Keywords

Work alienation, Organizational Commitment, Jordanian Ministry of Labor

Introduction

The history of humans has seen painful symptoms over the years, which affected all areas of life, especially social relations. In this regard, social contradictions have increased when humans have found themselves prey to a huge amount of problems, which they could not withstand until they ended up in isolation and unable to practice social behaviour.

Perhaps one of the most serious negative aspects of these transformations and changes is the phenomenon of the human and social influence that has been long lasting and also considered new. It’s a phenomenon of workplace alienation that almost invades and control our various social and economic institutions.

The concept of alienation refers to a number of diverse relationships, such as one`s own relation with himself and one’s relation with others, psychologists and sociologists paid attention to this phenomenon and the extent of its spread in addition to the confirmation of alienation existence. Human alienation from work refers to the weak relationship between the individual and his job, alienation in organization is considered a serious problem because it affects the employee`s relationship with the organization where he works. Therefore, alienation causes negative consequences for both employees and the organization, often ending with unsatisfactory results.

One of the most common symptoms resulting from work alienation are: overall job dissatisfaction, loss of motivation, as well as company loyalty. The employees feel disconnected from their position within the company as a result; their negative feelings grow, while work productivity suffers.

Organizations always seek to strengthen the organizational commitment of employees, in order to reach high level of performance and achievement. Organizational commitment is an important factor in influencing employee behavior. Organizational commitment, is defined as “an attitude, bound by time and space and sustained through interactive processes, that arises from the individual’s acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, a willingness to contribute to that organization’s affairs, and strong desire to maintain a good relationship with the organization” (Liou, 2008).

Research Problem

Organizational commitment is a key factor in business success, its absence would cause a real problem that threaten the performance of an organization and its outcomes. Poor commitment appears through clear individual behaviors and aspects of organizational disintegration that would threaten the survival of an organization. The reason the researchers chose this study is due to the extent of the importance of belonging to an organization and job that is considered a core component of success in business. Suffering from alienation will reflect negatively on his/her extent of organizational commitment as much as feeling alienation. In other words, the more an employee feels that he is alien to the work and organization, the less organizational commitment and loyalty to the organization.

According to researchers’ knowledge, it was noticed that work alienation tends to receive little attention and studies in Jordan despite the seriousness of its impact on employees and organizations. Many studies Tummers & Den Dulk (2013); Abu-Moqadam (2014) have recommended the need to pay attention to the problem of work alienation and its impact on organizational commitment. Furthermore, it was recommended to conduct more future researches on the impact of work alienation amongst employees and the reasons behind this, since it affects the performance of employees (Taamneh & AL-Gharaibeh, 2014).

Tummers & Den Dulk (2013) showed that work alienation has important negative effects resulting in their recommendation that future studies should be continued in the search for the causes and precedents of alienation by analyzing the experiences of employees in their work and also analyzing the effects of work alienation on the employee’s organizational commitment.

Theoretical Framework

Work alienation as a concept is one of the types of alienation, there have been numerous studies dealing with the subject of work alienation. Karl Marx was the first who talk about work alienation in his writings and address the issue of alienation in the workplace (Valadbigi & Ghobadi, 2011). Then Melvin seeman followed, where he identified five dimensions for alienation in workplace as follows: meaninglessness, powerlessness, isolation, normlessness, and self-estrangement (Seeman, 1959).

Work Alienation

The theme of alienation first appeared in the literatures of German philosopher Karl Marx, and caused by an inconsistency between the nature of employment and the very nature of man. Alienation refers to a state in which the employee has lost control over events around; hence their inability to effectively express needs (Suárez‐Mendoza & Zoghbi‐Manrique‐de‐Lara 2007).

The deep meaning of the term of alienation has been pointed out by Kanungo (1979) as psychological detachment cases afflict those who perceived as incapable of being satisfied, and thereby facing difficulties in expressing needs and hopes.

Given the modern studies, Vinokurov & Kozhina (2020) viewed work alienation as self-endurance state linked to destroying interpersonal communication, which is occurred through direct perception of self-alienation, helplessness, and senselessness. As such, work alienation can be defined as the action or process of withdrawing from engagement in a specific event, situation, or team.

