Relationship Between Lateness And Absenteeism

INTRODUCTION

Organizational commitment is essential for the attainment of the core objectives of a firm. Organizational commitment refers to the personal/ psychological connection between an employee and the organization. The employee-organization bond plays a significant role in helping the organization meet its operational objectives. Consequently, a more committed workforce is reported to be more satisfied with their job given their strong feeling of responsibility towards the mission of the organization. As a result, the employees often become more productive, adopt positive attitudes towards work, and engaged in the operations of the firm. In the effort to understand this concept, this paper explores how different researchers view, conceptualize,

(2006) also conceptualizes organizational commitment by seeking to create a relationship between contextual performance, lateness, and absenteeism. These behavioral features limit the employees ' input to the organization and are controllable elements, which are pegged and caused by the employees’ attitudes. By being late at work or being absent at work, Harrison, et al. (2006) says that it would be difficult to realize the forms of contextual performance because these employees will be spending less time at their workplaces. Therefore, Harrison, et al. creates the hypotheses that contextual performance is negatively related to lateness and

Riketta (2008) and Harrison, et al. (2006) assessed empirical research and review articles, which addressed these issues raised by Swailes (2002). To begin with, Riketta embraces a causal-effect approach in addressing Swailes issue on measurement and lack of commitment of the motives for commitment and their consequential effects. Riketta (2008) adopts the use of quantitative data to conduct a meta-analytic study on the subject of job attitude. Through the regression analysis, Riketta attempts to address the causal effect issues by establishing that the job attitudes of the employees have a strong effect on the organizational commitment of the employees and not on their satisfaction with their roles. Despite creating a base for understanding the causal-effect relationship, Riketta does not provide a clear explanation of the efficiency of the measurement methods used to determine the recommended level of organizational