)量、適應(yīng)指忠實(shí)行為的發(fā)生率工作背景。這3項(xiàng)組成的規(guī)模是“耐心地等待著,希望能解決任何問(wèn)題,”“悄悄地在做自己的工作,讓上級(jí)做出的決定,”和“什么也沒(méi)有說(shuō)到別人,假設(shè)的事情就會(huì)順利了。”就像之前提到的

90、,這些物品都有很低的典型性評(píng)級(jí)?！胺e極的忠誠(chéng)”是用測(cè)3-item規(guī)模等?；趲?kù)珀的行為研究。頻率基于篩選項(xiàng)目和缺乏概念中退出,聲音,而忽視了。這3項(xiàng)組成的規(guī)模是:“給一些額外的組織需要時(shí),“把公司的信息嚴(yán)格保密,”和“做事情超出了電話。</p><p>　　忠誠(chéng)度項(xiàng)目提交因素分析。雙結(jié)構(gòu)清晰浮現(xiàn)。第一個(gè)因素包括三個(gè)被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)度項(xiàng)目(因子載荷五花八門(mén),從0.71,0.79);第二個(gè)因素包括三個(gè)忠誠(chéng)度項(xiàng)目(因子載荷五

91、花八門(mén),從0.61,0.77)。交叉因子載荷0.20或以下。這個(gè)因素分析論證,忠誠(chéng)是截然不同的。然而,兩種方式的忠誠(chéng)有相對(duì)較低的內(nèi)在的一致性。進(jìn)一步了解所有,但最后的測(cè)量,可以發(fā)現(xiàn),在Withey和庫(kù)珀(1989年);進(jìn)一步了解過(guò)去的測(cè)量,可以發(fā)現(xiàn),在庫(kù)柏等。(1990)。通過(guò)相關(guān)性分析和回歸分析評(píng)估獨(dú)立變量預(yù)測(cè)的各種形式的忠誠(chéng)。進(jìn)一步的,獨(dú)立變量之間的相關(guān)關(guān)系,忠誠(chéng)于1984年,測(cè)測(cè)忠誠(chéng)于1990年被報(bào)道。幾個(gè)獨(dú)立變量是被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)(見(jiàn)

92、圖表)。作為被動(dòng)的親信出現(xiàn)不滿和中立,有一個(gè)相對(duì)外部?jī)?nèi)外控、面對(duì)高昂的成本的變化,似乎不可能。此結(jié)果組型復(fù)制的結(jié)果Withey和庫(kù)珀(1989)。</p><p>　　結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)不同的活躍的忠誠(chéng)?；钴S的忠誠(chéng)是具有高的承諾——ciated亢戰(zhàn)副教授赴和滿意,認(rèn)為情況是有可能得以改善的成本,而不是被動(dòng)的行動(dòng)。確切地說(shuō),活躍的忠誠(chéng)與出口成本(即高心理、投資),但是經(jīng)濟(jì)出口成本(例如,技能的特異性,沉沒(méi)成本)和低成本的聲音

93、。值得注意的是,大部分的獨(dú)立變量的跡象是不同的相關(guān)系數(shù)為主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)。</p><p>　　在回歸分析中,也有明顯區(qū)別的忠誠(chéng)。為被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)、內(nèi)外控、組織承諾有顯著,而活躍的忠誠(chéng)度貝慈,兩個(gè)出口成本與組織承諾是很重要的。值得注意的是,承諾進(jìn)入兩者的回歸方程,但相反的效果,增加活躍的忠誠(chéng),但減少消極的忠誠(chéng)。</p><p>　　最后,零級(jí)的相關(guān)性兩種形式的忠誠(chéng)是顯著的,因?yàn)槟壳暗难芯渴且豁?xiàng)