A few studies have explored the factors leading to feel alienated. It was hypothesized factors as predictors of work alienation by Lamond, et al., (2010), including structural components of formalization and centralization, work characteristics of autonomy, diversity, innovation and threats, meaningfulness of work, as well as the potential to expressing oneself. Following Lamond, et al., (2010), the study demonstrated that inability of work to allow for expressing oneself, lack of meaningful work, and weak relationships in the workplace were the strongest predictors of alienation.

Organization’s inability to satisfy employee’s expectations and needs is a primary cause of work alienation. Perceived over-qualification may result in feeling alienated through individual’s perceptions that he/she has higher qualifications in comparison with the job requirements. Over qualified individuals would feel alienated because of the differences between work situation and their expectations and, consequently, lead to feel a sense of deprivation (Yu, et al., 2019).

The issue of employee silence may be another reason behind the feeling of alienation, as Cetinkaya & Karayel (2019) discussed that organizational silence including fear of dismissal, lack of experience, and fear of isolation can affect work alienation. In this sense, employees prefer to keep silence to avoid the negative results such as sabotaging any relationship, failure to respond, or the fear of losing their jobs, therefore, a sense of alienation will grow.

The employee who feels alienated suffers from various adverse consequences. Alienated workers are experiencing low-quality of production, low organizational commitment, lack of motivation and collaboration. In addition, alienated employees would suffer weaknesses in job involvement and organizational identification. Too much absenteeism, excess in unethical activities, feel purposelessness, and work activities disruption are consequences of being alienated (Muttar, et al., 2019).

While alienation had the potential of reflecting negatively on performance, indeed, the productivity will be affected as well. In this sense, focusing on the interaction process with employees and the improvement of relationships quality can help managers in reducing work alienation (Usman, et al., 2020).

Organizations have a significant role to play in addressing loneliness and alienation at work, since this has an impact on turnover intention. In this context, the importance of conducting support meetings and interviews for individuals who feel loneliness as well as maintaining motivation and team spirit were recommended (Gozukara, et al., 2017).

Powerlessness is a person’s lack of control over events that take place in their life, with regard to work alienation (Tummers, et al., 2015).

Meaninglessness refers to the individual’s feeling that he lacks a guide or a director for his behavior and belief (Kurdi, 2018).

Self-estrangement is the effect of isolation and loneliness culminates, where individuals feel unable to tackle or face their sense of apartness, thus leading to estrangement in respect to both personal and social identities (Sehrawat, 2016).

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is the basis for the establishment of organizational climate that characterized by a strong influence on the action, team cohesion and high performance in the workplace.

Studies on commitment were traced back to 1950s. Organizational commitment was defined as “the strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization”. In general, commitment is based on three factors: a) Individual’s strong belief in and their acceptance towards the organization’s objectives and values, b) A desire to exert the utmost efforts on behalf of the organization, c) A strong interest in maintaining organizational membership (Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977; Bogler & Somech, 2004).

Bhatti, et al., (2016) stated that in order for organization to build a positive reputation among market and also survive, employee’s commitment with the organization should be in a high level then organization can achieve its goals through the committed employees. However, the existence of job satisfaction supports reaching to a required level of commitment. As Saridakis, et al., (2020) found that increases in employees’ job satisfaction positively influence organizational commitment.

Wright & Kehoe (2008) implying that employee outcomes composed of behavioral reactions (e.g. turnover, absenteeism), and affective reactions (e.g. commitment, satisfaction). Accordingly, adopting SHRM practices by firms would reinforce the level of commitment (Rehman, et al., 2020).

mployees play a key role in the success of the organization, since they considered as one of an organization’s assets. In that regard, there is a need to pursue strategies that are holistic and comprehensive to enhance employee’s commitment. However, the emphasis on job satisfaction could help to promote employee’s commitment, as it was revealed by Al-Aameri (2000) that the more satisfied the employees are the more committed they will be to their organizations.

Communication is being ignored by some organizations, which is negatively affecting the running of the organization’s activities; as a result, employee’s commitment could be affected. In that view, Yoon & Thye (2002) argued that communication is particularly important in producing commitment, as well as a strong predictor of organizational commitment (both direct and indirect).

It is important for the organization to recognize the significance of fairness, since it plays an essential role in terms of reinforcing employees’ organizational commitment (Vanhala, et al., 2016). In addition, improving spirituality climates can promote organizational commitment and thus, individual and organizational performance (Rego & e Cunha 2008).

