Research purpose: The study empirically investigated the relationship between an individual’s hardiness (measured by the Personal Views Survey II [PVS-II]) and organisational commitment (measured by the Organisational Commitment Scale).

Motivation for the study: Research on an individual’s hardiness profile as an aspect of their career well-being and success and how these attributes influence their psychological attachment to the organisation, is needed to guide human resource career development support practices aimed at retaining valuable staff.

Research design, approach and method: A quantitative survey was conducted on a convenience sample of predominantly Black (92.2%) and female (71%) employed adults (N = 355) at managerial and staff levels in the human resource management field.

Main findings: Correlational and multiple regression analyses revealed a number of significant relationships between the two variables.

Practical/managerial implications: Managers and human resource practitioners need to recognise how people’s hardiness relates to their sense of psychological attachment to the organisation. Organisations concerned with the retention and well-being of their equity staff members need to find a way to enhance and develop their hardiness and commitment.

Contribution/value-add: The research contributes new insights into and knowledge of the factors that influence their employees’ hardiness and how these relate to their organisational commitment. The results may be used to inform career development support interventions that aim to increase employees’ sense of career well-being and success.

A further trend in the world of work is that employers are concerned about the organisational commitment of their talented staff (Ferreira et al., 2010). Current changes, such as globalisation, fast changing technology and the changing nature of psychological contracts in career and organisational contexts are causing individuals to identify diverse goals and expectations concerning their job satisfaction (Meyer & Maltin, 2010). Individuals are increasingly taking on a more active role as the career agent in managing their career development and satisfaction. Commitment to the organisation seems to be associated directly with how people experience (positively or negatively) the manner in which they have been treated during times of change (Baruch, 2006; Holbeche, 1997; Hughes & Half, 2009). Employees who are highly committed to the organisation may be better able to withstand stressors, provided that those stressors do not directly challenge their commitment, motivation and career well-being (Meyer & Maltin, 2010). Therefore, managers or supervisors can perhaps enhance an employee’s career well-being by reinforcing positive forms of commitment and motivation.

Employees’ experiences of subjective career success have been associated with their sense of well-being at work (Coetzee & Bergh, 2009; Nabi, 2001; Schreuder & Coetzee, 2011). The concept of career well-being has been used by Kidd (2008) to measure employee’s subjective career experiences as indicated by their positive and negative feelings about their careers. Other researchers use more general measures of subjective well-being (including happiness and satisfaction) in the careers context (Coetzee & Bergh, 2009; Gottfredson & Duffy, 2008). In order to thrive and to survive in a continuously changing environment, organisations need employees who are in good mental and physical health. Individuals’ experiences at work, be they physical, emotional, social or spiritual in nature, affect their well-being in the workplace (Hart, 1999; Kelloway & Barling, 1991; Kelloway, Innes, Barling, Francis & Turner, 2010). Several studies headed by Kobasa and colleagues (Kobasa, Maddi & Kahn, 1982; Kobasa & Pucceti, 1983) have found that hardiness has a comparable protecting effect, as well as a moderating effect on stress that forms part of the well-being of employees. Analyses of these investigations have led Kobasa (1982) to propose that hardy individuals have a clear sense of direction, a dynamic approach in demanding situations, and a sense of self-belief and control that moderate the intensity of possible threats and dangers (Zakin, Solomon & Neria, 2003) such as career uncertainty in the current and more turbulent career context. Commitment to organisations seems to be directly associated with how well people feel about their psychological needs being met, being respected and recognised by organisations (Hughes & Half, 2009), and what their career goals look like at a specific time within the organisations (Baruch, 2006; Holbeche, 1997).

Commitment: Commitment in terms of the hardiness construct refers to individuals who strongly believe in the certainty, significance, and interest value of who they are and what they are doing. Hardy-committed individuals therefore show the tendency to involve themselves fully in a number of life situations, including work, family, interpersonal relationships, and social institutions (Kobasa, 1987, p. 6). Hardy-commitment engenders feelings of excitement along with a strong sense of community and motivation to remain engaged during difficult times (Kobasa, 1982; Kobasa, 1985; Sheard & Golby, 2007).

Control: Control in terms of the hardiness construct refers to an enhanced motivation to engage in effortful coping because it predisposes the individual to view stressors as changeable (Kobasa, 1982; Maddi, 2002; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). Hardy individuals feel that attempting to control or change a demanding or undesirable situation (rather than fatalistically accepting the outcome) falls within their scope of personal responsibility. Control enables individuals to experience many stressful life events as expected consequences of their own activities and, thereby, guide them in the right direction and appropriate manipulation of the situation (Kobasa, 1982, p. 7). When faced with difficulties, individuals with high control are more likely to feel capable of acting effectively on their own. They do not merely take situations at face value: they reflect on how to change situations to their advantage (Maddi & Kobasa, 1984).

