Beranda > Volume. II No. 1 > THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MULTIDIMENSIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, JOB SATISFACTION, AND TURNOVER INTENTION OF AUDITORS IN ACCOUNTING FIRMS1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MULTIDIMENSIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, JOB SATISFACTION, AND TURNOVER INTENTION OF AUDITORS IN ACCOUNTING FIRMS1

By:

Ferdiansyah and Ivan Aries Setiawan
STIE STAN, Bandung
E-mail: f.ritonga@gmail.com

Abstract

The present research examines turnover phenomena in publicaccounting firms setting. This paper aims to examine the relationship betweenthe multidimensional perspective of organizational commitment (affective,continuance, and normative commitment) and job satisfaction in predictingaccountant’s turnover. Nevertheless, the research used turnover intention as aproxy of actual turnover. The subjects were 52 auditors who worked on 44public accounting firms in West Java. Path analysis was used to test thehypothesis and also to find out direct and indirect effects of independentvariables on dependent variables. The result showed that three of sevenhypotheses proposed failed to be -confirmed. The three dimensions oforganizational commitment, apparently, hadHo significant effects on turnoverintention. While, the three dimensions of organizational commitment did havesignificant effects on job satisfaction. Furthermore, job satisfaction had asignificant effect on turnover intention. Several implications discussed in thefinal part of this paper.

Keywords : Affective commitment, continuance conunitment, normativecommitment, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, turnover intention.

Introduction

At this time, accounting firms are facing the problem of high levelaccountant staffs turnover (Connor et al., 1999 in Law, 2005). Various studies inAmerica show us supporton these issue (Poznanski and Bline, 1997; Lampe

examples, Yunus (1992) inSetiawan (2005) stated that the number of localPublic Accounting Firm (KAP) established by accountants who previouslyworked at foreign accounting firms or ‘large accounting firms encourage thehigh level accountant staff withdrawal at the public accounting firm.

In certain cases, turnover is required by the organization especially foremployees with low performance (Hollenbeck and Williams, 1986). However,the intensity level of turnover must be strived for not too high, so theorganization still has the opportunity to obtain benefits or advantages uponnew employees performance improvement which is greater than the cost ofrecruitment that organization has spent (Tony, 1999).

Those accountant turnover or withdrawal issue described earlierencouraged researchers to explore constructs that could explain the issue.Among the various constructs that were frequently observed to explain theturnover,, issue, organizational commitment and job satisfaction are the twoconstructs that often to be consideredin the review of turnover phenomenon(Zain and Setiawan, 2005; Khikmah Noor, 2005)

Research conducted by Meyer and Allen (1991) conclude thatorganizational committment related to turnover . Organizational commitment inrelation to the turnover was also strengthened by research conducted by Lee etal. (1992).Other construct that can be considered to explain the turnoverphenomenon is job satisfaction. Research conducted by Lee and Mowday (1987)showed that job satisfaction has a relationship with the turnover. In line withresearch conducted by Lee and Mowday, study conducted by Clugston (2000)also showed that job satisfaction has a negative relationship with the turnover. In the non-accounting setting, Hom and Griffeth (1991.) found evidence thatthere were negative relationship between job satisfaction and intention to leavethe organization.Apart from the findings described earlier, several researchers alsoidentified the relationship between organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction (Becker, 1992; Harris et al., 1993; Begley and Czajka, 1993).Although several studies have been conducted with the conclusion that therewere relationship between organizational commitment, job satisfaction, with turnover behaviors, there were different findings from other researchers. Cohen (1993) showed that the relationship between organizational commitment andwithdrawal bring about only a small though significant correlation.Furthermore, the low correlation is likely to happen because of other variablesin the relationship between organizational commitment and turnover. Anotherstudy conducted by Gregson (1992) found that organizational commitment wasnot a significant predictor for turnover behavior.

MacKenzie et al. (1998) stated that attitudes (such as work commitments)have a stronger relationship with behavioral intention (such as the tendency toleave the organization) rather than actual behavior (such as turnover).Although several studies have been done to show the existence of strongsupport on the relationship between organizational commitment, jobsatisfaction, with intention to leave, there are still some important issues thatbecome debates subject.