Organizational commitment is a three-dimensional form that includes normative commitment, continuance commitment and affective commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Allen & Meyer, 1996). Being obligated to stay, perceived costs of quitting job and feel a sense of attachment to the organization are labelled as normative, continuance and affective commitment respectively (Solinger, et al., 2008).

Affective commitment indicates a positive sense of emotion to the organization, this can be felt through the strong willingness to stay in the organization and feel proud of being a member of it (Cesário & Chambel, 2017).

Continuance commitment depends primarily on employees’ perception of the costs associated with quitting the organization (Yousef, 2002).

Normative commitment is a psychological state represents a feeling of obligation because of some types of cultural, social or contextual parameters (Gautam, et al., 2005).

Research Model and Hypotheses

Based on previous studies (Kartal, 2018; Tummers & Den Dulk, 2013; Amarat et al., 2019; Özer et al., 2019; Ramalho Luz et al., 2018; Yeh, 2019; Yao et al., 2019; Bahrami et al., 2016), the researchers present the proposed model which contains work alienation as independent variable, and organizational commitment as dependent variable. Figure 1 clarified the formulated model and the correlative between the research dimensions.

In the same context, the research is conducted on the Ministry of Labor in Jordan to investigate the impact of the level of work alienation in organizational commitment. In light of the above, this research proposes the following main hypothesis and sub hypotheses:

H01: There is no significant impact of the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) at level (α ≤ 0.05) in organizational commitment (affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment) at the Ministry of Labor.

The following sub-hypotheses stems from this hypothesis:

H01.1: There is no significant impact of the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) at level (α ≤ 0.05) in affective commitment at the Ministry of Labor.

H01.2: There is no significant impact of the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) at level (α ≤ 0.05) in continuance commitment at the Ministry of Labor.

H01.3: There is no significant impact of the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) at level (α ≤ 0.05) in normative commitment at the Ministry of Labor.

Research Methodology

Descriptive analytical approach was used in the data analyses to study the research problem and test its hypotheses in order to achieve the study objectives and explain its significance. It provides information about the reality of the variables and the relationship between two variables, which assists in determining the relationship between cause and effect. This study empirically investigates the impact of work alienation in organizational commitment at the Ministry of Labor. Data collected by the questionnaire through field survey from the members of the sampling unit at the Ministry of Labor in Jordan. The population of this study included all individuals whom are working in the Ministry of Labor totaling (750) employees (www.mol.gov.jo). The study sampling unit consists of individuals working at the Ministry of Labor totaling (250) individuals. Questionnaires were handed out to (250) employees at different levels and randomly, total of (210) answered questionnaires were valid for study.

Analysis and Results

Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Items

To test the questionnaire clarity and ensure coherency between items and variables, a macro review was accurately performed by academic reviewers from Amman Arab University and other universities experts in Business Administration and Human Resources Management. The questionnaire was submitted to (7) instructors, (4) of them were from the faculty members in Amman Arab University, and (3) instructors from other universities. The comments have been done and taken into consideration. Besides that, Cronbach‟s alpha, was used to assess the reliability of the scales, according to Sekaran & Bougie (2013), Reliability should be (0.60) or higher to indicate adequate convergence or internal consistency. The results shown in Table (1) are acceptable levels as suggested by Sekaran & Bougie (2013).

Table 1 Values of Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient for The Research Variables
Variables	Cronbach's alpha
Independent Variable: Work Alienation
1	Powerlessness	0.704
2	Meaninglessness	0.714
3	Self-estrangement	0.902
Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment
1	Affective Commitment	0.907
2	Continuous Commitment	0.706
3	Normative Commitment	0.662
General Cronbach's alpha Coefficient		0.871

In the same context, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test and Tolerance test for each of the independent variables were performed to confirm the assumption that there is no high correlation between the independent variables (Multi-Collinearity). According to the decision rule that indicates if the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) of the variable exceeds (10) and the value of the Tolerance Test is less than (0.05), this means that this variable has a high correlation with other independent variables and thus will lead to a problem in the regression analysis. Table (2) indicates that the value of (VIF) for the independent variables is less than (10) and its values (1.001-1.485). Also it indicates that the Tolerance Test of the independent variables is greater than (0.05) and its value (0.672-0.999). Therefore, based on these results, it can be said that there is no real problem related to a high correlation between the independent variables.

