Organizational commitment has been considered an important factor for organizational competitiveness and effectiveness. This paper aims at showing that the usual taxonomy - affective, normative and continuance commitment - does not reflect all the possible psychological bonds between individuals and organizations. Two empirical studies and theoretical reasoning suggest that there are some motives to consider six dimensions: affective commitment, future in common, normative commitment, great sacrifices, scarcity of available alternatives, and psychological absence. However, further studies collecting different samples and testing if the six dimensions have different antecedents and consequences are necessary.
Affective commitment; normative commitment; continuance commitment; psychological absence