University of Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez
|
ISSN: 2309-8333
|
RNPS: 2411
|13(2) |2025|
This is an Open Access article under the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU
Scientific and technological
research article
How to cite:
Fernández Capote, Y., &
Espinosa Rodríguez, V. (2025). Workplace
and organizational commitment.
Conceptual analysis and strategic,
measurement alternative.
Estrategia y
Gestión Universitaria
, 13(2),
e8861.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17
237696
Received: 20/03/2025
Accepted: 26/05/2025
Published: 03/10/2025
Corresponding author:
yurif1978@gmail.com
Conflict of interest:
the authors declare
that they have no conflict of interest,
which may have influenced the results
obtained or the proposed interpretations
.
Workplace and organizational
commitment. Conceptual analysis and
strategic, measurement alternative
Compromiso laboral y organizacional.
Análisis conceptual y alternativa
estratégica de medición
Comprometimento laboral e
organizacional. Análise conceitual e
alternativa de medição estratégica
Abstract
Introduction: work and organizational commitment is an
intangible asset linked to human capital, which operates as a
management indicator. Its complexity and intrapersonal
variation require ongoing measurement to provide feedback
to comprehensive management control. Objective: to design
an alternative method for measuring work and organizational
commitment through the use of calculation bases that
integrate strategic, systemic, and multilevel approaches,
enabling the determination of indices that guide the strategic
management of this intangible.
Method: a quantitative,
descriptive, non-experimental approach was adopted,
combining bibliographic review with the application of the
representational approach within measurement theory, in
order to establish correlations between numerical units and
psychosocial qualities (multilevel key descriptors). Results:
the study identified: (1) weak recognition of the strategic
approach in the data collection used for measurement and
index determination of organizational commitment; (2)
omission of the multilevel nature of the phenomenon’s
expression; and (3) limited systemic and complex
understanding of the global organizational commitment index,
which illustrates the contradictory nature of its
manifestations. Conclusion: an alternative measurement of
organizational commitment is proposed, one that considers its
six (6) perspectives and two (2) manifestations, to better
guide the strategic management of this organizational
intangible.
Keywords: work and organizational commitment, multilevel
descriptors, measurement, index
Resumen
Introducción: el compromiso laboral y organizacional es un
intangible vinculado al capital humano, que opera como
indicador de gestión. Su complejidad y variación intrapersonal
exige medición permanente, para retroalimentar al control
integral de la gestión.
Yuri Fernández Capote
1
Universidad de Ciego de Ávila Máximo
Gómez Báez
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9540-4301
yurif1978@gmail.com
Cuba
Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez
2
Empresa CEPIL de Ciego de Ávila
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3902-5718
vivian@cepil.cuo.cu
Cuba
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria
|
ISSN
: 2309-8333
|
RNPS:
2411
13(2) | July-December |2025|
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
Objetivo:
diseñar una alternativa de medición del compromiso laboral y
organizacional, mediante el uso de bases de cálculo que articulan los enfoques
estratégico, sistémico y multinivel, para la determinación de índices que orienten
la gestión estratégica de este intangible.
Método:
asume un enfoque
cuantitativo, descriptivo, no experimental, con uso de revisión bibliográfica y
aplicación del enfoque representacional dentro de la teoría de la medición, para
establecer correlación entre unidades numéricas y cualidades psicosociales
(descriptores clave multinivel).
Resultados:
se identifica 1) un débil
reconocimiento al enfoque estratégico en la captura del dato utilizado en las
formas de medición y determinación de índices del compromiso organizacional;
2) omisión del carácter multinivel de expresión del fenómeno; y 3) pobre
comprensión sistémica y compleja del índice global de compromiso
organizacional, para ilustrar el carácter contradictorio de sus formas de
manifestación.
Conclusión:
se aporta una alternativa de medición del
compromiso organizacional que considera sus seis (6) perspectivas y dos (2)
manifestaciones para orientar la gestión estratégica de este intangible
organizacional.
Palabras clave:
compromiso laboral y organizacional, descriptores multinivel,
medición, índice
Resumo
Introdução: o comprometimento laboral e organizacional é um intangível
vinculado ao capital humano, que atua como indicador de gestão. Sua
complexidade e variação intrapessoal exigem medição contínua, a fim de
retroalimentar o controle integral da gestão. Objetivo: propor uma alternativa de
mensuração do comprometimento laboral e organizacional, por meio do uso de
bases de cálculo que articulem os enfoques estratégico, sistêmico e multinível,
permitindo a determinação de índices que orientem a gestão estratégica desse
intangível. Método: adotou-se uma abordagem quantitativa, descritiva e não
experimental, com revisão bibliográfica e aplicação do enfoque representacional
dentro da teoria da mensuração, para estabelecer correlação entre unidades
numéricas e qualidades psicossociais (descritores-chave multinível). Resultados:
identificou-se: (1) fraco reconhecimento do enfoque estratégico na captura dos
dados utilizados nas formas de mensuração e determinação de índices do
comprometimento organizacional; (2) omissão do caráter multinível de expressão
do fenômeno; e (3) compreensão sistêmica e complexa limitada do índice global
de comprometimento organizacional, ilustrando o caráter contraditório de suas
manifestações. Conclusão: apresenta-se uma alternativa de mensuração do
comprometimento organizacional que considera suas seis (6) perspectivas e duas
(2) manifestações, a fim de orientar a gestão estratégica desse intangível
organizacional.