Challenge: Challenge in terms of the hardiness construct refers to a zest for facing up to (or even seeking out) difficult experiences because they are seen as opportunities for personal growth rather than as potential threats to security (Maddi et al., 2002). Thus, individuals who expect to thrive must learn to embrace the difficulty of ‘authentic living’, drawing strength from difficulties previously faced and overcome successfully rather than looking for ways to avoid stressful events (Carr et al., 2011).

Individuals who thrive in times of challenge are motivated to become catalysts in their environments and to practise responding to the unexpected. They explore their surroundings thoroughly in an ongoing search for new and interesting experiences. As a result, they know where to turn to for resources to aid them in coping with stress. Highly challenged individuals are characterised by cognitive flexibility and tolerance for ambiguity. This allows them to integrate unexpected or otherwise stressful events more easily than their colleagues (Kobasa, 1982; Maddi, 1999).

The combination of hardy-commitment, control and challenge constitutes existential courage and motivation within individuals. To tolerate and resolve stressful circumstances, one must see them as, (1) natural developmental pressures rather than catastrophic setbacks (challenge helps here), (2) resolvable rather than unmanageable (control helps here) and (3) worth investing in rather than to be avoided (commitment helps here). Together, the three Cs (commitment, control and challenge) of hardiness are very close to what existential thinkers, such as Tillich (1952), meant by the ‘courage’ to be.

According to Maddi (2004), the stronger the three Cs (commitment, control and challenge) of hardiness, the greater the signs of surviving and thriving on the catastrophic changes that might occur. This means that if an individual has the ability to control change within his or her career, he or she will survive no matter what the outcome might be. Hardiness has emerged as an important stress resilience construct that has attracted a high level of continued research attention (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2005).

The concept of organisational commitment has attracted considerable interest in an attempt to understand and clarify the intensity and stability of an employee’s dedication to the organisation (Mester, Visser, Roodt & Kellerman, 2003). The level of employees’ organisational commitment will possibly ensure that they are better suited to receive both extrinsic rewards (which includes remuneration and benefits) and psychological rewards (which essentalliy includes job satisfaction and associations with fellow employees) related to associations (Coetzee & Bergh, 2009). Organisations appreciate commitment on the part of their staff. It is generally assumed that organisational commitment reduces adandonment behaviours, which include tardiness and turnover. In addition, employees who are committed to their organisations may possibly be more willing to participate in ’extra-role’ activities, such as being creative or innovative, which frequently guarantee an organisation’s competitiveness in the market (Barnett & Bradley, 2007; Katz & Kahn, 1978). According to Gbadamosi (2003), the more favourable individuals’ attitudes towards the organisation, the greater their acceptance of the goals of the organisation and their willingness to exert more efforts on behalf of the organisation.

Individuals who are affectively committed or dedicated at an emotional level usually remain with the organisation because they see their individual employment relationship as harmonious; they take ownership of the goals and values of the organisation. Affective commitment develops because the individual identifies with the organisation and internalises the principles and standards of the organisation (Beck & Wilson, 2000).

Continuance commitment, is an ‘awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organisation’ (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 11). Because individuals’ awareness or consideration of expenses and threats are linked to leaving the organisation, continuance commitment is considered to be calculative (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Meyer and Allen (1991) also indicated that individuals whose most important connection to the organisation is based on continuance commitment stay because they need to. Individuals remain with a specific organisation because of the money they earn in return for the work they do, not because they want to. This differs from affective commitment where individuals remain with an organisation because they want to and because they are familiar with it and its principles.

Normative commitment can be explained as a sense of responsibility to continue employment with a specific organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The internalised normative idea of responsibility and commitment allows individuals to value their continued membership of a specific organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The normative element is seen as the commitment individuals think morally about; regarding their right to remain with a specific organisation, in spite of how much status improvement or fulfilment the organisation provides the individual over the years (March & Mannari, 1977).

• Hypothesis 1: Hardiness is significantly and positively related to an individual’s level of organisational commitment.

The hypothesised theoretical relationship between hardiness (commitment, control and challenge) and organisational commitment (affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment) is illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: Theoretical relationship between hardiness and organisational commitment.