Table 2 Value of VIF Variation Coefficient and Tolerance Between Independent Variables
Variables	VIF	Tolerance
Powerlessness	1.486	0.673
Meaninglessness	1.485	0.672
Self-estrangement	1.001	0.999

Testing Hypotheses

Main Hypothesis H01

Simple and multiple linear regression models with ANOVA Table was used to test the main hypothesis. Table (3) shows that the simple correlation coefficient between all dimensions of independent variable (Work Alienation) and all dimensions of the dependent variable (Organizational Commitment) is (61.2%), and the coefficient of determination (R²) is (37.4%), this means that the independent variable (Work Alienation) interprets 37.4% of the variance of the dependent variable (Organizational Commitment).

Table 3 Summary of the Results of the Simple Linear Regression Variance Analysis of the Main Hypothesis
Model	R	R2	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	0.612	0.374	0.371	0.436

Table (4) shows that F-value calculated=124.258, the significance value=0.000, which is less than 0.05, therefore the null hypothesis (Ho1) is rejected. This means that the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) have an impact in organizational commitment (affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment) at the Ministry of Labor.

Table 4 Regression Variance Analysis of the Main Hypothesis Anova
Model	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	23.666	1	23.666	124.258	0
Residual	39.616	208	0.19
Total	63.282	209

Table (5) shows the result of the regression analysis coefficients of the main hypothesis; it also shows that the independent variable (Work Alienation) has a statistically significant impact in the dependent variable (Organizational Commitment). The value of (B1) is (0.696), the value of (T) calculated is (11.147) and the significance value=0.000, which is less than 0.05. This means that the level of work alienation has an impact in organizational commitment.

Table 5 The Result of the Regression Analysis (Coefficients) of the Main Hypothesis
Regression Coefficients	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig*
	B	Std. Error	Beta.
(Constant)	0.936	0.232		4.036	0
Work Alienation	0.696	0.062	0.612	11.147	0

Testing the Sub-Hypothesis H01.1

The results in shows that the simple correlation coefficient between all dimensions of the independent variable (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) and the first dimension of dependent variable (affective commitment) is (82.3%), and the coefficient of determination (R²) is (67.7%), this means that the independent variable (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) interpret 67.7% of the variance of the dimension (affective commitment).

Table 6 Summary of The Results of the Simple Linear Regression Variance Analysis of the First Sub-Hypothesis
Std. Error of the Estimate	Adjusted R Square	R2	R	Model
0.6	0.672	0.677	0.823	1

Table (7) shows that F-value calculated=143.658, the significance value=0.000, which is less than 0.05, therefore the null hypothesis (H01.1) is rejected. This means that the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) have an impact in affective commitment at the Ministry of Labor.

Table 7 Regression Variance Analysis of The First Sub-Hypothesis Anova
Model	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	155.584	3	51.861	143.658	0
Residual	74.367	206	0.361
Total	229.951	209

Table (8) shows the result of the regression analysis coefficients of the first Sub- hypothesis, it also shows that the dimension (Self-estrangement) statistically significant and has a greater impact on the dimension (Affective Commitment). The value of (B1) is (0.852), the value of (T) calculated is (20.744) and the significance value α=0.000, which is less than 0.05. This means that the level of work alienation impact the affective commitment. While the other dimensions of independent variable (Powerlessness, Meaninglessness) have no impact on the dimension (Affective Commitment) because the significance values are greater than (α=0.000).

Table 8 The Result of the Regression Analysis (Coefficients) of the First Sub-Hypothesis
Regression Coefficients	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig*
	B	Std. Error	Beta.
(Constant)	0.829	0.349		2.377	0.018
Powerlessness	0.112	0.089	0.061	1.261	0.209
Meaninglessness	0.02	0.087	0.011	0.23	0.818
Self-estrangement	0.852	0.041	0.822	20.744	0

Testing the Sub-Hypothesis H01.2

The results in Table (9) shows that the simple correlation coefficient between all dimensions of the independent variables (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) and the dimension (continuance commitment) is (34.3%), and the coefficient of determination (R²) is (11.8%), this means that the dimensions of independent variables (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) interpret (11.8%) of the variance of the dimension (continuance commitment).