Palavras-chave:
comprometimento laboral e organizacional, descritores
multinível, mensuração, índice
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
Introduction
Work and organizational commitment (WOC) is among the most studied
intangibles followed by strategic human talent management globally. In Cuba,
empirical systematization recognizing it as a management indicator is limited,
beyond its traditional acceptance as a performance indicator (Cuesta, 2020).
The few existing approaches respond more to academic interests than to
substantive transformations of institutional practices. There is a poor understanding
of its complexity and theoretical-methodological limitations for systematic
measurement due to its intangible and subjective nature. This justifies the
inadequate feedback on its status in the balanced scorecard, established as a
strategic control tool by the current management system based on science and
innovation (Díaz-Canel & Delgado, 2021). This does not imply that managers
undervalue it compared to other intangibles when assessing their results (Borrás &
Arango, 2020).
To comprehend it, it is necessary to overcome, among other things, the
complexities associated with its different levels and objectives or expressions, along
with the confusion with other closely related terms. Additionally, theoretical
contradictions arise from unidimensional (affective) and multidimensional
(cognitive-affective-behavioral) perspectives, the latter typical of psychosocial
analysis concerning the attitudinal phenomenon (van Rossenberga et al., 2022).
Regarding the former, consultation with artificial intelligence (Aichatting,
2025) highlights that among Spanish speakers, the term refers to the emotional
connection and dedication that employees feel toward their work and the
organization, delineating labor commitment from organizational commitment or
employee commitment. The former refers to the degree of identification with the
work, motivation, satisfaction, and attachment to job responsibilities, linked to
outstanding performance, positive attitude, and sense of belonging. The latter
pertains to the emotional and psychological bond with the organization, implying
loyalty, identification with values and goals, as well as a willingness to strive for its
success. The latter plays a significant role in contemporary research (van
Rossenberga et al., 2022).
To these descriptors of work and organizational commitment, other terms
derived from the interchangeable use of “job/employment/occupation” are
frequently added, as if they designated the same thing, even though they describe
various objectives or focal points of commitment (Klein et al., 2020; van Rossenberga
et al., 2022; Bracho Fuenmayor, 2022), whose individual and collective expressions
determine differentiated profiles of this phenomenon (Houle et al., 2024). Such
confusion is interpretable from a multilevel perspective, which includes and
differentiates these expressions within the broader organizational context.
Therefore, exclusive literature on organizational commitment is common
(Zaragoza Alvarado, 2024a, b; Abu Orabi et al., 2024), without implying a disregard
for the boundaries between these manifestations. In this paper, the adjectives are
used solely to highlight to the reader that both constitute multilevel manifestations
of the same phenomenon (Tisu et al., 2020; Prieto et al., 2021).
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
The proximity of meaning with other intangibles is notable. It is necessary
to distinguish it from other attitudes of relevant objectives and motivations within
the organization. Additionally, it must be differentiated from work obsession and
addiction, as it relates to happiness, well-being, and positive experiences, while the
aforementioned imply dissatisfaction and deterioration of health in the medium and
long term (Pinela & Armijos, 2022). This explains why WOC is a positive antithesis to
exhaustion, stress, and burnout at work (Soria et al., 2021; Bakker et al., 2023).
Table 1 shows constructs that favor conceptual overlap.
Table 1
Other constructs that require conceptual differentiation from WOC
No.
Construct
Difference
1
Engagement
A favorable, persistent motivational state characterized
by vigor, dedication, and absorption. It is total
immersion.
2
Identification
Psychological bond of belonging, the perception of
attachment.
3
Belonging
Emotional identification as part of a collective.
4
Membership
Considered a dimension of organizational commitment.
5
Affiliation
Emotional desire and need to belong.
6
Loyalty
Influenced by two processes: 1) cognitive, affecting
trust and WOC; 2) affective, manifested in involvement
and participation in the entity’s values and norms.
7
Consent Bond
Internalization of the subordinate role that leads the
worker to obey organizational norms.
8
Entrenchment
Bond
A sense of security that ensures compliance with
agreements between the worker and the organization.