Personal Views Survey II (PVS-II): The PVS-II (Maddi, 1987) is a self-rated multi-factorial measure for hardiness and contains 50 items and three subscales (commitment, control and challenge). A 4-point Likert-type scale was used for subject responses to each of the 50 items. Factor analysis by Maddi (1987) confirmed the construct validity of the PVS-II. In terms of internal consistency reliability, Maddi (1987) reports the following Cronbach alpha coefficients: .70 to .75 for commitment; .61 to .84 for control; .60 to .71 for challenge and .80 to .88 for total hardiness.

Organisational Commitment Scale (OCS): The Organisational Commitment Scale (Meyer & Allen, 1997) is a multi-factorial measure for affective commitment (8 items), continuance commitment (9 items) and normative commitment (6 items) on a 7-point Likert type scale. The following internal consistency reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) are reported for affective commitment (.82), continuance commitment (.74) and normative commitment (.83). Studies by Coetzee, Schreuder and Tladinyane (2007), Ferreira (2009), Lumley (2010) and Lumley, Coetzee, Tladinyane and Ferreira (2011) confirmed the reliability and validity of the OCS in the South African context.

Although a cut-off point of p≤ .05 was set, a practical effect size of r ≥ .30 (medium effect, Cohen 1992) was also considered for the correlational analyses to be able to interpret the practical significance of the findings. In terms of the multiple regression analyses, the value of adjusted R² was used to determine the proportion of the total variance of the dependent variable (OCS) that is explained by the independent variable (PVS-II). The F-test was used to test whether there was a significant regression (p ≤ .05) between the independent and dependent variables.

Means and standard deviations for the PVS-II and OCS variables are shown in Table 2. Participants obtained the highest mean scores on the PVS-II challenge variable (M = 3.43; SD = 5.71) and the lowest means core on the control (M = 2.59; SD = 6.47) and commitment (M = 2.31; SD = 6.46) variables. In terms of the OCS, the participants obtained the highest mean scores on continuance commitment variable (M = 4.76; SD = 9.92) and the lowest mean scores on the affective (M = 4.71; SD = 7.28) and normative commitment variables (M = 4.70; SD = 7.55). Kurtosis coefficients fell within the normality range, ranging between -.09 and .68. Similarly, the skewness coefficients fell within the normality range, ranging between -.19 and .52.

The PVS-II variables regressed upon the OCS continuance commitment variable produced a statistically significant model (F[822.05; 92.21] = 8.92; p ≤ .001), accounting R² = for 6% (small practical effect) of the variance in the continuance commitment variable. Only the PVS II challenge (ß = .19; p ≤ .00) variable significantly and positively predicted the OCS continuance commitment variable.

The PVS-II variables regressed upon the OCS normative commitment variable produced a statistically significant model (F[148.50; 56.21] = 2.64; p ≤ .001), accounting for R² = 1% (small practical effect) of the variance in the normative commitment variable. Again, only the PVS-II challenge variable (ß = .13; p ≤ .00) significantly and positively predicted the OCS normative commitment variable.

In this regard, the correlation and regression results provided support for the research hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) that a significant and positive relationship exists between hardiness and organisational commitment.

Permission to conduct the research was obtained through the Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa. To ensure that the researcher meets the ethical requirements, the following ethical principles were adhered to:

• Research was conducted within recognised parameters.
• Approval was obtained from the host institution.
• Both classical and recent resources were used to analyse and describe the concepts.
• Experts in the field of research were consulted to ensure a scientific research process.
• All the resources used were quoted.
• Informed agreement was obtained from participants.

Ethical and employment equity issues have been taken into consideration. Anonymity of the participants has been ensured both during the data collection and analyses of data. The Employment Equity Act (No 55 of 1998), requires all psychological tests and other similar assessments to be valid, reliable, fair, as well as not biased against any employee or any specific group of employees. In order to comply with legislation, care was taken in the choice and administration of the psychometric battery. The validity of items were evaluated, a reliable process was followed during data collection and data was analysed, reported and interpreted in a valid, reliable, fair and unbaised manner.

Reliability of the empirical research is ensured when a truly representative sample is used. In this research, confounding variables were minimised through the sampling procedure and by including instruments of which the reliability has been proven through previous research.

