Organizational behavior scholars have long debated how best to conceptualize commitment. Should commitment be viewed and studied as a type of overarching bond that captures how people feel toward their organization? Should we conceptualize commitment as distinct yet correlated bonds and mindsets that configure within individuals to produce a holistic commitment experience? Do these unique phenomenological experiences change how people see and respond to work? Using a person-oriented conceptual and analytical strategy we attempt to address these questions by observing the implications of different commitment profiles (unique combinations of global, affective, continuance, and normative commitment). Conceptually, this approach further clarifies the nature of commitment experience. From a methodological perspective, profiles that include both a global experience plus the specific commitment mindsets create conditions where theoretically-interesting mindset combinations not normally see can emerge. Specifically, in this study (N=1,103 working adults) we compare two approaches to profile construction and show the utility of a bifactor approach. Moreover, we confirm that a set of work-relationship outcomes (organizational trust, perceived similarity, cohesion, and psychological safety) are all sensitive to the nature of these commitment profiles in theoretical and practical ways.