The first issue is on that most studiesOn organizational commitment, jobsatisfaction and turnover took place and evolving on the non-accountingsetting. While according to Ketchand and Strawser (1998), these findings innon-accounting settings may not necessarily be extrapolated to the accountingsetting.

The second issue, organizational commitment traditionally viewed as asingle dimensional construct (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al, 1982;Aranya, 1982), although various studies show the support for themultidimensional nature of organizational commitment (Clugston, 2000;Ketchand and Strawser, 1998; Meyer and Allen, 1991). Meyer and Allen (1991)explained that the organizational commitment can be explained in threedimensions, i.e. affective, continuance, and normative commitment.

Despite of the source of multidimensional organizational commitmenthas been identified, very few studies that use muitidimensional approach(Ketchand and Strawser, 1998). In fact, the multidimensional approach willprovide more complete understanding of the involvement of the individual tothe organization. Thus, the motivations that encourage this study is to predictthe intention of leave (turnover intention) based on the constructs of jobsatisfaction and the uniqueness – of the multidimensional nature oforganizational commitment. While the -selection of the constructs oforganizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of turnoverintention based on the consideration that organizational commitment ismultidimensional and has not been extensively investigated in the setting ofaccounting, particularly in Indonesia. Therefore, there is still available room forfurther study (Setiawan, 2005).

Organizational commitment

At first, organizational commitment is a single dimension concept.However, the concept evolved into the multidimensional concept.Organizational commitment concept is based on the premise that the individualforms a bond (attachment) to the organization (Ketchand and Strawser, 1998).Historically, Setiawan and Ghozali, (2006: 193) stated that .organizational commitment is a behavioral perspective, where commitment is defined asbehavior that is consistent with the acclivity (consistent lines of activity). Different views about organizational commitment expressed by the attitudinalschool pioneered by Kanter in 1968 (Setiawan and Ghozali, 2006; 193). Kanterargued that commitment is a willingness of social actors to give energy andloyalty to the organization, as well as affective individual attachment to thegroup, the commitment is deemed not a behavior but an attitude.

Multidimensional approach considers that organizational commitments is not a single dimension concept, butits is multidimensional. According to Meyer and Allen (1991), organizational commitment is defined as a belief andacceptance of one’s values and goals of the organization, thus making them feelat home and want to stay in the organization. Meyer and Allen (1991) explainedthat the commitment can be explained in three dimensions, i.e. affective,continuance, and normative conin-dti-nent. Furthermore, according to Meyerand Allen:

Affective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to do so. Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Employees Whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so. Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization”.

Job satisfaction

Locke (1969) defined job satisfaction as a pleasant condition or positiveemotional derived from. the assessment of one’s job or work experience.Robbins (2006; 94) suggested that job satisfaction is an individual’s generalattitude towards his work. Someone with a high level of job satisfaction shows positive attitudes toward the job, someone who is dissatisfied with his workshows negative attitudes toward the job.

Turnover intention

Tett and Meyer (1993) stated that the turnover intention means aconscious and deliberate action to leave the organization. Babin and Boles(1998) defined the turnover intention as a possibility that someone will leave hisjob within a certain timeframe.

Hypothesis Development

Relationship between the dimensions of organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction

Hackett et al. (1994) examined the relationship between themultidimensional construct of organizational commitment with job satisfactionusing sample of nurses and bus operators. ors. On samples of nurses, Hackett et al.found that the affective and normative conuiiitment are positive and significantpredictor on job satisfaction. Furthermore, those findings was also found intples of bus operators.Research conducted by Kuruuzum et al. (2009) in order to determine the
tionship between job involvement, job satisfaction, and three dimensions of
ganizational comniit-nient (affective, continuance, normative commitment) on
setting of the tourism industry in Turkey. Kuruuzum et. al., found that
r affective commitment and normative conui-dtment had positive and
ficant relationship with job satisfaction. Another study conducted. by
er et al. (1993) showed that affective commitment has positive relationship
job satisfaction and continuance commitment is negatively related to job
satisfaction. Jenkins et al. (1992) found that affective commitment influence theincreases of job satisfaction and continuance commitment negatively affect tothe job satisfaction decreases.