9
Professional
Commitment
A favorable attitude toward the profession or vocation
that motivates performance.
Source: Compiled from Varela & Marín (2021); Soria et al. (2021); and van
Rossenberga et al. (2022).
Finally, confusions are stimulated by the unidimensional and
multidimensional stances adopted, limiting conceptual consensus (Oliveira &
Honório, 2020; Coronado et al., 2020; Ávila & Pascual, 2020). From these, at least
three (3) conceptual approaches/trends/pathways are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Main approaches/trends/pathways of WOC
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
No.
Approach
Interpretation
Authors
1
Sociological/
behavioral/
calculative/
instrumental/
cognitive
Describes it as an individual’s
participation in consistent lines
of activity and behavior.
Becker (1960), Ritzer &
Trice (1969), Hrebiniak &
Alutto (1972)
2
Psychological/
attitudinal/
value/
affective
Interprets it from three
perspectives (values, affects,
norms) as the individual's
involvement in organizational
behaviors, activities, and
practices,
reducing emerging
dissonances.
Kelman (1958); Kiesler
(1964); Kiesler & Sakumura
(1966); Porter et al. (1976);
Steers (1977); Weiner
(1982); Mowday et al.
(1982); Mottaz (1988);
Randall (1990); Randall &
Cote (1991); Morrow
(1993).
3
Complex/
combined/
multiple/
comprehensive
Based on social action theory,
combines the previous
approaches. Problems of
continuity (perception),
cohesion (affect), and social
control (moral authority) explain
different bases of influence and
commitment.
Kanter (1968); Stebbins
(1970); Allen & Meyer
(1990); Kahn (1990);
Randall & Cote (1991);
Cohen (2000); Corcoran
(2003).
Source: Compiled from Prieto et al. (2021); Pinela & Armijos (2022); Cuartas et al.
(2022); and van Rossenberga et al. (2022).
It is inferred that the theory of WOC, although extensive, is still young and
under development. Its evolution reflects a zigzagging and contradictory path, with
occasional parallels between unidimensional and multidimensional approaches,
currently favoring the latter. Multidimensional theories have existed since the 1960s,
but only began to solidify in the 1990s. The three-component model (normative,
continuity, and affective) proposed by Meyer & Allen (1991) is the most widely
accepted and integrates the three unidimensional approaches, marking a significant
turning point in comprehensive studies of WOC. Moreover, it serves as the reference
utilized in Báez et al. (2019) for designing the commitment management model in
Cuban enterprises.
However, the conceptual overlap between the affective and normative
components, along with the temporal distinction between attitude and behavior,
suggests that the normative component functions as a predisposition (attitude)
rather than a specific type of WOC. Consequently, six (6) bases of influence are
identified, of which three (3)—transaction, investment, and sacrifice—define an
instrumental predisposition that results in instrumental WOC; while the other three
(3)—values, moral obligation, and affection—stimulate the normative predisposition
that leads to attitudinal WOC. The latter is considered the more sophisticated form,
positively correlating with high performance (Oliveira & Honório, 2020; Ávila &
Pascual, 2020).
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
Following these contributions, WOC is interpreted as a complex subjective
production (individual and organizational), multidimensional and multilevel, shaped
as both individual and collective attitudes and capacities. It describes the
psychological engagement with the work and organizational reality, incorporating
emotional states and behaviors that reveal a continuous conflict between the
polarities: 1) instrumental/calculative—which includes perspectives a)
transactional, b) investment, and c) sacrifice—and 2) attitudinal/valuative—which
includes perspectives d) values, e) normative/obligation, and f)
affective/emotional. The latter exhibits the highest predictive power regarding
psychological attachment, loyalty, and the sense of belonging desired by the
organization (González & Mitjánz, 2021; Nava et al., 2022).
From this conceptualization, it follows that the methodology employed for
its measurement must address the shortcomings of current instruments in
recognizing the complex perspective that integrates strategic, systemic,
multidimensional, and multilevel aspects. The present approach addresses the
strategic by contextualizing the evaluation of the subject against shared goals; the
systemic and multidimensional by considering the contradictions, complexities, and
interrelations inherent in the bases of influence and manifestations of WOC; and the
multilevel by differentiating its expressions according to relational
domains/objectives in relation to performance.
The current digital transformation demands more collaborative
environments that incorporate new technologies for learning and knowledge, as well
as empowerment and collective participation (Díaz, 2020). WOC is positioned as an
intangible of strategic interest, making the demands for data on its state more
urgent in order to inform management. The aim is to design an alternative
measurement approach for WOC, utilizing calculation bases that articulate strategic,
systemic, and multilevel approaches, to determine indices that guide the
management of this intangible. The intention is to demonstrate the future use
opportunities of the proposal within information systems for intangibles supported
by new information and communication technologies.