Table 9 Summary of the Results of the Simple Linear Regression Variance Analysis of the Second Sub-Hypothesis
Model	R	R2	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	0.343	0.118	0.105	0.598

Table (10) shows that F-value calculated=9.183, the significance value=0.000, which is less than 0.05, therefore the null hypothesis (H01.2) is rejected. This means that the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) have an impact in the dimension (continuance commitment) at the Ministry of Labor.

Table 10 Regression Variance Analysis of the Second Sub-Hypothesis Anova
Model	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	9.868	3	3.289	9.183	0
Residual	73.793	206	0.358
Total	83.661	209

Table (11) shows the result of the regression analysis coefficients of the second Sub- hypothesis, it also shows that the dimension (Meaninglessness) statistically significant and has a greater impact in the dimension (continuance commitment). The value of (B2) is (0.367), the value of (T) calculated is (4.251) and the significance value α=0.000, which is less than 0.05. This means that the level of work alienation has an impact in continuance commitment. Also the dimension (Self-estrangement) is statistically significant and impact in the dimension (continuance commitment). The value of (B3) is (0.083), the value of (T) calculated is (2.017) and the significance value α=0.045, which is less than 0.05. While the dimension (Powerlessness) has no impact in the dimension (continuance commitment) because the significance value is greater than (α=0.000).

Table 11 The Result of the Regression Analysis (Coefficients) of the Second Sub-Hypothesis
Regression Coefficients	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig*
	B	Std. Error	Beta.
(Constant)	2.282	0.347		6.569	0
Powerlessness	0.046	0.089	0.041	0.518	0.605
Meaninglessness	0.367	0.086	0.339	4.251	0
Self-estrangement	0.083	0.041	0.132	2.017	0.045

Testing the Sub-Hypothesis H01.3

The results in Table (12) shows that the simple correlation coefficient between all dimensions of the independent variables (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) and the dimension (normative commitment) is (42.4%), and the coefficient of determination (R²) is (18%), this means that the dimensions of independent variables (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) interpret (18%), of the variance of the dimension (Normative Commitment).

Table 12 Summary of the Results of the Simple Linear Regression Variance Analysis of the Third Sub-Hypothesis
Model	R		R2	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	0.424	0.18		0.168	0.556

Table (13) shows that F-value calculated=15.023, the significance value=0.000, which is less than 0.05, therefore the null hypothesis (H01.3) is rejected. This means that the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) have an impact in normative commitment at the Ministry of Labor.

Table 13 Regression Variance Analysis of the Third Sub-Hypothesis Anova
Model	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	13.958	3	4.653	15.023	0
Residual	63.799	206	0.31
Total	77.757	209

Table (14) shows the result of the regression analysis coefficients of the third Sub- hypothesis, it also shows that the dimension (Self-estrangement) is statistically significant and has a greater impact in the dimension (normative commitment). The value of (B3) is (0.206), the value of (T) calculated is (5.410) and the significance value α=0.000, which is less than 0.05. This means that the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement) have an impact in the dimension (normative commitment). Also the dimension (Powerlessness) is statistically significant and impact in the dimension (normative commitment). The value of (B1) is (0.187), the value of (T) calculated is (2.260) and the significance value α=0.025, which is less than 0.05. While the dimension (Meaninglessness) has no impact in the dimension (normative commitment) because the significance value is greater than (α=0.000).

Table 14 The Result of the Regression Analysis (Coefficients) of the Third Sub-Hypothesis
Regression Coefficients	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig*
	B	Std. Error	Beta.
(Constant)	1.814	0.323		5.616	0
Powerlessness	0.187	0.083	0.174	2.26	0.025
Meaninglessness	0.102	0.08	0.098	1.276	0.203
Self-estrangement	0.206	0.038	0.342	5.41	0

Conclusions and Recommendations

Results indicated that the level of work alienation (powerlessness, meaninglessness and self-estrangement) have a significant impact at level (α ≤ 0.05) in organizational commitment (affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment) at the Ministry of Labor. These findings are consistent with research findings of G. Tummers & Den Dulk (2013), which indicated that work alienation (powerlessness and meaninglessness) influence organizational commitment.

