Volume 23 Number 12 2003 47

A Research Model to Investigate the Organizational Impact of an

ESOP

by Daniel E. Hallock, Assistant Professor, School of Business; Ronald

J. Salazar, Adjunct Professor, School of Business and Sandy Venne-
man, Assistant Professor, School of Arts and Sciences, University of
Houston-Victoria

Abstract

The rapid increase in the number of employee stock ownership plans

(ESOPs) being sponsored by American firms could have an impact on
the rate of the nation’s productivity growth. The majority of prior
ESOP-related studies have focused on the examination of potential re-
lationships between the presence of an ESOP and changes in the levels
of employee productivity and firm profitability. The results of these
studies have produced mixed results and, as a result, debate continues
over the desirability and impact of ESOPs. Few studies have attempted
to identify the variables that are associated with employee satisfaction
with an ESOP and whether or not employee satisfaction with an ESOP
ultimately has an impact on employee productivity and firm profitabil-
ity. In order to maximize the productivity gains that may be associated
with the adoption of an ESOP, researchers must identify the relation-
ships and variables that are most likely to affect employee attitudes to-
ward ESOPs.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a model to guide future

investigation of two basic, and equally important, research issues. The
first proposed step in contributory research would be to determine the
demographic and attitudinal correlates of employee satisfaction with
an ESOP. The second step would be to examine the extent to which
employee satisfaction with an ESOP impacts employee commitment
which may lead to improvements in several individual-level (absen-
teeism, turnover, job satisfaction, turnover) and firm-level (productiv-
ity, profitability, stock performance) outcomes. Exploration of these
issues will provide a more substantive foundation for future research
efforts in the area.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 48

Introduction
The concept of employee ownership of businesses in the United States
has a long and honored history. As early as 1912, Webb stated:
Making (an employee) a shareholder in the business . . .stimulates his zeal
and careful working and, as part owner of the capital, which he works, he
feels . . . a share of responsibility in the business. (P.232)
Various forms of employee ownership were fairly common by the
1920’s. Approximately four hundred American firms had some type of
employee stock purchase plan in place by 1927 (Stern and Comstock,
1978). This was reversed by the stock market crash of 1929 that cre-
ated wariness toward employee ownership among many workers.
Large numbers of employee-owners suffered a double setback during
the depression of the 1930’s when stock prices dropped to record lows
and in many instances the employee-owners lost their jobs (Davis,
1933). The result of these factors dampened widespread usage of em-
ployee capital ownership for a generation.
Large-scale interest in employee ownership did not resurface
again until the late 1950’s. Louis Kelso, an investment banker and at-
torney, is credited with organizing the present day version of employee
ownership in the form of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).
Kelso’s reasoning for encouraging employee ownership was based
upon the assumption that labor and capital are both recognized as pro-
ducers of wealth. However, while the productivity of capital was
steadily increasing, labor productivity was on the decline. The major-
ity of wealth is produced from capital, not labor, and the income from
this wealth progressively produces more wealth. Therefore, in order
for households to acquire wealth, they must have capital. Kelso’s over-
all goal was for labor to own a portion of the capital providing partici-
pating adults the ability to generate additional earnings from their
capital. Society would no longer have to redistribute the income gener-
ated by capital back to labor. Kelso proposed that an ESOP represented
a vehicle that would help to achieve this outcome.
The popularity of ESOPs gained political momentum when
Senator Russell Long (D-Louisiana) became a major proponent of
Volume 23 Number 12 2003 49

ESOPs, endorsing Kelso’s reasoning wholeheartedly and supporting

legislation favorable to ESOP adoptions. Long was convinced that a
wider diffusion of stock ownership would provide additional support
for the United States economic system in addition to producing asset-
based income for labor. In a floor statement delivered to Congress in
1978, Senator Long presented his interpretation of the impact that the
adoption of an ESOP could have for the sponsoring organization. Long
stated:

Each worker will be put in a position where his own efforts towards cost
minimization and increased production will directly influence the value
(of the) capital estate, which he acquires during his lifetime. I would an-
ticipate that strikes and slowdowns, antiquated work rules, feather-
bedding, resistance to automation, and unreasonable wage demands-all
seemingly insoluble problems up to now-will eventually disappear as
workers become both owners and consumers…(p. 755)

Clearly, the bedrock philosophy of an ESOP was, and is, to encourage

workers to share in the capital of the firm through stock ownership,
thus increasing employee organizational commitment and harmony
between labor and management. This reasoning asserts that increased
employee commitment should lead to increased productivity and ulti-
mately to improvements in corporate profitability and stock perform-
ance.

