{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01463860933211345, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01555352241537054, 'mean_word_length': 5.8375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Organizational Commitment and Employees' Performance Ratings: Both Type of Commitment and Type of Performance Count

This study, conducted in a Fortune 500 manufacturing organization, examined the relationship between employees' commitment and performance. Several months after 85 employees' affective and continuance commitment had been measured, their global job performance and four specific performance facets were rated by their supervisors. Affective commitment was related to two performance facets but was unrelated to the other two facets. Continuance commitment was unrelated to any of the performance facets. Neither type of commitment was related to global performance. Results were interpreted as suggesting that the link between organizational commitment and performance may depend on the extent to which motivation rather than ability underlies performance. These results, consistent with motivational frameworks offered by Vroom in 1964 and Katz and Kahn in 1978, also supported the distinction between affective and continuance commitment suggested by Meyer and Allen in 1991.