In the same context, Findings showed that the level of work alienation has a significant impact at level (α ≤ 0.05) in affective commitment at the Ministry of Labor. This result is consistent with research findings of Hirschfeld & Feild (2000), who found that work alienation had a strong correlation with affective organizational commitment. In addition, the axis (self-estrangement) has a greater significant impact in the axis (affective commitment), while the axes (powerlessness and meaninglessness) have no impact in affective commitment at the Ministry of Labor because the significance values are greater than (α=0.000).

This study also found that the level of work alienation has a significant impact at level (α ≤ 0.05) in continuance and normative commitment at the Ministry of Labor. More specifically, the axis (meaninglessness) has a greater significant impact in the axis (continuance commitment), and the axis (self-estrangement) has an impact in continuance commitment, while the axis (powerlessness) has no impact in continuance commitment at the Ministry of Labor because the significance value is greater than (α=0.000). On the other side, the axis (self-estrangement) has a greater significant impact in the axis (normative commitment), and the axis (powerlessness) has an impact in normative commitment, while the axis (meaninglessness) has no impact in normative commitment at the Ministry of Labor because the significance value is greater than (α=0.000).

Regarding to research recommendations the researchers recommend to provide a positive climate by improving the relationship between managers and employees, participating in events, adopting the open door policy, encouraging creativity and creating a strong teamwork culture. This will lead to avoid being estranged in the Ministry of Labor. Besides, empowering employees’ by involving them in the decision- making process is recommended in order to alleviate powerlessness in the Ministry of Labor.

Managers at the Ministry should try to prevent the alienation of their employees’ to enhance organizational commitment because alienation includes negative aspects such as sabotage at workplace, burnout, less motivation and unethical behaviors, which in turn would decrease the commitment among them. Similarly, the Human Recourses Department need to pay attention to the importance of maintaining engagement in order to diminish the feeling of self-estrangement.

