An inconvenient truth about “bundling” commitment, engagement, and embeddedness: Unbundling to extend theory on turnover motivations and beyond

This paper critiques a research practice that we call “bundling,” which has produced highly popular constructs in the organizational behavior literature, including organizational commitment, employee engagement, and organizational embeddedness. We show how these bundled constructs, using broad labels from common parlance, have produced overlapping meanings, confounded theoretical mechanisms, and imposed limiting “ideal employee” conceptions in the literature, organizations, and ultimately, societal discourse about employees. We argue that “unbundling” these constructs can provide multiple benefits to theory, empirical inquiry, and practical assessment of complex employee motives. As a demonstration, we unbundle the three focal constructs to integrate and clarify their component relations within the nomological net of turnover motivation. Thereby, we enrich conceptions of proximal withdrawal states, while synthesizing the most comprehensive model of turnover motivations. Finally, we discuss further research implications suggested by unbundling our focal constructs, and unbundling more generally.