Passage of the 1974 Employment Retirement and Income Secu-

rity Act (ERISA) fueled an explosion of interest in employee owner-
ship in the form of an ESOP. By 1980, more than five thousand firms
in the United States had adopted an ESOP program. The number of
ESOPs increased even more after the passage of the 1984 and 1986
Tax Reform Acts. Even the passage of the Revenue Reconciliation Act
of 1989, which eliminated or reduced many of the tax advantages of
ESOP sponsorship, did not slow the interest in ESOPs. Although the
mild recession in the early 1990’s slowed the rapid growth somewhat,
by the end of 2002 there were 11,000 firms in the United States that
had ESOP’s covering over 8,800,000 employees (National Center for
Employee Ownership, 2002).
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 50

The interest in the application and expansion of ESOPs has con-

tinued unabated into the new millennium as well. Provisions in the
Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 contained sig-
nificant incentives for further expansion of ESOPs for business
(AICPA, 2002). A countervailing force has been the recent spate of
highly visible corporate bankruptcies, whose full impact is not yet
known.

Problem Statement

The rapid increase in the number of ESOPs being sponsored by Ameri-

can firms could have an impact on the rate of the nation’s productivity
growth. The majority of prior ESOP-related studies have focused on
the examination of potential relationships between the presence of an
ESOP and changes in the levels of employee productivity and firm
profitability. In recent years, several studies have been conducted that
linked the presence of an ESOP with employee participation in
decision-making. The results of these studies have produced mixed re-
sults and, as a result, debate continues over the desirablility and impact
of ESOPs. Few studies have attempted to identify the variables that are
associated with employee satisfaction with an ESOP and whether or
not employee satisfaction with an ESOP ultimately has an impact on
employee productivity and firm profitability. In order to maximize the
productivity gains that may be associated with the adoption of an
ESOP, researchers must identify the relationships and variables that
are most likely to affect employee attitudes toward ESOPs.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a model to guide future

investigation of two basic, and equally important, research issues. The
first proposed step in contributory research would be to determine the
demographic and attitudinal correlates of employee satisfaction with
an ESOP. The second step would be to examine the extent to which
employee satisfaction with an ESOP impacts employee commitment
which may lead to improvements in several individual-level (absen-
teeism, turnover, job satisfaction, turnover) and firm-level (productiv-
ity, profitability, stock performance) outcomes. Exploration of these
Volume 23 Number 12 2003 51

issues will provide a more substantive foundation for future research

efforts in the area.
Importance of the Topic
The importance of labor productivity to a nation is difficult to over-
state. The measurement of productivity serves as an excellent method
to evaluate a nation’s ability to provide a high standard of living, and
thus, an improved quality of life. Constant and steady increases in the
level of employee productivity are necessary to ensure the financial
well being of the overall economy, in addition to individual organiza-
tions. Menke and Associates (1988) claim that the profitability to pro-
ductivity ratio in many firms range anywhere from a minimum of 3 to
1 up to and above 5 to 1. This translates into large potential increases in
firm profitability from increases in productivity. For example, using a
4 to 1 ratio, a mere 5% increase in employee productivity could result
in a 20% increase in profitability. Conversely, productivity decreases
could negatively impact firm profitability. It is an obvious conclusion
that finding new and better ways to stimulate growth in employee pro-
ductivity rates is well worth the effort.
The hypothesized potential of an ESOP is to increase employee
commitment to the organization, thereby improving labor productivity
and the financial performance of the sponsoring firm. This potential is
the impetus for this research. There are both normative and empirical
evidence that supports the hypothesis of ESOPs positive impact on
employee productivity (e.g., Bloom, 1986; Dunbar, 1989; Kruse and
Blasi, 1998; Marsh and McAllister, 1981; New York Stock Exchange,
1982). However, a better understanding of the inner-workings of an
ESOP is critical to examine.
Literature Review and Research Model
Congress passed ESOP legislation in order to achieve several broad
economic and social goals (Sellers, 1989). The three primary goals of
ESOPs, identified from legislative history, are as follows:
1. To promote wider distribution in the ownership of stock, thus
providing the capital ownership benefits of capitalism to more
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 52

people. This will be accomplished through employee ownership

in their firms.