Methods and materials
Following Sampieri & Mendoza (2023), this study adopts a quantitative
approach, emphasizing the guiding role of existing theory throughout the research
process and employing deductive reasoning (from the general to the specific). It is
also classified as a non-experimental descriptive study based on its epistemological
nature and scope.
General methods of documentary research, such as deductive and historical-
logical approaches, were employed to understand the conceptual and measurement
backgrounds of WOC. The bibliographic review technique was utilized, specifically
examining scientific articles and books, respecting the chronology of measurement
principles and recognizing the following moments: 1) analysis of existing and
influential measurement alternatives for WOC; 2) evaluation of the application of
strategic, systemic, and multilevel approaches in measuring WOC; and 3) design of
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
an alternative measurement for WOC that guides management through the
interpretation of a global index, sub-indices, matrices, and scales based on these
approaches.
The intangible nature of WOC and its connection to individual and collective
subjective production necessitate a psychosocial interpretation. This implies
recognizing methodological differences for determining metrics and calculating
indices. Tangible and intangible management indicators are distinguished by
acknowledging the indirect, mediated, potential, and cumulative action of the latter
compared to the former, as well as the infeasibility of applying traditional
operational metrics in their determination (Cuesta, 2021).
In this context, the representational approach of measurement theory is
proposed as an alternative to establish correlations between numerical units and
psychosocial qualities (key multilevel descriptors of WOC), a path increasingly
resonating within the research practices of social sciences, as a result of sustained
critiques of traditional measurement methods (González & Cañoto, 2023; Pineda,
2024).
The validation of the proposal will be achieved through a study with a
stratified probabilistic sample of 41 employees in an institution during the period
from May to October 2024.
Results and discussion
From a methodological standpoint, there is no consensus on the methods for
measuring WOC (Prieto et al., 2021; van Rossenberga et al., 2022). However, the
most commonly used methods are interviews, questionnaires, and direct observation
(Cuartas et al., 2022).
Various measurement scales have been developed based on theoretical
models. The three-dimensional model by Meyer & Allen (1991) provides a
questionnaire with three sub-scales translated into Spanish, encompassing the
typologies of affective, normative, and continuance commitment, which have been
well validated across America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (Báez et al., 2019).
Among the most recognized and utilized scales is the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES), proposed by Schaufeli et al. (2002), based on three
variables: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The Spanish version of this instrument
demonstrates adequate reliability but does not offer a global score for WOC (Prieto
et al., 2021).
Other well-known instruments include the Burnout Inventory by Maslach et
al. (1996), from which inverse scores are derived since WOC is considered the
opposite of burnout. Additionally, the Spanish version of the ISA Engagement Scale
by Soane et al. (2012) evaluates three variables: intellectual, emotional, and social,
the latter including shared aspects within the organization. From a unidimensional
affective perspective, the ESCOLA questionnaire, designed for Spanish-speaking
contexts, measures WOC as a relatively stable psychological state, using indicators
such as positive emotion regarding performance, attitude, willingness to invest
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
effort, and individual engagement in tasks (Prieto et al., 2021).
In the Latin American context, experiences with a six-variable questionnaire
(brand, leadership, performance, practice, work, and fundamentals) have emerged.
The first three are considered a differentiating group between adequate and
exceptional levels of WOC, while the latter three are included as a foundational
group with basic or structural elements. This modality serves as an alternative to
the well-known three-variable UWES questionnaire and is considered more precise
for evaluating the sources of WOC generation in employees (Soria et al., 2021).
Specifically, in Cuba, the study and measurement of WOC is limited. Notable
research includes studies by Cuesta (2016; 2020), Cuesta et al. (2018), and Báez et
al. (2019), the latter utilizing the scale by Meyer & Allen (1991). The research by
Cuesta (2016; 2020) develops mathematical formulations to translate the results of
the organizational support scale and the UWES (Eisenberger et al., 2002) into an
index (individual and collective). The commitment index, based on five variables
(identification with the organization’s mission and values, loyalty to senior
management, motivation to collaborate with management, willingness to work, and
credibility in the organization’s and its leaders’ aspirations), is contrasted with
performance using a balanced scorecard, providing insights for improvement to
managers.
A common aspect of these proposals is the use of variables/indicators—
generally partial as they do not exhaust the complexity of the phenomenon—assessed
by the subject using a Likert scale, which is then processed into metrics. In this
assessment, the multilevel expression (competence, individual, group, and
organizational) is often omitted, and seldom is the aspect-based evaluation
contrasted with the general assessment, which is a methodological requirement in
perceptual phenomena like WOC. The data collection often neglects or does not fully
contextualize the strategic framework, as this approach is not explicitly declared as
a reference for interpreting the meanings and relational interests with the
organization.