Overall, the results suggest that participants who experience a sense of control and feel that they are able to handle challenges (hardiness) seem to have a higher level of organisational commitment. The significant relationships observed between the hardy-commitment and affective, continuance and normative commitment components suggest that participants who feel they are highly committed and involved in their doings seem to feel a much stronger emotional bond with the organisation. These participants also appear to feel a high sense of obligation to remain employed in their current organisation. These findings are in agreement with those of Sezgin (2009) who found hardiness as a significant predictor of all three components of organisational commitment.

The significant relationships between the hardiness variable control and affective-, continuance- and normative commitment components of organisational commitment suggest that participants who are effectively coping with stress (control), are actively involved in their organisation (hardy-commitment) and view change as a tool for their development and growth (challenge), seem more likely to be emotionally attached (affectively committed) to their organistion. These findings are in agreement with Maddi, Harvey, Khoshaba, Fazel and Resurreccion (2009) and Sezgin (2009) who indicate that individuals who are high in hardiness are more likely to experience organisational commitment because they may feel more in control and are actively involved in their organisations, which in turn may ensure that they remain with the organisation.

Similarly, the significant relationship observed between the hardiness variable challenge and affective and continuance commitment suggests that the participants who face up to difficult experiences because they see them as opportunities for personal growth rather than as potential threats to security, are more likely to be committed to the organisation. Moreover, the findings also suggest that those participants who thrive on challenge are motivated to become catalysts in their environment and these participants may be more likely to remain with their current organisation because they regard the costs of leaving the organisation as too high. These findings are in agreement with the findings of Kobasa (1982) and Maddi (1999), which indicated that high challenged individuals are characterised by cognitive flexibility and a tolerance for ambiguity.

The participants were predominantly in the entry and establishment phases of their careers, during which the life structure of young adults become a more stable period as they begin to settle down (Super, 1990). Individuals also become committed to contribute towards an occupation, a company or a person and start to establish socially supportive networks (Greenhaus, Callanan & Godshalk, 2010). The contention that the young adults’ need for developing expertise to change stressful or challenges into opportunities, rather than venturing out toward new and different organisational contexts, seems to be higher during these particular life stages (Coetzee & Schreuder, 2009). This may offer an explanation for the participants’ strong sense of affective-, continuance- and normative commitment. As individuals in the early adulthood phase (entry and establishment life or career stages) become more oriented to the importance of work in their lives and learn how to balance job demands with their own needs (Super, 1990), they generally find the work role becoming increasingly salient (Savickas, 2005). In addition, as shown by the results of the present study, their emotional attachment to the organisation also seems to be stronger. The overall findings of the study add to the employee well-being literature by shedding new light on how hardiness in the human resource management environment relates to their levels of organisational commitment. In practical terms, the new knowledge gained from observing the relationship between hardiness and organisational commitment of the participants may be useful as the study focuses specifically on the South African organisational context.

Individuals who are exposed to positive career experiences will tend to be much more committed towards the organisation (Maddi, 2006). According to Sheard (2009), highly motivated (hardy-commitment) individuals get involved rather than withdraw when situations become stressful, seeing this as the best way to turn their environments and whatever they are experiencing into something that seems interesting, worthwhile, and important. Hardy individuals control their experiences of events in terms of what they choose to do and how they choose to respond (Maddi, 2006). Individuals high in hardy-challenge believe that their lives are improved by means of growth through learning that ease comfort and security (Maddi, 2006). Such individuals may tend to remain with their current organisations seeing that they change their environments and situations to be positive experiences; this in turn will have a positive effect on the well-being of employees.

The findings also highlight the need for further research into the relationship between working adults’ hardiness and their organisational commitment, as the percentage variance explained by the prediction model was relatively small in terms of practical effect. However, the practical value of the findings lies in the new knowledge gained with regard to the relationship between the hardiness variables and the factors highlighted as contributing to employees’ psychological attachment to the organisation. The statistics further confirmed that both the measures are useful and reliable within the South African context.

Since the present study has been limited to participants predominantly employed in the human resources management field in the South African organisational context, the findings cannot be generalised to other occupational contexts, race or gender groups. Furthermore, given the exploratory nature of the research design, this study can yield no statements about causation. Associations between the variables have thus been interpreted rather than established. These findings therefore need to be replicated with broader samples across various occupational groups and economic sectors before more comprehensive conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between employees’ hardiness and their organisational commitment.

Avey, J., Luthans, F., Smith, R., & Palmer, N. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016998, PMid:20063956

Azeem, S. (2010). Personality hardiness, job involvement and job burnout among teachers. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 2(3), 36–40.

