ABSTRACT
The previous chapter dealt with typologies of multiple commitments that attempted to capture the meaning and essence of the concept. Assuming that the ambiguity surrounded this concept is partially resolved, an equally important aspect is the interrelations among forms of commitment. Morrow (1993) argued that whether each commitment is independent or some are antecedents and consequences of others is a major unanswered question impeding understanding of work commitment. The interrelations among these forms is important because they can affect the way these commitments relate to work outcomes (Mueller et al., 1992). The reason is that one needs to know more about the ordering of the commitment foci before proposing models dealing with the ordering of their effect on work outcomes. Morrow, for example (1993), stated that the nature of interrelations among forms of work commitment needs to be illuminated as soon as possible because evidence that one form of work commitment can moderate relations involving other forms is beginning to accumulate (Hunt & Morgan, 1994; Witt, 1993). The goal, Morrow (1993) suggested, should be a work commitment scale that would make possible formulation of commitment profiles, testing their relations with organizational outcomes (Becker & Billings, 1993), thus allowing managers to pinpoint what forms of work commitment are less than optimal (Morrow, 1993).