Such omissions introduce methodological biases and obscure differences in
WOC at the levels of job, performance area, and the organization as a cohesive
whole, in addition to promoting evaluations disconnected from strategic objectives,
thus depriving managers and academics of systemic interpretive opportunities.
Furthermore, measurements tend to be singular, ignoring the intrapersonal
variations of WOC, which lack references regarding minimum required
measurements, unlike other intangibles such as motivation, with new estimates
according to Navarro et al. (2022).
From these results arises the need to propose a strategic alternative for
establishing WOC metrics. The first step in this direction is to reduce the polysemy
of terms that describe at least a portion of the phenomenon (typologies, dimensions,
indicators, factors, pillars, components, variables, among others). To this end, a
proposal for key multilevel descriptors (KMD) is identified through piloting, which
articulates the parts related to WOC from a systemic perspective.
The theoretical review is contrasted with the subjective production of
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
individuals to delineate between the constitutive elements and the components that
describe WOC in terms of capacity (competence) to establish meaningful
connections, such as knowledge, skills, relational abilities, motivation, and
capability (Pereda et al., 2011). Alongside these are participation requirements such
as access, appropriation, aptitude, and perceived relational symmetry (Alonso &
Díaz, 2022; Martín, 2004). All of these serve as exclusive descriptors of the level of
WOC competence and reflect the advanced state of development of this intangible.
Subsequently, those descriptors with differentiated expressions at the
individual (job position), group (performance area), and organizational (institution)
levels are included. These encompass: 1) the six (6) bases of influence or
perspectives, the dominant type of predisposition—instrumental or normative—and
the types or manifestations of WOC; 2) the behavioral and discursive components of
WOC (Cuesta, 2020; Peralta et al., 2007); 3) human talent management practices
that operate as pillars of WOC (Báez et al., 2019; Oliveira and Honório, 2020); 4)
other high and low-order variables and factors that correlate with WOC (Nava et al.,
2022; Coronado et al., 2020); and 5) the states and behaviors of workers influenced
by WOC levels (Dávila and Jiménez, 2014).
Once the KMD have been identified, the next step is to associate the
typologies of WOC (instrumental/continuance and attitudinal/affective). The
calculation follows the methodology outlined by Acevedo & Gómez (2015), starting
with the assessment of the application state of the KMD by the subject, this time
alongside the importance for strategic goals, contextualizing this perception and
explicitly using the strategic approach in data capture. The subject’s evaluation
adheres to the same Likert scale originally stated by the aforementioned authors for
analyzing principles of successful managerial philosophy, with necessary
adjustments to the WOC metric, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Adapted Likert Scale for Measuring WOC
Numeric value
Qualitative
interpretation
Quantitative interpretation
(GIWOC)
1
“Very Low”
≤ 20%
2
“Low”
20% < GIWOC ≤ 40%
3
“Medium”
40% < GIWOC ≤ 60%
4
“High”
60% < GIWOC ≤ 80%
5
“Very High”
80% < GIWOC ≤ 100%
Source: Adapted from Acevedo & Gómez (2015)
Determining the global index (GIWOC) and associated sub-indices starts from
a calculation base that combines the arithmetic means or medians of the application
and importance data collected through the utilized instruments (interviews,
questionnaires, or others). The algorithm is as follows:
1- Calculate the sub-indices for instrumental (WOCi) and attitudinal (WOCa)
commitment, using the KMD that typify each manifestation of WOC.
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
IWOCi = fV (∑ (1-3) [VA * VI / VEmáx2] / TN) IWOCa = fV (∑ (1-
3) [VA * VI / VEmáx2] / TN)
Where:
• fV (factor of intrapersonal variation) expresses the standard
deviation according to the number of required or minimum
measurements needed to capture WOC.
• VA (arithmetic mean of the application value attributed by the
surveyed subject).
• VI (arithmetic mean of the importance value attributed by the
surveyed subject).
• VEmáx (maximum value of the scale used, in this case value 5).
• TN (Total number of levels analyzed).
2- Compare the sub-indices to determine the predominant type of WOC
(instrumental/continuance or attitudinal/affective) in the composition of the
GIWOC.
3- Determine the global index of WOC (GIWOC):
• GIWOC = [VA * VI / VEmáx2] * 100
4- Determine the variation of the GIWOC compared to the previous period.
• ∆ GIWOC = [(GIWOCP2 – GIWOCP1) / GIWOCP1] * 100
Where:
• ∆ GIWOC: variation or dynamics of the GIWOC (in %).
• GIWOCP2: Global index of the period being compared or planned
period.
• Global index of the reference/base period or actual performance.
5- Determine the priority index of the KMD (IPDCM) for a new strategic period.
Compare the IPDCM to previous periods and evaluate progress/regressions
by KMD.
