Journal of
Marketing Development and Competitiveness
Scholar Gateway
Abstracts prior to volume 5(1) have been archived!Issue 5(1), October 2010 -- Paper AbstractsGirard (p. 9-22)Cooper (p. 23-32)Kunz-Osborne (p. 33-41)Coulmas-Law (p.42-46)Stasio (p. 47-56)Albert-Valette-Florence (p.57-63)Zhang-Rauch (p. 64-70)Alam-Yasin (p. 71-78)Mattare-Monahan-Shah (p. 79-94)Nonis-Hudson-Hunt (p. 95-106) 
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP, ACCOUNTABILITY AND ETHICS
Evaluating the “Few Alternatives” Dimension of Continuance Commitment:
A Comment on Johnson, Chang, and Yang (2010)
Author(s): Stephen J. Jaros
Citation: Stephen J. Jaros, (2012) "Evaluating the “Few Alternatives” Dimension of Continuance Commitment: A Comment on Johnson, Chang, and Yang (2010)," Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 63 - 71
Article Type: Research paper
Publisher: North American Business Press
Abstract:
Researchers such as Klein et al. (2009) have recently argued that the organizational commitment literature is characterized by construct proliferation that has resulted in “confusion and ambiguity” about its nature and consequences. This research note addresses one such case-that of the “few alternatives” dimension of continuance commitment as described recently by Johnson, Chang, and Yang (2010). It is argued that this construct is not a form of organizational commitment and should not be treated as such by scholars seeking to understand the causes of continuance commitment and its impact on ethical, leadership, and citizenship outcomes of importance to work organizations.
