Organisational psychologists distinguish between three kinds of organisational commitment, namely affective, normative and continuance commitment. I was wondering if - given that marriage is an institution - the same kind of categorisation could be applied to MM who remain in Ms.
Essentially, the categories are:
Affective commitment refers to people who stay because they WANT to. These are the employees who are choosing to remain with an organisation because it's where they really want to be. In A context, these would be the MMs who remain in the M because that's where their heart is.
Normative commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they OUGHT to. These are the employees who feel beholden to the organisation, who are tied by bonds of loyalty or obligation rather than choosing it because it's where they really want to be. In an A context, these would be the MMs who remain because they feel bound by social obligation, or because they owe it to their Ws or their children to keep the family together. ("Staying for the kids" would fall into this category, as would the MM who doesn't want to be thought a cad for walking out on his 60 year old W to take up with some hot 25 year old.)
Continuance commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they HAVE to. These are employees who feel they have no alternatives - they're unemployable elsewhere or too old to make a change, so they're trapped and unable to move on (or perceive themselves to be.) In a M context, these would be the MMs who worry that they can't afford (financially) to leave the M, or they'd "lose their children", or MM who believe that no other woman (including the OW) would have them if they left.
What do others think? Does this work in terms of how you understand MMs' various motivations for staying in the M? Or do you think there are scenarios which simply don't fit into one of these three broad categories?
Organisational psychologists distinguish between three kinds of organisational commitment, namely affective, normative and continuance commitment. I was wondering if - given that marriage is an institution - the same kind of categorisation could be applied to MM who remain in Ms.
Essentially, the categories are:
Affective commitment refers to people who stay because they WANT to. These are the employees who are choosing to remain with an organisation because it's where they really want to be. In A context, these would be the MMs who remain in the M because that's where their heart is.
Normative commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they OUGHT to. These are the employees who feel beholden to the organisation, who are tied by bonds of loyalty or obligation rather than choosing it because it's where they really want to be. In an A context, these would be the MMs who remain because they feel bound by social obligation, or because they owe it to their Ws or their children to keep the family together. ("Staying for the kids" would fall into this category, as would the MM who doesn't want to be thought a cad for walking out on his 60 year old W to take up with some hot 25 year old.)
Continuance commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they HAVE to. These are employees who feel they have no alternatives - they're unemployable elsewhere or too old to make a change, so they're trapped and unable to move on (or perceive themselves to be.) In a M context, these would be the MMs who worry that they can't afford (financially) to leave the M, or they'd "lose their children", or MM who believe that no other woman (including the OW) would have them if they left.
What do others think? Does this work in terms of how you understand MMs' various motivations for staying in the M? Or do you think there are scenarios which simply don't fit into one of these three broad categories?
I'm not in an A, but this looks like a pretty good analogy.
__________________
If stupidity is following you, it must have a reason.
Organisational psychologists distinguish between three kinds of organisational commitment, namely affective, normative and continuance commitment. I was wondering if - given that marriage is an institution - the same kind of categorisation could be applied to MM who remain in Ms.
Essentially, the categories are:
Affective commitment refers to people who stay because they WANT to. These are the employees who are choosing to remain with an organisation because it's where they really want to be. In A context, these would be the MMs who remain in the M because that's where their heart is.
Normative commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they OUGHT to. These are the employees who feel beholden to the organisation, who are tied by bonds of loyalty or obligation rather than choosing it because it's where they really want to be. In an A context, these would be the MMs who remain because they feel bound by social obligation, or because they owe it to their Ws or their children to keep the family together. ("Staying for the kids" would fall into this category, as would the MM who doesn't want to be thought a cad for walking out on his 60 year old W to take up with some hot 25 year old.)
Continuance commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they HAVE to. These are employees who feel they have no alternatives - they're unemployable elsewhere or too old to make a change, so they're trapped and unable to move on (or perceive themselves to be.) In a M context, these would be the MMs who worry that they can't afford (financially) to leave the M, or they'd "lose their children", or MM who believe that no other woman (including the OW) would have them if they left.