IPDCM = (VEmáx – VA) * VI / (VEmáx2 – VEmáx) * 100
6- Position the institution strategically according to the maturity of the intangible,
using the WOC matrix and ladder.
Figure 1
Matrices and Ladder of WOC
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
Source: Developed from Acevedo & Gómez (2015)
The matrices combine application and importance values using the mean
value (3 points) as a reference to cross the axes and delineate the quadrants that
describe the position regarding the development of WOC. The ladder starts from the
value of the GIWOC to assign the position, with the first developmental step
corresponding to the predominance of WOC at the job level (individual level),
progressively ascending to the institutional level and finally to the global
competence level of WOC, the latter reflecting excellence and strategic maturity of
the KMD.
A specific position within the WOC matrices and ladder does not imply that
developments are exclusive to that level. Maturity of descriptors may alternate at a
higher or lower level than another, although the sustainability of these defines the
possibility of conquering new quadrants and steps, provided that the development
achieved at the previous level is maintained. Once excellence is attained, individual
and collective competence of WOC can be transferred to other social spheres outside
the organization.
Measurements of the KMD before, during, and after administrative
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
improvement actions provide feedback to strategic management on their
effectiveness based on the calculated indices.
The most relevant application results indicate: 1) the predominance of
instrumental forms (IWOCi=48%) over attitudinal forms (IWOCa=38.6%) in the
composition of the global index (GIWOC=44.18%), positioning the institution in the
WOC ladder with a medium level of intangible development, trending towards
greater maturity of KMD at the individual and group levels compared to the
organizational and competence levels. The arithmetic means of application and
importance in the questionnaire range between values of 3 and 3.5 across all
analyzed levels, an intermediate score that frames the institution as one with OCi
oriented towards goals and as one interested in achieving OCa, although corrective
and proactive actions are needed to stimulate the perception of KMD application at
the organizational and competence levels.
The arithmetic means indicate a medium maturity of all KMD, thus their
IPDCM are below 50%. The KMD to prioritize at the competence level of WOC
correspond to those with the highest percentage within this parameter, coinciding
with motivation to commit (IPDCM =42.9%) and performance conditions to achieve it
(IPDCM =37.9%). At the organizational level, perceived satisfaction/self-realization
and well-being/happiness within the institution are noted (both with IPDCM =35.8%).
The absence of previous measurements in this context prevents calculating the
dynamics of the GIWOC.
Conclusions
The complexity of WOC fosters confusion and a lack of conceptual consensus,
as well as theoretical and methodological shortcomings that limit its systematic
measurement and timely reflection in the balanced scorecard of strategic human
talent management. The strategic, systemic, and multilevel approaches offer
opportunities for reinterpretation and the establishment of metrics for this
intangible.
An alternative measurement for WOC is designed that overcomes these
shortcomings and integrates these approaches, based on the identification of Key
Multilevel Descriptors (KMD) and the use of calculation bases that facilitate access
to sub-indices of instrumental/continuance and attitudinal/affective commitment,
revealing the predominance of one of these in the composition of the global index
of WOC. Results allow for the positioning of the institution within a strategic state
according to the development achieved by this intangible through matrices and
ladders. A calculation base for the priority index of each KMD for a new strategic
period is provided, along with opportunities for comparative analysis over periods to
identify advancements and regressions.
The combination of the application state and strategic importance in data
capture and index calculation, along with the differentiated evaluation of
descriptors by levels, offers new feedback opportunities for WOC to managers and
academics.
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
The validated alternative measurement of WOC, applied in a probabilistic
sample of 41 institutional subjects, can be replicated in other contexts, overcoming
the limitations of relying solely on self-report instruments, which are typically
confined to single case studies within specific cultures. Future efforts in this
direction can focus on deepening the statistical analysis of variations by levels and
KMD, as well as determining the intrapersonal variation factor of WOC and the
dynamics between periods of the GIWOC through longitudinal studies.
References
Abu Orabi, T., Al-Hyari, H. S. M., Almomani, H. M., Ababne, A., Abu Huson, Y.,
Ahmed, E., & Albanna, H. (2024). A bibliometric review of job satisfaction
and organizational commitment in businesses area literatures. Human
Systems Management, 43(3), 407-430. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-230130
Acevedo, S.J.A y Gómez, A.M.I. (2015). La logística moderna en la empresa. (2
da
edición). Editorial Félix Varela.
Aichatting. (2025). Respuesta de la IA sobre la noción más común entre
hispanohablantes del término compromiso laboral y organizacional y los
aspectos más utilizados para su definición. OpenAI.
https://www.aichatting.net/es/
Alonso, F. J. y Díaz, H. A. (2022). Autodesarrollo comunitario: investigación, acción
y formación. En Colectivo de Autores. Sociología en Cuba. Reflexiones
teóricas, investigación y enseñanza, (295-327). Ciencias Sociales.