Finally, based on intensive literature review, Ketchand and Strawser1998) concluded that affective conui-Litnient has positive influence on jobsatisfaction, while continuance commitment has a negative impact on jobsatisfaction.

Hypothesis formulation :

H1: Affective commitment is positively related to job satisfaction

H2: Continuance commitment is negatively related to job satisfaction

H3: Normative commitment is positively related to job satisfaction

Relationship between the dimensions of organizational commitment andturnover intention

Conceptually, organizational commitment has important positionconsidering its relationship with the -output such as employees absence andwithdrawal process (Hunt and Morgan, 1994). Although the numbers are stilllimited, both in the setting of accounting and non accounting, some researchersstudied the relationship between multidimensional organizational commitment and turnover intention. In non-accounting setting, Meyer et al. (1993) found thataffective and normative commitment are negatively related to the turnovertion, furthermore affective commitment is a significant predictor for the turnover intention.

Jaros (1994) reviewed the multidimensional model of Meyer and Allen
(1991.)in conjunction with the turnover intention using sample of technicians
part-timer worker. Jaros found that affective commitment is a negative
predictor for the turnover intention. Another study conducted by Racket et al.
(1991) to the bus operators and nurses, found a negative relationship between affective, continuance and normative commitment with the turnover intention. In line with previous study, Iverson and Buttigieg (1999) found that affectivecommitment and normative commitment had negative and significantrelationship with the turnover intention. Labatmediene et al. (2007), conducteda study with the subject of employees working on various types oforganizations, especially services organizations in Lithuania. The resultsshowed that all dimensions of organizational commitment -effective,continuance and normative commitment- significantly and negatively related tothe employees turnover intention.

Hypothesis formulation :

H4: Affective conunitment is negatively related to turnover intention

H5: Continuance commitment is negatively related to turnover intention

H6 : Normative commitment is negatively related to turnover intention

 

Relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention11,13tment

In addition to organizational commitment , job satisfaction is widelyregarded as a construct that determines the presence of employees within theorganization. Poon (2004) found evidence that there is a negative correlationbetween job satisfaction and turnover intention. Poon findings are once againconfirming the results of other studies (Wong et al., 1994 Tett and Meyer, 1993).

Chiu and Francesco (2003), conducted a study with the respondents areprofessionals and managers from southern China region. From the results ofregression analysis found that job satisfaction variable is negatively related withturnover intention. Park and Kim (2009) conducted a study on 527 nursesworking in government hospitals in South Korea. One hypothesis proposedis whether job satisfaction has negative relationship with the turnover intention. The results showed that the hypothesis proposed in this research is proven. In addition to analyzing the correlation between those two constructs, severalother studies try to find out the ability of job satisfaction in predicting theturnover intention. Rabin and Boles (1998) found that turnover intention is afunction of job satisfaction and overall life satisfaction. Study conducted by Leeand Mowday (1987) showed that job satisfaction negatively related to turnoverintention, and job satisfaction can be, used to predict turnover intention. In astudy to the restaurant employees in South Korea, Kim et al. (2005) found thatthe higher employee job satisfaction, the turnover intention tend to decline, orin other words, job satisfaction negatively affect the turnover intention.

Hypothesis formulation :

H7 :Job satisfaction is negatively related to turnover intention

Figure 1. Theoretical Model

 

 

 

 

RESEARCH METHOD

Population and sample

Target population in this study are all auditors who work at publicaccounting firms located in West Java. Simple random sampling is used in thisstudy- The sample consisted of 52 auditors who work at the accounting firms inWest Java. The research hypothesis was tested using path analysis.

Multidimensional organizational commitment is measured usinginstruments developed b), Meyer and Allen (1990). Job satisfaction is measuredthrough a questionnaire which consists of six statements developed by Celucci(1978). Turnover intention was measured by four-item scale statementsdeveloped by Fahr et al. (1998) and has been used in the context of Asia byChen and Francesco (2000). All measurements is based on the subject response ofa series of items using a five point Likert scale-type, which begins with the digit1 (Strongly Disagree) to digit 5 (Strongly Agree).

RESULTS

‘Measurement instruments testing

Here are presented the results of calculation to testing of validity andreliability of research instruments for each variables:

Table 1. Resume of Validity and Reliability Coefficient

 

 

Variables Product – Moment PearsonCorrelation Coefficient Cronbach AlphaCoefficient
Affective Commitment 0.359 – 0.767 0.7090
Continuance Commitment 0.423 – 0.662 0.6343
Normative Commitment 0.415 – 0.699 0.6442
Job Satisfaction 0.486 – 0.761 0.7082
Turnover Intention 0.579 – 0.820 0.6519

 

Based on table 1 above, it can be concluded that allitems of the instruments
about the affective, continuance, normative commitment, job satisfaction and
turnover intention stated to be valid for use in data processing and analyzing.
from the table also seems that each instrument are reliable instrument
use the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of each variables are greater than 0.60, it show that the instrument of the five variables can be counted on to be used as means of collecting data.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 presents the mean, standard deviation, and bi-variate correlation.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5
1 Affective Commitment 3.533 .,484 1 .524** .504** .462** .381**
2, Continuance Commitement 3.202 .473 .524** 1 .654** .419** -.446**
3. Normative Commitment 3.375 .521 .504** .654** 1 .145 -.359**
Job Satisfaction 3.696 .485 .462** .419** .145 1 -485**
Turnover Intention 2.837 .618 -.381 -.446** -.359** .485** 1

Correlation is significant at 0.01 level

Correlation showed an initial indication of the relationship between
variables (Ameen et al., 1994). From Table 2, it is known that affective
commitment and continuance commitment variables each has a significant
positive correlation with job satisfaction variable, where the correlation
coefficient between affective commitment with job satisfaction is 0.462, while
correlation coefficient between continuance commitment with job satisfaction is
0.419 at the 0.01 level of significance. Next, the correlation between normative
commitment variable with job satisfaction was not significant. Furthermore,
note that affective, continuance, and normative commitment each has a
negative and significant correlation with the turnover intention. Correlation
coefficient between affective commitment with turnover intention is -0.381, the
correlation coefficient between the continuance commitment with turnover intention is – 0.446, and the correlation coefficient between normativecommitment with the turnover intention is -0.359 at the 0.01 level ofsignificance. .

Finally, for the job satisfaction variable has a negative and significantcorrelation with the turnover intention with correlation coefficient of -0.485 atthe 0.01 level of significance.

Path Analysis

Path analysis figure below shows the structural relationships ofvariables.

Figure 2. Path Analysis – Analysis Model

,126

 

Table 3. Path Coefficient – Analysis Model
Estimate S.E. C.R. P
JS AC .411 .14 2,93 .003
JS NC -.318 .147 -2,164
JSJS ccel .433.203 .164 2,674 007
TI JS -.489 .177 -2,76 .006
TI NC -.232 194 -1,199 .231
TI Ac -.04 .192 -.208 .835
TI cc -184 .221 -.832 .406
T1 e2 251

 

C.R Critical ratio, is identical with the t- test in regression

P Probability

Table 3. shows the estimated path coefficients and p-value (P) of each hypothesized relationship. With the restrictions p-value (P) at a level = 0.05 (p < 0.05), which can be noted that not all relationships between variables canconfirm the hypothesis proposed. Affective, continuance, and normativecommitment variables have no significant effect on, turnover intention (each p-,value is 0.835, 0.406, and 0.231). Furthermore on job satisfaction, affective,continuance, and normative conu-nitment variables each has a significant effect with their respective p-value is for 0.003; 0.007; and 0.03. (Each path coefficient0.411; 0.438; and -0.318).

Finally, for the job satisfaction variable has a significant negative effectturnover intention (p-value = 0.006).

Direct, Indirect and Total Effects

Based on the hypothesis testing, not all. hypothesis proposed can beed by the data. Therefore, a description of direct, indirect and total effects only includes significant relationship between variables. Table 4 belowpresents direct effects.

Tabel 4.

Standardized Direct Effects

CC NC AC JS
JSTI .428-.141 -.341-.196 .410-.031 .000-.383

 

By placing the job satisfaction as dependent variable, continuancecommitment variables have the largest direct positive effect that is equal to0.428, while the affective commitment has a direct positive effect for 0.410.Finally, for normative commitment variable hasa negative direct effect of 0.341. Furthermore, by placing the turnover intention as the dependentvariable, only the job satisfaction variable that gives direct effects on turnoverintention that is equal to -0.383.

Table 5 presents the indirect effects of affective, continuance, andnormative commitment variables on turnover intention where the jobsatisfaction positioned as an intervening variable.

Table 5.

Standardized Indirect Effects

CC NC AC JS
JSTI .000-.164 .000.131 .000-.157 .000.000

By placing the job satisfaction as dependent variable, continuancecommitment variables have the largest direct positive effect that is equal to0.428, while the affective commitment has a direct positive effect for 0.410.Finally, for normative commitment variable hasa negative direct effect of 0.341. Furthermore, by placing the turnover intention as the dependentvariable, only the job satisfaction variable that gives direct effects on turnoverintention that is equal to -0.383.

Table 5 presents the indirect effects of affective, continuance, andnormative commitment variables on turnover intention where the jobsatisfaction positioned as an intervening variable.

Table 5. Standardized Indirect Effects

CC NC AC JS
JSTI .()()()-.164 .000.131 .000-.157 .()00.000

 

Concerning the indirect effects, thegreatesteffects of organizationalcommitment dimensions to turnover intention through the job satisfactionprovided by the continuance commitment that is equal to -0.164, followed by the affective commitment and normative commitment to each indirect effects of0.157 and 0.131. This indicates that job satisfaction is able to bridge the effects ofallthree dimensions of organizational commitment to turnover intentionhough the direct effects of these three variables to the turnover intention wasnot significant.

Table 6.
Standardized Total Effects

CC NC AC JS
JS .428 -.341 .410 .000
TV’ -.305 -.065 -.188 -.383
T1 -.164 .131 -157 -.383

 

Furthermore, table 6 presents the total effects. By placing the jobsatisfaction as dependent variable, continuance commitment has the highesttotal effect that is equal to 0.428, followed by the affective commitment andnormative commitment with the total effect of each 0.410 and -0.341.

Finally, by placing the turnover intention as’the dependent variable, jobsatisfaction has the largest total effect that is equal to -0.383. Because thevariables of organizational commitment don’t have direct effects on turnoverintention, then for the total effect of each organizational commitment variablewill be equal to the indirect effects of these variables on the turnover intention.The amount of the total effect of continuance commitment on turnover intention is -0.164, affective commitment is for -0.157, and the total effects of normative commitment to the turnover intention is equal to 0.131.

Next, determination coefficient formula is used to see the effects of
organizational commitment dimensionsonturnover intention through job
satisfaction. The determination coefficient indicates the ability of independentvariables (that have met the criteria of significance) in explaining the variationsor changes in the dependent variable. The greater the coefficient ofdetermination, the better the model proposed.

Table 7.

Squared Multiple Correlations Estimate

JS- 320

TI 331

Table 7 presents the squared correlation coefficient for the job satisfactionvariable and turnover intention. The number of 0.320 or 32% indicates that thevariation in job satisfaction variable can be explained by 32% of organizationalcon-uniti-nent dimensions. As for the remaining 68% is explainedby othervariables not includedinthe model.

Furthermore, an estimate of 0.331 or 33.1% shows changes in turnoverintention variable can be directly explained by 33.1% of job satisfactionvariables and indirectly by organizational commitment dimensions. As for therest of 66.9% is explained by other variables that not analyzed.

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

In this study there were seven hypothesis. From the seventh hypothesis,not all hypothesis can be confirmed by the data. There are three hypothesis arerejected or failed to be confirmed by the data, those hypothesis is the fourth,fifth, and sixth.

Hypothesis fourth, fifth, and sixth state that affective, continuance, andnormative con-u-nitment each has negative effect on turnover intention. Thefindings in this study explain that the three dimensions of organizationalcommitment do not significantly effect theturnover intention, so we can saythat this finding is inconsistent with the results of studies conducted by Meyeret al., 1993; Jaros, 1994, Hacket et al., 1994; Iverson and Buttigieg, 1999; andLabatrnediene et al., 2007.

Possible explanation why did the affective, continuance, and normativecommitment have no significant effect on the turnover intention can be seenfrom the theoretical aspect. Theoretically, Gregson (1992) stated thatorganizational commitment was not a significant predictor for withdrawalbehavior. One explanation of the low correlation is that there is possibility ofother variables that are in the relationship between organizational commitmentand withdrawal (Cohen, 1993). Another study that is consistent with thefindings is the study conducted by Wong et al. (1994) which stated that theorganizational commitment dimensions are not directly related with turnoverintention but through job satisfaction. In other words, job satisfaction is a directpredictor for the turnover intention. This is confirmed by this study in whichjob satisfaction mediates the effects of the three dimensions of organizationalcommitment and turnover intention.

Next to the first, second, third, and seventh hypothesis, all can beconfirmed by data. These hypothesis are affective, continuance, and normativecommitment respectively affecting on job satisfaction. This findings are in line,with the study conducted by researchers earlier, namely Kuruuzum, et al, 2009;Ketchand and Strawser, 1998; Hacket et al., 1994; Meyer et al., 1993; and Jenkinset al, 1992.

Although some of the results of this study are in line with previousstudies, there is still the inconsistencies issue regarding the direction of theeffect. Study conducted by Ketchand and Strawser 1998; Meyer et al., 1993, and.Jenkins et al., 1992 showed that continuance commitment has negative effect on job satisfaction, while this study found that the continuance commitmentpositively effect the job satisfaction. Furthermore, -Kuruuzum et .al., 2009, andHacket et al., 1994 explained that the normative commitment positively effectthe job satisfaction, while this study indicate that the normative commitmenthas negative effect on job satisfaction. Finally, about the effect of affectivecommitment variable is in line with previous studies, that affective commitmentpositively effect the job satisfaction.

Possible explanations about the significance of the effects of affective,continuance, and normative commitment on job satisfaction can be seen fromthe theoretical and practical aspects. Theoretically, the formation of a strongerorganizational commitment begins when individuals join the organization and at the same time other job opportunities are available (Vandenberg and Lance, 1992). The merger of the individual (accountant) into organizations (accountingfirm) is an early stagein which accountants develop commitments. Accordingto the behavioral perspective, the action to join the organization and theconditions surrounding the action (e.g. merging of a person when there areother job opportunities), determine an individual attitudinal commitment to theorganization. The emergence of other job opportunities as an accountant to jointhe accounting firm is a condition that can cause the dissonance of their choice.The next process is a function of the dissonance degree of their choice. Thegreater the need to reduce dissonance, and dissonance reduction as individualsinterpret the rationalization of its option to reinforce the positive aspects ofchoice (to join the accounting firm) and reduce the positive aspects of other jobalternatives are not chosen. In other words, individuals reduce the degree ofdissonance with developed more commitment to the organization.Commitment initiated a process of rationalization whereby individuals’ justifythe present situation by developingan attitude that is consistent with thecommitment (Bateman and Strasser, 1984). According to Bateman and Strasser,individual develop commitments during theinitial entry in the organization. and subsequently interpret the work experience (i.e. job satisfactions) byconsidering the commitment. Thus, based on the perspective of dissonance atits option, organizational commitment is the basis for developing otherattitudes such as job satisfaction.

Next for the continuance commitment, this study found a significantpositive effect of this variable on job satisfaction, and its different from theresults of previous research which has a negative direction. This invitesspeculation that generally, auditor investigated in this study did have a desireto work in the accounting firm since the beginning they join the organization.

Meyer and Allen (1991) stated that normative commitment can bedeveloped if the organization provides “advance rewards” such as providingfurther study or training facilities. This encourages imbalance relationshipbetween employers and organizations so that the employee has theresponsibility to pay for such reciprocation until it “paid off”. There are twotypes of reciprocity, by desire and by obligation. Most likely normativecommitment is formed based by obligation, not by desire. Thus, if theobligation has been paid , the obligation to be loyal can be reduced. Accordingto the author opinion, respondents of this study currently are in the context ofreciprocity by obligation, not by desire that even become respondents burden toremain in the organization.

Finally, for the seventh hypothesis, the findingsin this study showedthat the job satisfaction significantly has negative effect on turnover intention.This is in line with previous studies done by Park and Kim, 2009; Kim et al.,2005; Poon, 2004; Chiu and Francesco, 2003.

This study has a number of practical and theoretical implications. Regarding the practical implications of the results study results showed that the three dimensions of organizational commitment has a significant effect on jobsatisfaction. Affective andcontinuance commitment has positive effects on jobsatisfaction, therefore ifthe pubic accountings firm management intend toimprove their auditors jobsatisfaction then it can be recommended that theyhave to improve thoseboth commitments. On the contrary, regarding tonormative commitment, ifmanagement .ants to increase their auditors jobsatisfaction then the normative commitment should be reduced. The second practical implication regarding to the turnover intention. If management wants to reduce their auditors turnover intention, so management should improve the job satisfaction.

The second implication relates to the theoretical aspects. Study resultsshowed that all three typesof organizational commitment have a significantimpact on job satisfaction and subsequently job satisfaction itself becomes a significant predictor for the turnover intention. This gave support to the theory of employee withdrawal that is based on psychological theories with behavioralaccounting perspective.

This study is conducted within the scope of the accounting firms in WestJava. As a consequence, the limitations of the study can be found. The first limitation faced by the authors is about the number of samples. The number of samples used in this study amounted to 52 respondents, where this amount isnot adequate to obtain a result that can be generalized into a wider scope.

The second limitation relates to differences in environmental conditions where the research is conducted. Differences in environmental conditions such as organizational culture can provide a different understanding. Culturaldifferences can cause differences in the findings of this study with previousfindings.

The third limitation is that there is possibility of self-report bias from thequestionnaire. Although the questionnaire has been validated, questionnairesfrom the respondents do not necessarily reflect the actual views of respondents.References

Ameen, Elsie C., Cynthia Jackson., William R. Pasewark., and Jerry R. Strawser.”An Empirical Investigation of the Antecedentsand Consequences of JobInsecurity on the Turnover Intentions of Academic Accountants.”Issues in Accounting Education Vol. 10 No. 1 (Spring 1996): 65-82.

Aranya, Nissim. Ran Lachman., and Amernic. (1982). “Accountant’s jobSatisfaction : A Path Analysis.”Accounting, Organization and Society, Vol.7, No. 3: 201-213,

Babin, Barry J., and James S. Boles. (1998). “Employee Behavior in a ServiceEnvironment: A Model and Test of Potential Differences between Menand Women.”Journal of Marketing Vol. 62:77-91.

Bateman, T. S., and S. Strasser. “A Longitudinal Analysis og the Antecedents ofOrganizational Commitment.”Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27No. 1 (1984): 95-112.

Becker, Thomas E. (1992). “Foci and Bases of Commitment: Are They Distinction Worth Making ?” Academy of Management Journal Vol. 35 No. 1

Begley, Thomas M., and Joseph M. Czajka. (1993). “Panel Analysis of theModerating Effects of Commitment on Job Satisfaction, Intent to Quit,and Health Folloxiving Organization Change.”Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 78 No. 4

Cellucci, A. J., & DeVries, D. L. (1978). “Measuring Managerial Satisfaction: AManual for the JSQ”.Technical Report II. Center of Creative Leadership.

Chen, Zhen Xiong., and Anne Marie Francesco. (2000). “EmployeeDemography, Organizational Commitment, and Turnover Intentions inChina: Do Cultural Difference Matter?”Human Relations Vol. 53 No. 6869-887.

Chiu, Randy K., Anne Marie Francesco, (2003). “Dispositional Traits andTurnover Intention : Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfactionand Affective Commitment”.International Journal of Manpower. Vol. 24No. 3 pp. 284-298

Clugston, Michael (2000), “The Mediating Effects of MultidimensionalCommitment on Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave”.Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21 : 477-486.

Cohen, A. “Organizational Commitment and Turnover: A Meta-Analysis.”Academy of Management Journal Vol. 36 No. 5 (1993): 1140-1157.

Farh, J.L., Tsui, A.S., Xin, K.R & Cheng, B.S. (1998). “The Influence ofRelationalDemography and Guanxi : The Chinese Case”.Organization Science 9 (2), 1-18

Gregson, Terry. (1992). “An Investigation of the Causal Ordering of JobSatisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Turnover Models inAccounting.”Behavioral Research In Accounting Vol. 4: 80-95.

Hackett, Rick D., Peter Bycio., and Peter A. Hausdorf. (1994). “FurtherAssessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three-Component Model ofOrganizational Commitment.”Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 79 No. 1:-15-23.

Harris, Stanley G., Robert R. Hirschfeld., Hubert S. Field., and Kevin W.Mossholder. (1993) “Psychological Attachment: Relationships with JobCharacteristics, Attitudes, and Preferences for Newcomer Development.”Group & Organization Management Vol. 18 No. 4

Hollenbeck, Jr & William, C. R. (1986). “Turnover Functionally Versus TurnoverFrequency : A Note on Work Attitudes and OrganizationalEffec’LlVeness”.Journal of Zipplieti Psychology, 71 : 601-611

Hom, Peter W., Roger W. Griffeth. (1991) “Structural Equation Modelling Testof a Turnover Theory : Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis”.Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3

Hunt, Shelby D.,and Robert M. Morgan. (1994). “Organizational Commitments:One of Many Commitments or Key Mediating Construct?”Academy of Management Journal Vol. 37 No. 6: 1568-1587

Istvan, Donald F., and Jack B. Wollman. (1976) “Turnover in CPA Firms”.The CPA Journal : 21-25.

Iverson, Roderick D., and Donna M. Buttigieg, (1999). “Affective, Normative,and Continuances Commitment: Can’t the Right Kind of Commitment be right Managed.”Departments of Management: Working Paper No. 7. TheUniversity of Melbourne.

Jaros, Stephen J. (1994). “An Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three? Component Model of Organizational Commitment and TurnoverIntention.”Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 79 No. 1: 370-380.

Ketchand, Alice A., and Jerry R. Strawser. (1998). “The Existence of MultipleMeasures of Organizational Commitment and Experience-RelatedDifferences in a Public Accounting Setting.”Behavioral Research inAccounting Vol. 10 : 109-137.

Kuruuzum, Ayse, Emre Ipekci Cetin and Sezgin Irmak, (2009). “Path Analysisof Organizational Commitment, Job Involvement and Job Satisfaction inTurkish Hospitality Industry”.Tourism Review, Vol. 64 No. 1Labatmediene, Lina., Aukse Endriulaitiene and Loreta Gustainiene, (2007).”Individual Correlates of Organizational Commitment and Intention toLeave the Organization,Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 2

Lampe, James C., and Kenneth R. Earnest. (1984): “How Motivation AffectsAccountants’ Productivity and Turnover.”Management Accounting Vol,65 No. 850-55

Law, Daniel W.,(2005). “Interactive Organizational Commitment and Hardiness in Public Accountants’ Turnover”.Managerial Auditing Journal ; 20, 4;Accounting & Tax Periodicals pg. 383

Lee, Thomas W. dan Richard T. Mowday (1987), “Voluntary Leaving an Organization : An Empirical Investigation of Steers and Mowdays Model of Turnover”.The Academy of Management Journal. Vol 30 No. 4, pp 721­743.

Lee, Thomas W., Susan J. Ashford, James P. Walsh, and Richard T. Mowday.(1992). “Commitment Propensity, Organizational Commitment.