What do others think? Does this work in terms of how you understand MMs' various motivations for staying in the M? Or do you think there are scenarios which simply don't fit into one of these three broad categories?
FMM's xW did want him to stay for the kids but he couldn't be himself, it was too hard to pretend everything is fine and dandy in front of the kids when in reality, they were not.
When I think about it, I would have understood if he gave me those reasons. Maybe cause I sort of see the reasons why one would stay for the kids (a friend stayed for that very reason), status quo etc but let's say if I were the MW - I would leave the M anyway because I wasn't happy. I think it's better for the kids to see me and their father happy with someone else rather than uptight or sour face all the time at home.
__________________
Accept the past as past, without denying it or discarding it - Morrie Schwartz
the question is not why those married men and women remain with their spouses, but why they and their lovers continue their affair knowing thing is going to change.
not blasting any of you, because love knows no boundaries, just wondering what impetus there is to remain in a relationship where 90-something percent of the time, the married lover isn't about to give up either spouse or lover but hopes to retain both for whatever reason. And that strikes me as seriously wrong, because the only one who "wins" is him ...
__________________ I think my favorite phrase at this moment is, "Shut your piehole!" It doesn't really refer to anything nasty, but it sure does sound rude.
This is a really good analogy, people keep jobs they don't really love for all sorts of reasons.
A person can become tired and completely uninspired about their careers, they stagnate and stop growing as individuals yet they will still avoid the hassle of starting over and risk giving up their stability to embark on the unknown, so they stay in a job that has completely outgrown their needs.
Then there are those people who love their careers an they hit a lul of stagnation or plateau and they find a way to reinvent themselves within their profession in order to continue with their first passion.
The very same theory can be applied to why people stay in relationships with people who no longer appeal to them romantically.
Great find OW!
__________________ Stupidity follows me, but I run much faster...
Location: Straight North - sharp left turn at Happenstance
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by OWoman
Affective commitment refers to people who stay because they WANT to. These are the employees who are choosing to remain with an organisation because it's where they really want to be. In A context, these would be the MMs who remain in the M because that's where their heart is.
Normative commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they OUGHT to. These are the employees who feel beholden to the organisation, who are tied by bonds of loyalty or obligation rather than choosing it because it's where they really want to be. In an A context, these would be the MMs who remain because they feel bound by social obligation, or because they owe it to their Ws or their children to keep the family together. ("Staying for the kids" would fall into this category, as would the MM who doesn't want to be thought a cad for walking out on his 60 year old W to take up with some hot 25 year old.)
Continuance commitment refers to people who stay because they feel they HAVE to. These are employees who feel they have no alternatives - they're unemployable elsewhere or too old to make a change, so they're trapped and unable to move on (or perceive themselves to be.) In a M context, these would be the MMs who worry that they can't afford (financially) to leave the M, or they'd "lose their children", or MM who believe that no other woman (including the OW) would have them if they left.
What do others think? Does this work in terms of how you understand MMs' various motivations for staying in the M? Or do you think there are scenarios which simply don't fit into one of these three broad categories?
I think there is could be some correlation between the organizational model and the possible marriage model, but there is a breakdown in the correlation in my mind. I don't see that the mm/mw truly fits (IMO) in the affective commitment role as they are apparently "job hunting" so-to-speak. Whereas a person in a job they really like and is currently employed where they intend to remain doesn't usually go looking for another job - unless something has occurred at their place of employment that has bothered them for some reason....
If you broaden the definition from MM/MW to include all married people, whether in affairs or not, I would be more inclined to agree with the comparison. JMO
I. Whereas a person in a job they really like and is currently employed where they intend to remain doesn't usually go looking for another job - unless something has occurred at their place of employment that has bothered them for some reason....
Exactly, which is more a reason why a person who is happy in their marraige does not cheat. Some people look for others outside of their marriage when they are contemplaing leaving otherwise there is no reason/incentive to look for another job if you are enjoying your current job.
If this is the tendency of a human being in a job situation why would they not see other aspects of their life in the same way?