Ávila, V. S. y Pascual, F. M. (2020). Marco filosófico del compromiso organizacional:
discusión del modelo de Allen & Meyer y propuesta de un nuevo modelo de
estudio. Revista de Estudios Empresariales, Segunda época (1), 201-226.
https://doi.org/10.17561//ree.v2020n1.12
Báez, S. R., Zayas, A. P., Velázquez, Z. R. y Lao, L. Y. (2019). Modelo conceptual
del compromiso organizacional en empresas cubanas. Revista Ingeniería
Industrial, XL (1), 14-23. http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/rii/v40n1/1815-5936-rii-
40-01-14.pdf
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Sanz-Vergel, A. y Rodríguez-Muñoz, A. (2023). La teoría
de las Demandas y Recursos Laborales. Nuevos Desarrollos en la Última
Década. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 39 (3), 157-167.
https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2023a17
Borrás, A. F. y Arango, H. (2020). La gestión de los intangibles en la industria cubana
de software. Economía y Desarrollo, 164 (2).
http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0252-
85842020000200008
Bracho Fuenmayor, P. L. (2022). Gerencia y educación superior desde la perspectiva
de la neurociencia. Interacción y Perspectiva, 12(2), 100-121.
https://zenodo.org/records/7114562
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
Coronado, G. G., Valdivia, V. M., Aguilera, D. A. y Alvarado, C. A. (2020).
Compromiso Organizacional: Antecedentes y Consecuencias. Conciencia
Tecnológica, 60. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=94465715006
Cuartas, M. J. C., Pulido, R. M. P. y Almanza, J. C. A. (2022). Compromiso,
intercambio de conocimiento y desempeño organizacional en tiempos de la
Covid- 19: Un estudio en empresas de servicios en la ciudad de Bogotá. FACE,
22(2), 93-105.
https://expeditiorepositorio.utadeo.edu.co/handle/20.500.12010/28047
Cuesta, S. A. (2016). Compromiso y gestión humana en la empresa. Universitas
Psychologica, 15(2), 287-300.
https://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy15-2.cghe
__________. (2020). Gestión del compromiso. En Colectivo de autores. Psicología
laboral y organizacional: avances y perspectivas de la formación de
másteres en Cuba. (pp.127-144). Cubasolar.
https://www.claustrofobias.com/psicologia-laboral-y-organizacional/
__________. (2021). Tecnología de gestión de recursos humanos (IV Ed.). Citmatel.
https://todoenlibros.com/tecnologia-de-gestion-de-recursos-humanos
Cuesta, S. A., Fleitas, T. S., García, F. V., Hernández, D. I., Anchundia, L. A., y
Mateus, M. L. (2018). Evaluación del desempeño, compromiso y gestión de
recursos humanos en la empresa. Ingeniería Industrial, 39 (1), 24-35.
http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1815-
59362018000100004
Dávila, L. C. y Jiménez, G. G. (2014). Sentido de pertenencia y compromiso
organizacional: predicción del bienestar. Revista de psicología, 32 (2), 272-
302.
http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?pid=S0254-
92472014000200004&script=sci_abstract
Díaz-Canel, B. M. y Delgado, F. M. (2021). Gestión del gobierno orientado a la
innovación: Contexto y caracterización del Modelo. Universidad y Sociedad,
13 (1), 6-16.
http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S2218-
36202021000100006
Díaz, P. M. (2020). Psicología aplicada al desarrollo organizacional en el contexto
cubano. En Colectivo de autores. Psicología laboral y organizacional:
avances y perspectivas de la formación de másteres en Cuba. (73-92).
Cubasolar.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamer, F., Van Denberghe, Ch., Sucharski, I., y Rhoades, L.
(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived
organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.87.3.565
González, N. y Cañoto, Y. (2023). Mediciones en psicología. [en línea]. Centro de
Investigación y Evaluación Institucional, Universidad Católica Andrés Bello.
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
https://api-saber.ucab.edu.ve/server/api/core/bitstreams/ed6170d4-
8d34-4a9b-a12e-eb2142fd55b4/content
González, R. F. y Mitjánz, M. A. (2021). Subjetividad, teoría, epistemología y
método. Alínea.
Houle, S. A., Shafei, A., Tóth-Király, I., Vandenberghe, C., & Morin, A. J. S. (2024).
Newcomers’ profiles of workplace affective commitment. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement,
56(4), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000386
Kaplan, S. R. y Norton, P. D. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets
into Tangible Outcomes. Harvard Business School Press.