2. To promote new investment and growth by providing an

innovative tool of corporate finance. This should spur
reinvestment by the ESOP firms in new, updated, equipment and
technology.

3. To improve labor productivity.

Congress felt that broadening the ownership of capital through an

ESOP would generate new wealth rather than redistribute existing
wealth. This new wealth would be created through the improved finan-
cial performance of the firm resulting from the adoption of an ESOP.
While addressing Congress, Senator Long (1978), urged continued
support for favorable tax legislation to further entice firms to sponsor
ESOPs claiming “It is clear that companies with employee ownership
are likely to be more productive and profitable than those without it”
(p. 3).

A review of the related theoretical literature provides the ration-

ale for expectation that the adoption of an ESOP will impact employee
attitudes and behaviors. In this literature review we examined both nor-
mative and empirical works with regard to the relationships between
an ESOP and organizational commitment, productivity, profitability
and stock performance. Table 1 presents a summary of ESOP-related
studies that indicate an association between the presence of an ESOP
and various organizational outcomes.

The following observations can be made based upon the studies

reviewed. The results of prior research studies suggest that a weak but
positive association exists between the presence of an ESOP and em-
ployee productivity (BCI Group, 2002; Logue & Yates, 2001; Kruse &
Blasi, 1998; Dunbar, 1989; GAO, 1987; Bloom, 1986; ESOP Assn.,
1982; NYSE, 1982; Marsh & McAllister, 1981). If this is true, then an
ESOP should also be positively associated with firm profitability. This
Volume 23 Number 12 2003 53

association between the presence of an ESOP and firm profitability

was confirmed through numerous research studies (BCI Group, 2002
Table 1

Summary of Studies Indicating an Association Between an ESOP and

Organizational Outcomes

Outcome Suggested Research Studies

Association
Organizational Positive Oliver, 1990b; Ettling, 1988; Klein & Hall,
Commitment 1988; Steers, 1977, Salacek, 1977
Absenteeism Negative NYSE, 1982; Marsh & McAllister 1981
Turnover Negative Ettling, 1988; Klein & Hall, 1988; Long,
1978a;
Productivity Positive BCI Group, 2002; Logue & Yates, 2001;
Kruse & Blasi, 1998; Dunbar, 1989; GAO,
1987; Bloom, 1986; ESOP Assn., 1982;
NYSE, 1982; Marsh & McAllister, 1981
Profitability Positive BCI Group, 2002; Sesil et al., 2002; Logue &
Yates, 2001; Kruse & Blasi, 1998; GAO,
1987; Wagner & Rosen, 1985; Hamilton,
1983; Rose & Klein, 1981; U.S. Senate
Finance Committee, 1980; Swad, 1979; Conte
& Tannenbaum, 1978
Stock Performance Positive Sesil et al., 2002; Logue & Yates, 2001;
Kruse & Blasi, 1998; Sellers, 1989; Ettling,
1988; Jiang, 1987; ESOP Assn., 1987 ;
Pinder, 1984
Sesil et al., 2002; Logue & Yates, 2001; Kruse & Blasi, 1998; GAO,
1987; Wagner & Rosen, 1985; Hamilton, 1983; Rose & Klein, 1981;
U.S. Senate Finance Committee, 1980; Swad, 1979; Conte & Tannen-
baum, 1978). Prior research efforts also suggest that a positive associa-
tion is present between employee attitudes and their level of
commitment to the organization (Oliver, 1990b; Ettling, 1988; Klein &
Hall, 1988; Steers, 1977, Salacek, 1977). There is sufficient evidence
that suggests that high levels of employee commitment to the organi-
zation are associated with increases in numerous firm performance
measures (Ettling, 1988; Klein & Hall, 1988; NYSE, 1982; Marsh &
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 54