Barnett, B., & Bradley, L. (2007). The impact of organisational support for career development on career satisfaction. Career Development International, 12(7), 617–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430710834396

Baruch, Y. (2006). Career development in organisations and beyond: Balancing traditional and contemporary viewpoints. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 125–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.002

Beck, N., & Wilson, J. (2000). Development of affcetive organizational commitment: A cross-sequental examinations of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 56, 114–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1712

Breed, M., Cilliers, F., & Visser, D. (2006). The factor structure of six salutogenic constructs. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 32(1), 74–87.

Carr, J., Kelley, B., Keaton, R., & Albrecht, C. (2011). Getting to grips with stress in the workplace. Human Resource Mangement International Digest, 19(4), 32–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09670731111140748

Coetzee, M., & Bergh, Z. (2009). Psychological career resources and subjective work experiences of working adults: An exploratory study. SA Business Review, 13(2), 1–31.

Coetzee, M., & Schreuder, D. (2009). Psychological career resources as predictors of working adults’ career anchors: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 35(1), 1–11.

Coetzee, M., Bergh, Z., & Schreuder, A. (2010). Subjective work experiences: Exploring the influence of career orientations, psychological career resources and factors of job/career satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Unpublished research report, Department of Industrial and Organisational psychology, University of South Africa, South Africa.

Coetzee, M., Schreuder, D., & Tladinyane, R. (2007). Career anchors and its relation to organisational commitment. Southern African Business Review, 11(1), 65–86.

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. (2nd edn.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Delahaij, R., Gaillard, A., & Van Dam, K., (2010). Hardiness and the response to stressful situations: Investigating mediating processes. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 386–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.04.002

Emberland, J., & Rundmo, T. (2010). Implications of job insecurity perceptions and job insecurity responses for psychological wel-being, turnover intentions and reported risk behavior. Safety Science, 48, 452–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.002

Ferreira, N. (2009). The relationship between psychological career resources and organisational commitment. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Ferreira, N., Basson, J., & Coetzee, M. (2010). Psychological career resources in relation to organisational commitment: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Human Resource Management/SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 8(1), 1–9.

Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental health during a stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 687–695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.687, PMid:7738771

Fox, C., & Jones, J. (1998). Uses of the Rasch modeling in counceling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 30–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.30

Gbadamosi, G. (2003). HRM and the commitment rethoric. Challenges for Africa. Management Decision, 41(3), 274–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 00251740310475218

Gottfredson, G., & Duffy, R. (2008). Using a theory of vocational personalities and work environments to explore subjective well-being. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 44–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072707309609

Greenhaus, J., Callanan, G., & Godshalk. (2010). Career management. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.

Hart, P. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent model of personality, work and non-work experiences and domain satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 564–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.564

Holbeche, L. (1997). Career development: The impact of flatter structures on careers. Great Britian: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hughes, L., & Half, R. (2009). The war of talent. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.globalexpertbase.com/wp-8-212.html

Hystad, S., Eid, J., Laberg, J., Johnsen, B., & Bartone, P. (2010). Academic stress and health: Exploring the moderating role of personality hardiness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 421–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830903180349

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. (2nd edn.). New York: Wiley.

Kelloway, E., & Barling, J. (1991). Job characteristics, role stress and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 291–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1991.tb00561.x

Kelloway, E., Innes, M., Barling, J., Francis, L., & Turner, N. (2010). Loving one’s job: Construct development and implications for individual well-being. Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, 8, 109–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3555(2010)0000008006

Kidd, J. (2008). Exploring components of career well-being and the emotions associated with significant career experiences. Journal of Career Development, 35(2), 166–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894845308325647

Kobasa, S. (1979). Personality and resistance to illness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7(4), 413–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00894383, PMid:495583

Kobasa, S. (1982). The hardy personality: Toward a social psychology of stress and health. In G.S. Sanders & J. Suls (Eds.), Social psychology of healh and illness, (pp. 214–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kobasa, S. (1987). Stress responses and personality. In R.C. Barnette & L. Biener (Eds.), Gender and Stress, (n.p.). New York: The Free Press.

Kobasa, S. (1985). Barriers to work stress II: The Hardy personality. In W.D. Gentry, H. Benson & C.J. de Wolff (Eds.), Behavioural medicine: Work stress and health, (pp. 181–204). Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Kobasa, S., & Puccetti, M. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 839–850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.839, PMid:6631665

Kobasa, S., Maddi, S., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Jorunal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 168–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.168, PMid:7057354

Kobasa, S., Maddi, S., & Zola, M. (1985). Type A and hardiness. Journal of Behvaioural Medicine, 6(1), 41–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00845275, PMid:6876154

Lumley, E. (2010). The relationship between career anchors, job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Master’s dissertation, Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, South Africa.