References

1. Abu-Moqadam, A. (2014). The level of work alienation and its causes on academic staff in Al-Quds and Hebron Universities.
2. Al-Aameri, A.S. (2000). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment for nurses. Saudi medical journal, 21(6), 531-535.
3. Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.‏
4. Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of vocational behavior, 49(3), 252-276.‏
5. Amarat, M., Akbolat, M., Ünal, Ö., & Güneş Karakaya, B. (2019). The mediating role of work alienation in the effect of workplace loneliness on nurses’ performance. Journal of nursing management, 27(3), 553-559.
6. Bahrami, M.A., Barati, O., Ghoroghchian, M.S., Montazer-alfaraj, R., & Ezzatabadi, M.R. (2016). Role of organizational climate in organizational commitment: The case of teaching hospitals. Osong public health and research perspectives, 7(2), 96-100.‏
7. Bhatti, M.H., Bhatti, M.H., Akram, M.U., Hashim, M., & Akram, Z. (2016). Relationship between job stress and organizational commitment: An empirical study of banking sector. Journal of Business Management and Economics, 7(1), 29-37.‏
8. Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and teacher education, 20(3), 277-289.
9. Cesário, F., & Chambel, M.J. (2017). Linking organizational commitment and work engagement to employee performance. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 152-158.
10. Cetinkaya, A.S., & Karayel, S. (2019). The effects of organizational silence on work alienation in service enterprises. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 18(4), 480-498.
11. G. Tummers, L., & Den Dulk, L. (2013). The effects of work alienation on organizational commitment, work effort and work‐to‐family enrichment. Journal of nursing management, 21(6), 850-859.‏
12. Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Upadhyay, N., & Davis, A.J. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian journal of social psychology, 8(3), 305-314.‏
13. Gozukara, I., Mercanlı, A., Çapuk, S., & Yıldırım, O. (2017). Impact of turnover intention on loneliness and the mediating effect of work alienation. Business Management and Strategy, 8(1), 18-38.
14. Hirschfeld, R.R., & Feild, H.S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 789-800.‏
15. Kanungo, R.N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological bulletin, 86(1), 119.
16. Kurdi, F. (2018). The impact of job alienation on the performance among Palestine medical complex employees. International Humanities Studies, 5(3), 15-29.‏
17. Lamond, D., Nair, N., & Vohra, N. (2010). An exploration of factors predicting work alienation of knowledge workers. Management Decision, 48(4), 600-615.‏
18. Liou, S.R. (2008). An analysis of the concept of organizational commitment. Nursing forum, 43(3), 116-125. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc.
19. Muttar, A.K., Keir, M.Y.A., Mahdi, O.R., & Nassar, I.A. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of work alienation–A critical. Journal of Statistics Applications & Probability, 8(3), 279-288.
20. Özer, Ö.U., Saygılı, M., & Sonğur, C. (2019). The impact of work alienation on organizational health: A field study in health sector. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 12(1), 18-24.
21. Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of applied psychology, 59(5), 603.
22. Ramalho Luz, C.M.D., Luiz de Paula, S., & de Oliveira, L.M.B. (2018). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and their possible influences on intent to turnover. Revista de Gestão, 25(1), 84-101.‏
23. Rego, A., & e Cunha, M.P. (2008). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: an empirical study. Journal of organizational change management, 21(1), 53-75.
24. Rehman, K.U., Hafeez, I., Aslam, F., Maitlo, Q., & Syed, A.R. (2020). The mediating role of trust and organizational commitment in the relationship between strategic human resource management and knowledge sharing. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 13(4), 565-586.‏
25. Saridakis, G., Lai, Y., Muñoz Torres, R.I., & Gourlay, S. (2020). Exploring the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An instrumental variable approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(13), 1739-1769.
26. Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American sociological review, 24(6), 783-791.‏
27. Sehrawat, S. (2016). Work-life imbalance: an inclination towards work alienation stress and employee self-estrangement. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(9), 24541362.
28. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach, (5th edition). John Wiley & Sons.
29. Solinger, O.N., Van Olffen, W., & Roe, R.A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of applied psychology, 93(1), 70.‏
30. Steers, R.M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative science quarterly, 46-56.‏
31. Suárez‐Mendoza, M.J., & Zoghbi‐Manrique‐de‐Lara, P. (2007). The impact of work alienation on organizational citizenship behavior in the Canary Islands. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 51(1), 56-‏76.
32. Taamneh, M., & AL-Gharaibeh, M.A. (2014). The impact of job security elements on the work alienation at private universities in Jordan (A field study from employee’s perspective). European Journal of Business and Management, 6(23), 56-68.
33. Tummers, L., Bekkers, V., van Thiel, S., & Steijn, B. (2015). The effects of work alienation and policy alienation on the behavior of public employees. Administration & Society, 47(5), 596-617.‏
34. Usman, M., Ali, M., Yousaf, Z., Anwar, F., Waqas, M., & Khan, M.A.S. (2020). The relationship between laissez‐faire leadership and burnout: Mediation through work alienation and the moderating role of political skill. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 37(4), 423-434.
35. Valadbigi, A., & Ghobadi, S. (2011). The study of the elements of work alienation: A case study of the Urmia White Cement Factory, Western Azarbayjan Province, Iran. Asian Social Science, 7(6), 206-219.
36. Vanhala, M., Heilmann, P., & Salminen, H. (2016). Organizational trust dimensions as antecedents of organizational commitment. Knowledge and Process Management, 23(1), 46-61.
37. Vinokurov, L.V., & Kozhina, A.A. (2020). The contribution of individual psychological features to the determination of the phenomenon of work alienation. Behavioral Sciences, 10(1), 34.‏
38. Wright, P.M., & Kehoe, R.R. (2008). Human resource practices and organizational commitment: A deeper examination. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 6-20.
39. Yao, T., Qiu, Q., & Wei, Y. (2019). Retaining hotel employees as internal customers: Effect of organizational commitment on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty of employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 1-8.
40. Yeh, C.M. (2019). The relationship between tourism involvement, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel industry. Tourism and hospitality management, 25(1), 75-93.
41. Yoon, J., & Thye, S.R. (2002). A dual process model of organizational commitment: Job satisfaction and organizational support. Work and occupations, 29(1), 97-124.‏
42. Yousef, D.A. (2002). Job satisfaction as a mediator of the relationship between role stressors and organizational commitment. Journal of managerial psychology, 17(4), 250-266.
43. Yu, H., Yang, F., Wang, T., Sun, J., & Hu, W. (2019). How perceived over qualification relates to work alienation and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of LMX. Current Psychology, 1-9.