McAllister 1981; Long, 1978a). The general conclusion of the major

empirical studies that have examined the relationship between the
presence of an ESOP and employee productivity, firm profitability and
stock performance is that a weak but positive association does exist.
The research model, shown in Figure 1, depicts the factors and
relationships that may predict employee satisfaction with an ESOP.
The model also indicates the potential impact that this satisfaction may
have on employee commitment that may lead to improvements in sev-
eral individual-level (absenteeism, turnover, job satisfaction, turnover)
and firm-level (productivity, profitability, stock performance) out-
comes. The relationships depicted in the model are both logical, and
well supported in the literature. Management’s philosophical commit-
ment to the ESOP is hypothesized to influence both the plan features
and the communication techniques used to inform employees about
the ESOP. The model hypothesizes that ESOP plan features, communi-
cation techniques, as well as employee demographics, will impact in-
dividual employee perceptions of the ESOP. An ESOP is also
considered to be a form of participation; therefore we predict a positive
correlation between the participation features included in the plan and
the impact on employee perception of pay equity, influence on stock
performance, and influence on decision-making. Furthermore, as em-
ployee participation in the ESOP increases and becomes more ac-
cepted within the firm, employees should recognize their increased
impact on numerous organizational outcomes such as productivity and
profitability. Employee demographics also play an important role in
participation, employee perceptions, satisfaction with the ESOP, and
the level of organizational commitment. Demographics such as age,
gender, educational level, job salary, and job tenure all impact em-
ployee perceptions (Becker, 1989; McCaffery, 1988).
Internal communication techniques informing participating em-
ployees about the ESOP and it’s benefits also impact employee percep-
tions (Rosen, Klein & Young, 1986). Firms that make the effort to keep
their employees continuously informed are indirectly telling their em-
ployees that the ESOP is a very important part of the organization. Em-
ployee perceptions of pay equity, their influence on decision-making,
Volume 23 Number 12 2003 55

stock performance and employee demographics are all hypothesized

to impact employees’ satisfaction with the ESOP. Pay equity refers to
the positive relationship that exists between effort and economic re-
wards the employee receives (Goodman, 1974). This relationship is
based upon the work of Adams (1965) and proposes that each em-
ployee compares their job responsibilities (inputs) and pay (outcomes)
to others both inside and outside the firm. Since Rosen et al. (1986) re-
ported that most employees view an ESOP as a monetary or financial
benefit; our model hypothesizes that employees who feel that the
ESOP enhances pay equity will show greater satisfaction with the
ESOP than employees who do not.
Since an ESOP is also a form of participation that offers an op-
portunity for employees to participate in the ownership of the com-
pany, type and extent of participation in decision-making is also
hypothesized to impact an employee’s satisfaction with the ESOP. Our
model hypothesizes that the greater the opportunity for participation in
the firm, the greater the employee’s perceived influence on decision-
making. We further predict that if an ESOP increases their opportunity
to participate, employees will exhibit increased levels of satisfaction
with the ESOP.
The individual employee’s perception of the amount of influ-
ence their work effort has on stock performance also becomes a major
factor concerning their satisfaction with the ESOP. Since an ESOP in-
vests over 50% of the plan assets in company stock, the performance
of the stock is critical to the subsequent value of an employee’s retire-
ment income. Employees who feel strongly that their efforts at work
increase profits, stock value, and dividends, are hypothesized to ex-
hibit high levels of satisfaction with the ESOP.
The model hypothesizes that employees who exhibit high levels
of satisfaction with the ESOP will also display a strong commitment to
the organization. Organizational commitment can be defined as con-
sisting of three interrelated but not identical components. First, a
strong belief and acceptance of the organizations goals and values
must exist. Second, employees must show a willingness to exert con-
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 56

Management's Philosophical Commitment to the ESOP

ESOP Plan Features

Communication of Plan Features to Employees Employee Demographics

Individual Employee Perceptions of:

1. Influence on Stock Performance

2. Pay Equity

3. Influence on Decision-Making

Employee Satisfaction with the ESOP

Organizational Commitment

Figure 1
Model of Hypothesized ESOP Dimensions
Volume 23 Number 12 2003 57

siderable effort on behalf of the organization. Third, employees indi-

cate a definite desire to remain a member of the organization (Porter,
Steers & Mowday, 1974). It is an important link because numerous de-
sirable organizational outcomes have been associated with organiza-
tional commitment. High levels of organizational commitment have
been associated with improvements in employee job performance and
work quality (Steers, 1977). These are important associations because
both job performance and work quality are integral factors of em-
ployee productivity. High levels of organizational commitment have
also been associated with decreases in employee absenteeism (e.g.,
Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1977) and employee turnover (e.g., Angle &
Perry, 1981; Horn, Katerberg & Hulin, 1979; Pierce & Dunham, 1987;
Randall, Fedor & Longenecker, 1990). High levels of organizational
commitment have also been associated with increased job satisfaction
(e.g., Horn et al., 1979; Steers, 1977).
Conclusion
In conclusion, researchers have examined dependent variables of em-
ployee productivity, participation in decision-making, and firm profit-
ability in relationship to the independent variable of an ESOP. Few
studies have included both individual-level and firm-level outcome
measures when examining the impact of an ESOP. Blasi (1988) sug-
gests that future research should avoid the manipulation of large, pub-
licly available data sets that have dominated previous studies and
concentrate more on detailed studies of individual firms that have
adopted an ESOP. Klein and Hall (1988) concur and observe that both
individual-level and firm-level variables impact upon employee atti-
tudes but few research efforts have used both measures within a single
study. The need to conduct more in-depth studies of the organizational
impact of an ESOP within the context of a theoretical model that in-
cludes both individual and firm level outcome measures appears to be
the suggested direction for future studies.
Our model presents a more complete model of the potential or-
ganizational impact of an ESOP on the sponsoring firm than those used
in previous research efforts. This model includes the investigation of
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 58

employee demographics and attitudes that may impact upon employee

satisfaction with an ESOP as well as both individual-level and firm-
level outcome variables. Testing of our expanded research model
should provide a more complete understanding of the variables which
help to explain the reasons ESOPs do or do not live up to their hy-
pothesized potential. If the associations depicted in the our model exist
as indicated, a better understanding of what makes an ESOP successful
will contribute to current workers overall quality of life both now and
in their retirement years.

The potential impact that an ESOP may have on employee atti-

tudes and behaviors should be of interest to managers. In today’s
highly competitive marketplace it is necessary for managers to exam-
ine any and all techniques that may improve employee attitudes and
overall corporate performance.
Volume 23 Number 12 2003 59

References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Bercowitz
(ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 2, New York:
Academic Press.
Angle, H. & Perry, J. (1981). An empirical assessment of organiza-
tional commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26, pp. 1-14.
Baimbridge, S. M. (1996). Participatory Management Within a Theory
of a Firm, draft.
Baker, G., Gibbons, R. & Murphy, K. (1994). Subjective Performance
Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 108 (8), pp. 1125-56.
Bartkus, Barbara R. (1997) Employee ownership as catalyst of
organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 331-334.
BCI Group. (2002), North American Employee Ownership Survey
Results, Pension Benefits, Vol. 9, Issue 8, p.6.
Becker, G. S. (1989). Notes on the concept of commitment. American
Journal of Sociology, 66, pp. 32-40.
Ben-Ner, A. & Jones, D. (1995). Employee Participation, Ownership,
and Productivity: A Theoretical Framework. Industrial Relations, 34
(4).pp. 532-54.
Blair, M. M. (1995). Rethinking Assumptions Behind Corporate
Governance, Challenge, 38, pp. 12-24.
Blasi, J. (1988). Employee ownership: Revolution or Ripoff? Cam-
bridge: Ballingen Publishing Company.
Blasi, J. & Kruse, D. L. (1991). The New Owners: The Mass
Emergence of Employee Ownership in Public Companies and What It
Means to American Business. HarperBusiness.
Bloom, S. (1986). Employee ownership and firm performance.
Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 60

Conte, M. A., & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1978). Employee owned

companies: Is the difference measurable? Monthly Labor Review, 101,
(7), pp. 23-28.
Conte, M. A. and Svejnar, J. (1990). The Performance Effects of
Employee Ownership Plans in Blinder, A. S., ed., Paying For
Productivity, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. pp. 143-172.
Davis, E. (1933). Employee stock ownership and the depression. Ann
Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.
Dunbar, A. (1989). An empirical investigation of the association of
productivity with employee stock ownership plans of publicly held
corporations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Ettling, J. T. (1988). Ownership and work: The impact of shareholding
on employee attitudes and behaviors. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Houston.
Freeman, R. B., Kleiner, M. M., & Ostroff, C. (1997). The Anatomy
and Effects of Employee Involvement. Paper presented at the American
Economic Association Meetings in New Orleans.
Goodman, P. S. (1974). An organization of referents used in the
evaluation of pay. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
12, pp170-195.
Hamilton, H. (1983). The effects of employee stock ownership Plans
on the financial performance of the electrical and electrical
machinery. Equipment and supplies industry, Ph.D dissertation,
Louisiana Technical University.
Horn, P. W., Kateberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Corporative
examination of three approaches to the prediction of turnover. Journal
of Applied Psychology, .6.4, pp. 280-290.
Ichniowski, C. & Shaw K. (1995). Old Dogs and New Tricks:
Determinants of the Adoption of Productivity-Enhancing Work
Practices. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics,
pp. 1-55.
Volume 23 Number 12 2003 61