Lumley, E., Coetzee, M., Tladinyane, E., & Ferreira, N. (2011). Exploring the job satisfaction and organisational commitment of employees in the information technology environment. Southern Arican Business Review, 15(1), 100–118.

Maddi, S. (1987). Hardiness training at Illinois Bell Telephone. In J.P. Opatz (Ed.), Health promotion evaluation: Measuring the organizational impact, (pp 101–115). Stevens Point, WI: National Wellness institute.

Maddi, S. (1999). The personality construct of hardiness I: Effect on experiencing, coping, and strain. Consulting Psychology Journal, 51(2), 83–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.51.2.83

Maddi, S. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years if theorizing, research, and practice. Conculting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54(3), 175–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.54.3.173

Maddi, S. (2004). Hardiness: An operationalisation of existential courage. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44(3), 279–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0022167804266101

Maddi, S. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 160–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760600619609

Maddi, S., & Khoshaba, D. (2005). Relicience at work. New York: Amacom.

Maddi, S., & Kobasa, S. (1984). The hardy executive: Health under stress. Chicago, IL: Dorsey professional Books.

Maddi, S., Harvey, R., Khoshaba, D., Fazel, M., & Resurreccion, N. (2009). The personality construct of Hardiness, IV: Explressed in positive cognitions and emotions concerning oneself and developmentally relavant activities. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 49(3), 292–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022167809331860

Maddi, S., Khoshaba, D., Persico, M., Lu, J., Harvey, R., & Bleecker, F. (2002). The personality contruct of hardines II: Relationships with comprehensive tests of personality and psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 72–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2337

March, R., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organisational commitment and turnover: A prediction study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 57–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391746

Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organisational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171

Mester, C., Visser, D., Roodt, G., & Kellerman, R. (2003). Leadership style and its relation to employee attitudes and behaviour. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 29(2), 72–82.

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991). A three component conceptialization of organisational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the wokrplace, theory, reserach and application. California: Sage.

Meyer, J., & Maltin, E. (2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 77, 323–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.007

Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecendents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842

Mills, L. (2000). Evaluation of a model of hardiness and health using meta-analysis and path analysis. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.

Nabi, G. (2001). The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career success among men and women. International Journal of Manpower, 22(5), 457–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005850

Rathi, N., Rastogi, R., & Rangnekar, D. (2011). Quality of work life, organisational commitment, and psychological well-being. A study of the Indian employees. International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies, 2(4), 2156–7506.

Rhodewalt, F., & Zone, J. (1989). Appraisal of life changem depression, and illness in hardy and nonhardy women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 81–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.81, PMid:2926618

Russ, F., & McNeilly, K. (1995). Links among satisfaction, commitment and turnover intentions: The moderating effect of experience, gender and performance. Journal of Business Research, 513, 57–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00042-D

Saks, A. (2006). Antecendents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 02683940610690169

Savickas, M. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S.D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds). Career development and counseling, (pp. 101–108). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Schreuder, A., & Coetzee, M. (2011). Careers: An organisational perspective. (4th edn.). Cape Town: Juta.

Sezgin, F. (2009). Relationship between teacher organisatinal commitment, psychological hardiness and some demographic variables in Turkish primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(5), 630–651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910981099

Sheard, M. (2009). Hardiness commitment, gender, and age differentiate university adacemic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 189–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709908X304406, PMid:18466672

Sheard, M., & Golby, J. (2007). Hardiness and undergraduate academic study: The moderating role of commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 579–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.006

Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 489–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317901167497

Super, D. (1990). A life-span approach to career development. In D. Brown (Ed.). (2007). Career Information, Career Counselling and Career Development. ( 9th edn.). United States of America: Pearson.

Tillich, P. (1952). The courage to be. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Westman, M. (1990). The relationship between stress and performance: The moderating effect of hardiness. Human Performance, 3(3), 141–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0303_1

Wiebe, D. (1991). Hardiness and stress moderation: A test of proposed mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 89–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.89, PMid:1995836

Zakin, G., Solomon, Z., & Neria, Y. (2003). Hardiness, attachment stryle, and long term psychological distress among Israeli POWs and combat veterans. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 819–829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00073-9

Zhang, L. (2010). Hardiness and the Big five personality traits among Chinese university students. Journal of Learning and Individual Differences, 1–5.