94、較早的研究中,隨訪是可能的結(jié)果呈現(xiàn)縱。所有上述措施(除了活躍的忠誠(chéng)度)在較早的研究。盡管長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的延遲,有很強(qiáng)的正相關(guān),忠誠(chéng)于1984年與消極1990年呈負(fù)相關(guān),與被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)度之間在1984年和活躍的忠誠(chéng)于1990年。不僅如此,一些適度的相關(guān)量之間的vari-ables獨(dú)立于1984年,兩種形式的忠誠(chéng)度。1990年測(cè)量確切地說(shuō),是被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng)信念的負(fù)相關(guān)的可能性、組織承諾及改善內(nèi)外控、正相關(guān)技術(shù)的特殊性?；钴S的忠誠(chéng)是相關(guān)的技巧只特異性。&l

95、t;/p><p>　　研究提供了明確的證據(jù),1兩種不同形式的忠誠(chéng)。首先,這項(xiàng)發(fā)現(xiàn)為被動(dòng)的忠誠(chéng),Withey和庫(kù)珀(1989)報(bào)道——克隆。早期的研究已經(jīng)試圖找到,但作為一種被動(dòng)忠誠(chéng),忠誠(chéng)的支持性行為而出現(xiàn)的東西,而不是支持誘捕。作為陷阱中發(fā)現(xiàn)了忠誠(chéng)本研究,但更有建設(shè)性的、主動(dòng)式被確認(rèn)為一可供選擇的行為。研究的貢獻(xiàn),是1,然后去區(qū)分兩種類(lèi)型的忠誠(chéng)和顯示每個(gè)與不同的特點(diǎn)。這些發(fā)現(xiàn)出現(xiàn)具有更強(qiáng)的魯棒性時(shí),它是意識(shí)到其中的一

96、些持有超過(guò)六年的時(shí)間延遲?！?lt;/p><p>　　結(jié)果表明,未來(lái)的研究方向。在特殊情況下,成為必要的不同形式的忠誠(chéng)度與其他行為建立在出口處,聲音,和忠誠(chéng)的框架。就像忠誠(chéng),而消極的聲音。就像活躍的忠誠(chéng)這樣的關(guān)系需要澄清在未來(lái)的研究方向。</p><p>　　此外,忠誠(chéng)可以拓寬了類(lèi)型學(xué)研究建設(shè)性和破壞性的忠誠(chéng)。鑒于明顯的差異已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)忠誠(chéng),有理由期待的忠誠(chéng)是一個(gè)多維構(gòu)建。識(shí)別可能存在的

97、四種不同形式的忠誠(chéng)度,每個(gè)人都有自己獨(dú)特的特點(diǎn)。例如,積極的建設(shè)性的類(lèi)型的忠誠(chéng),而消極的聲音可能會(huì)像忠誠(chéng)將相似建設(shè)性的想法Hirschman安靜的支持。被動(dòng)的破壞性的忠誠(chéng)度似乎就像疏忽,活躍的破壞性的忠誠(chéng),而難以構(gòu)思,可被視為違法行為,如執(zhí)行所建議的組織。</p><p><b>　　研究2</b></p><p>　　二是用來(lái)評(píng)估研究的患者是否在不同看作是忠誠(chéng)的行為

98、,而不是做那些被視為不忠誠(chéng)。在本質(zhì)上,書(shū)房要求是什么,人們做了他們的忠誠(chéng)。</p><p>　　評(píng)估員工之間的差異與高與低的忠誠(chéng)度,200問(wèn)卷寄到女大學(xué)剛畢業(yè)的學(xué)生,學(xué)校的業(yè)務(wù)。一百問(wèn)卷要求受訪者認(rèn)為目標(biāo)的人,對(duì)于他們來(lái)說(shuō),顯示高的組織忠誠(chéng)(定義為受訪者作為職業(yè)-瓦支持組織,包括主動(dòng)和被動(dòng)支護(hù));其余100問(wèn)卷調(diào)查想問(wèn)一個(gè)目標(biāo)的人,對(duì)于他們來(lái)說(shuō),顯示低組織的忠誠(chéng)。的受訪者問(wèn)如何頻繁的目標(biāo)的人從事各種不同的行為。包