Ivancic, C. (1999). Sharing the bad news with employee owners.

Arlington, VA. The National Center for Employee Ownership.
Jiang, L. (1987). Market reaction to introduction of employee stock
purchase plan -an empirical study. Toronto Stock Exchange.
Jones, D, & Kato, T. (1995). The Productivity Effects of Employee
Stock Ownership Plans and Bonuses: Evidence from Japanese Panel
Data. American Economic Review. 85(3), pp. 391-414.
Keefe, M. J. (1988). An exploratory investigation of environmental
variables affecting the strategic management process. Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
Keeling, J. M. (2002). Editorial letter. The ESOP Association.
Klein, K. J. & Hall, R. J. (1988). Correlates of employee satisfaction
with stock ownership: Who likes an ESOP most? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1.3., (4), pp. 630-642.
Kruse, D. & Blasi, J. (1998). Arlington, VA. The National Center for
Employee Ownership.
Leornard, B. (2001). Study Shows Companies with ESOPS Tend to
Outperform Competitors. HR Magazine, Vol. 46, Issue 7.
Logue, J. & Yates, J. (2001). The Real World of Employee Ownership,
ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Long, R. J. (1978). The effects of employee ownership on
organizational identification, employee job attitudes, and
organizational performance: A tentative framework and empirical
findings. Human Relations, 31, pp. 29-48.
Marsh, T. & McAllister, D. (1981). ESOPs tables: A survey of
companies with employee stock ownership plans. Journal of
Corporation Law, 6, pp. 551-624.
McCaffery, R. M. (1988). Employee Benefit Plans: A Total
Compensation Perspective. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
Menke, J. D. (1988). ESOPs pros and cons. Menke and Associates.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 62

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982).

Employee-organizational linkages: The Psychology of Commitment.
Absenteeism and Turnover. New York, New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The
measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 1.4, pp. 224-247.
New York Stock Exchange, Office of Economic Research (1982).
People and productivity: A challenge to corporate America. New
York: NYSE.
Oliver, Nick (1990b). Work rewards, work values, and organizational
commitment in an employee-owned firm: Evidence from the U. K.
Human Relations, .4.:3. (6), pp. 513-526.
Pierce, J. L., & Dunham, R. B., (1987). Organizational commitment:
Pre employment propensity and initial work experiences, Journal of
Management, pp. 163-178.
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, pp. 603-609.
Rosen, C., Klein, K., & Young, K. M. (1986). Employee Ownership in
America: The Equity Solution. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment is too easy! Organizational Dy-
namics, Summer, pp. 62-80.
Sesil, J. C.; Krournova, M. K.; Blasi, J. R. and Kruse, D. L. (2002),
Broad-based employee stock options in US ‘new economy’ firms,
British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 40, Issue 2, pp. 273-95.
Sellers, K. F., (1989). Market perceptions of ESOP sponsorship and
the debt and equity components of leveraged ESOP financing.
Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN.
Sherwood, J. J. (1988), Creating work cultures with competitive
advantage, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16, Winter, pp. 5-26.
Volume 23 Number 12 2003 63

Steers, R. M. (1975). Problems in the measurement of organizational

effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, December, 546.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational
commitment Administrative Science Quarterly, 2.,2{1), 45-56.
Stern, R. N., & Comstock, P. (1978). Employee stock ownership plans
(ESOPs): Benefits for whom? (Key Issues Series-No. 23), Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University.
The ESOP Association (2002). ESOP facts and figures. Washington,
DC.
Webb, C. (1912). Industrial Cooperation: The Story of a Peaceful
Revolution. Manchester, England: Cooperative Union.