Nice categories, O. To summarize: the ties that bind a MM to the marriage are: Love (Affective commitment), Duty (Normative commitment) and Existential Paralysis or Inertia (Continuance commitment).
These grounds cover most reasons men stray but stay. But there are others.
Other glue reasons include: the MM is just not that into the OW (the OW is f*ck material, not wife or even serious girl friend material); the MM loves his children and does not want to hurt them by ripping his family apart; he's sitting on top of the world--he has two women who love him.
__________________ Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine...Patti Smith, Gloria
I think the most important question is how does one recognize these perspectives in said paramour before an affair ensues and the inevitable pain, frustration, and dissapointment occurs upon the relationship's demise. Is it as simple as asking the questions?!
__________________
"I put my Gucci watch on, synchronize the time, and let's rock....LET'S ROCK"!
I can understand that people look for another job before leaving, but how many actually start the new job before they tell their employer they quit?
That's true, but they go through all the series of interviews during the hours of their current job's so technically they are still on the current job's clock/payroll and they are sneaking out to interview with the competition. They also look for new work on company time wich is considered stealing from the company, if you look at it in legal terms. AND the current employer is the LAST to know when you have accepted and signed a new offer and given the YES to a new employer. So in essence we cheat in the work place ALL the time. Yet no one bats an eye on the morality of cheating at work.
HECK if you are ever on LS during company hours you are cheating your company. If you have a job and don't work for yourself and you have been on here during your work hours you are cheating your work, and I bet you boast of your loyalty on your resume don't you? We all do.
It is not physically possible to be at two jobs at once but if it were people would definitely do it.
AND sometimes people regeret their move, and some even go back to their old jobs because things don't work out in the new job.
That's true, but they go through all the series of interviews during the hours of their current job's so technically they are still on the current job's clock/payroll and they are sneaking out to interview with the competition. They also look for new work on company time wich is considered stealing from the company, if you look at it in legal terms. AND the current employer is the LAST to know when you have accepted and signed a new offer and given the YES to a new employer. So in essence we cheat in the work place ALL the time. Yet no one bats an eye on the morality of cheating at work.
HECK if you are ever on LS during company hours you are cheating your company. If you have a job and don't work for yourself and you have been on here during your work hours you are cheating your work, and I bet you boast of your loyalty on your resume don't you? We all do.
It is not physically possible to be at two jobs at once but if it were people would definitely do it.
AND sometimes people regeret their move, and some even go back to their old jobs because things don't work out in the new job.
Yes, all that applies to the work place, but not really to marriages and relationships. A person actively looking for a job is more likely to leave for the new job than a MM having an affair is to leave for the OW. That is where this comparison falls apart.
That's true, but they go through all the series of interviews during the hours of their current job's so technically they are still on the current job's clock/payroll and they are sneaking out to interview with the competition. They also look for new work on company time wich is considered stealing from the company, if you look at it in legal terms. AND the current employer is the LAST to know when you have accepted and signed a new offer and given the YES to a new employer. So in essence we cheat in the work place ALL the time. Yet no one bats an eye on the morality of cheating at work.
HECK if you are ever on LS during company hours you are cheating your company. If you have a job and don't work for yourself and you have been on here during your work hours you are cheating your work, and I bet you boast of your loyalty on your resume don't you? We all do.
It is not physically possible to be at two jobs at once but if it were people would definitely do it.
AND sometimes people regeret their move, and some even go back to their old jobs because things don't work out in the new job.
probably in some cases, but my boss doesn't care as long as I'm reading or posting while waiting for stuff to print etc as the last person would just sit there staring into space blankly during the same time LOL
hmm...last sentence - and sometimes the old job makes a counter offer, but they usually say it's a mistake to go back don't they ? LOL
Yes, all that applies to the work place, but not really to marriages and relationships. A person actively looking for a job is more likely to leave for the new job than a MM having an affair is to leave for the OW. That is where this comparison falls apart.
but no-one said it was a "comparison" per se......... it's not supposed to parallel each situation perfectly
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Linear Mode