Klein, H. J., Brinsfield, C. T., & Cooper, J. T. (2020). The experience of commitment
in the contemporary workplace: An exploratory reexamination of
commitment model antecedents. Human Resource Management.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22040
Martín, R. J. L. (2004). Participación en la economía. Algunas reflexiones para el
debate. En Pérez, A.J. Participación social en Cuba. Centro de
Investigaciones Psicológicas y Sociológicas-CIPS, 163-180.
https://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/cuba/cips/caudales05/Ca
udales/ARTICULOS/ArticulosPDF/04M128.pdf
Meyer, J. P. y Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–
89. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v6-i12/2464
Nava, S. M. I., Ramos, R. P. y García, U. F. E. (2022). Modelo predictivo de
predisposición y compromiso organizacional. Investigación Administrativa,
51 (130), 1-18. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=456071633004
Navarro, J., Rueff-Lopes, R., y Laurenceau, J. P. (2022). Studying within-person
changes in work motivation in the short and medium-term: You will likely
need more measurement points than you think! Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 38 (1), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2022a1
Oliveira, H. H. y Honório, L. C. (2020). Práticas de recursos humanos e
comprometimento organizacional: Associando os construtos em uma
organização pública. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 21(4), 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG200160
Peralta, G. M. C., Santofimio, M. A. y Segura, V. (2007). El compromiso laboral:
discursos en la organización. Psicología desde el caribe, 19, 81-109.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/213/21301905.pdf
Pereda, M. S., Berrocal, F. y Alonso, G. M. (2011). Técnicas de gestión de recursos
humanos por competencias. (3
ra
edición). Editorial Universitaria Ramón
Areces.
https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=ifp2tgAACAAJ&printsec=copyright#
v=onep age&q&f=false
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
e8861
Pineda, A. A. (2024). Revisión de los principios de mensurabilidad aplicados a la
psicología. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, XXX(2), 488-503.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?código=9603981
Pinela, M. N. y Armijos, Y. M. (2022). El compromiso laboral y el comportamiento
innovador de los empleados: revisión de literatura. Revista Compendium:
Cuadernos de Economía y Administración, 9 (1), 1-10.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=9603981
Prieto, D. F., Postigo, A., Cuesta, M. y Muñiz, J. (2021). Compromiso laboral: nueva
escala para su medición. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 53, 133-
142.
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-
05342021000100133
Sampieri, H. R. y Mendoza, T. P. Ch. (2023). Metodología de la investigación. Las
rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta (2
a
Ed.). McGraw-Hill Interamericana
de España S.L.
Soria, B. K., Zuniga, J. S. y Contreras, F. (2021). Empresas B en Latinoamérica: un
estudio exploratorio sobre compromiso laboral. Revista Información
Tecnológica, 32 (3), 113-120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-
07642021000300113
Tisu, L., Lupșa, D., Vîrgă, D., y Rusu, A. (2020). Personality characteristics, job
performance and mental health: the mediating role of work engagement.
Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109644.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109644
van Rossenberga, T. G. Y., Crossb, D. & Swartc, J. (2022). An HRM perspective on
workplace commitment: Reconnecting in concept, measurement and
methodology. Human Resource Management Review, 32, 100891.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482221000735
Varela, M. D. N. y Marín, B.G. (2021). El liderazgo transformacional y su influencia
en el sentido de pertenencia laboral. Una revisión de la literatura en el
contexto organizacional. Revista Nova Rua, 13 (22), 85-101.
https://dx.doi.org/10.20983/novarua.2021.22.5
Zaragoza Alvarado, G. A. (2024a). Implementación de herramientas de la IA
generativa que favorecen el aprendizaje de significativo en la EMS. Revista
Social Fronteriza
, 4(5), e45495.
https://doi.org/10.59814/resofro.2024.4(5)495
Zaragoza Alvarado, G. A. (2024b). Los retos en la integración de las TIC en el
aprendizaje de los estudiantes de pregrado. Reincisol, 3(6), 4203–4216.
https://doi.org/10.59282/reincisol.V3(6)4203-4216
| Yuri Fernández Capote | Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez |
About the main author
Yuri Fernández Capote
:
Graduated with a Master's degree in Management (2011)
and a Postgraduate Specialization in Hotel Management (2008) from the University
of Ciego de Ávila
-
UNICA; a Diploma in Business Administration and Management
(2011) from the Higher School of State and Government Executives
-
ESCEG; a Diploma
in Tourism Business Management and Tourism Planning (2005) from the University of
Orie
nte-
UO; a Diploma in Cultural Practices of Action Research (2014) and a
Bachelor's degree in Psychology (2002) from the Central University of Las Villas
-UCLV.
Declaration of author responsibility
Yuri Fernández Capote
1:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Research, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation/Verification,
Visualization, Writing/original draft and Writing, review and editing.
Vivian Espinosa Rodríguez
2: Validation/Verification
, Visualization, Writing/original
draft and Writing, review and editing
.
Financing:
Special Acknowledgments:
