Assessment One: Organizational Commitment

Which research methods are employed in the two articles, and in what ways are those research methods similar to each other, and in what ways are they different?

Similarities between the research conducted by Afshari, Young, Gibson & Karimi and that undertaken by Chuang, Hsu, Wang & Judge (2015).

Both pieces of research are tied to some theory, that is, both the studies are grounded in theoretical foundations. Chuang et al. (2015) look at the theory of person-environment fit while Afshari et al. (2019) examine the theory of personal identity and organization commitment.
Both pieces of research give reference to research studies done by previous researchers. Both studies involve a review of past literature relevant and appropriate to the current research problem or question under investigation.
Both pieces of research originate from a question or a research problem.

The difference between the researches and analysis conducted in both the journal articles can be listed as follows:

The article by Afshari and the others study examines the role of identity in organizational commitment while on the other hand Chuang, Hsu, Wang & Judge Research Compares the western and eastern systems of corporate management.
Whereas Afshari, Young, Gibson & Karimi employed qualitative research methods. Data was gathered through exploring literature relating to the topic. Interviews were also used to collect the data. A purposeful sampling strategy was used to identify the samples. Chuang, Hsu, Wang & Judge investigation & research used both qualitative and statistical methods, in short, employed a mixed approach combining qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (surveys) approaches. The cluster approach was employed while identifying commitment profiles. The data obtained was qualitative and in-depth analysis was conducted.
Afshari Young, Gibson & Karimi's research has perfectly divided the main problem into different problems while Chuang, Hsu, Wang & Judge Researches have few subjects.
Afshari et al. (2019) examine the role of identity in shaping and influencing organizational commitment while Chuang et al. (2015) investigate and compares the Western and Eastern systems, cultures, and approaches to corporate management.

Which article’s data gathering and analysis are most valid and convincing?

Afshari, Young, Gibson & Karimi (2019)

This study used mixed methods. This pertains to a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. They first employed quantitative surveys and then conducted qualitative interviews.
They wanted to veer away from existing purely quantitative studies on "organizational commitment" so they employed this mixed-methods with a holistic triangulation approach.
For the quantitative part of the study, they first surveyed employees by following the three-component commitment model (described as AC, NC, and CC in the study) to know the commitment profiles of the employees.
They distributed the survey questionnaires to 470 employees but only had a 56.7% response rate, which makes the sample size between 266 or 267 (this one's my computation).
To analyze the results, the researchers used two-step clustering by using a log-likelihood estimator and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).
From this survey and thereby knowing the commitment profiles of the employees, the researchers were able to select which employees to interview for the qualitative stage of the study.
Semi-structured types of interviews were deemed appropriate by the authors for the qualitative stage of the study.
To analyze the interviews, they employed an iterative hermeneutical approach. They've identified recurring themes based on the answers of the interviewees.
In terms of the coding of the interviews, they used software called NVIVO.

Chuang, Hsu, Wang & Judge (2015)

This study was limited to the usage of qualitative methods but followed an established framework (Person-Environment Fit).
They employed interviews.
They wanted to target a specific group of working adults in Taiwan. They wanted to interview those with strong cultural Confucian precepts. Thus, for the sampling, they first used a purposive sampling strategy and then later used a theoretical sampling strategy.
They have a total sample size of 30, who are employed across industries.
Like Afshari et al (2019), they also utilized a semi-structured type of interview.
The data analysis has two stages. The first stage was to identify the major themes. The second was to identify first-order and second-order codes within each theme identified in the first stage. This is the same as Afshari, Young, Gibson & Karimi (2019).
They used the same software as the Afshari, Young, Gibson & Karimi (2019) in terms of the data analysis (NVIVO).

Thus, in my view, after reviewing the above points the mixed research method offers the most convincing approach. The mixed-method enables researchers to identify, explain, and address contradictions that may arise between the findings and results of the qualitative and quantitative approaches. Afshari, Young, Gibson & Karimi's (2019) mixed approach enabled them to build on the commitment literature objectively by exploring the profiles of the study participants, grounding the findings in the participant's experiences enabled the authors to provide the context of the identification process and its relationship to organizational commitment. This method helps in harmonizing the contradictions that exist between a qualitative and a quantitative study. The method also gives the participants of the study a voice and the findings are well-grounded on the participant’s experiences. The findings of such a study are a better reflection of the real issues and therefore have more value to the board.

Which article’s findings are most likely to be seen by the Board of a company as having the most practical value, and why?

I would say it depends as these two are different studies with different objectives and research questions. If the Board of a company is interested to learn more about the organizational commitment of employees in a manufacturing company and has a budget, Afshari, Young, Gibson & Karimi (2019) is the way to go. I think the Board will consider the findings in the work done by Afshari Young, Gibson & Karimi(2019) the most practical. They would need the same methods. This is because the findings are backed by statistical evidence and personal experiences of the participants. Moreover, the findings offer practical approaches to nurturing organizational commitment that encompasses defining organizational identity and linking it to personal, individual, occupational, and professional identity. The board of management can work with the human resource department and marketing teams to effectively define corporate identity to create a positive image of the organization and effectively build strong commitment among the employees.

References for Deep Reading & Analysis

Afshari, L. Young, S. Gibson, P. and Karimi, L. (2019). “Organizational commitment: exploring the role of identity”. Personnel Review. Vol. 49, No. 3, 2020, pp. 774-790.

Chuang, A. Hsu, R. Wang, A. and Judge, T. (2015). “Does West ‘fit’ with East? In search of a Chinese model of person-environment fit”. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 58, No. 2, 2015, pp. 480–510

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Management Assignment Help