Psychological Contracts W2

Psychological Contracts W2

1. Solinger (2015) talks about bouncing back from PCB, post-violation model of PC states 4 ways of resolution: PC thriving, reactivation, impairment and dissolution. Study is conducted to explore model implications of post-breach restoration of organizational commitment. By keeping track of commitment for 10 weeks after first breach, found employees may bounce back from such incidents but success of bounce back varies in individuals. Emotional impact of the breach and post-breach organizational support are related to the success of the breach resolution process. There is a non-linear component in post-breach trajectories of commitment suggesting success of breach resolution is complex. Hypotheses tested were: 1. Post-breach trajectories of commitment are governed by relative success of breach resolution. 2. Emotional impact of breach is negatively related with the odds of successful recovery post-breach (higher odds of recovery, lower emotional impact).

   • 3.Post-breach POS increases odds of successful recovery in post-breach commitment trajectories. Study of 160 young PHD (mostly women, 26-35 yo). Measures taken were organizational commitment, psychological contract breach, emotional impact of the breach, POS, variables created for exploratory purposes. Regression analysis and chi-squared used, test shows reactions to breach are (i) highly nonlinear and (ii) differ between individuals which warrants FDA approach. Hypothesis 1,2,3 supported, emotional impact was found to be negatively and POS to be positively related to the scores of the relative success of breach resolution. Positive correlation between # of reported breaches and # of private positive events; when entered simultaneously in regression, # of reported breaches but not # of private positive events predicts scores on component Personal factors like emotional salience of the breach and organizational factors (post-breach POS) have an impact on breach resolution proces
     • Implications: Bouncing back may take more time because it is determined by complex, polynomial trajectories like delayed recovery (U-shaped) or premature recovery (inverted U). The post-violation model focuses on PC types but study revealed nonlinear pathways to recovery may interfere with direct and linear breach resolution process. The post-violation model is restrictive in assuming a linear process. Premature recovery is where commitment levels seem to restore very quickly but later drop off again.
     • Limitations: Sampling: only sampled PHD students who are already attractive for the job market. Employer indulgency may have positively biased post-breach reaction patterns. May have sampled more vigilant subjects relative to average, sample also has more women. Intentionally used a new temporal measurement procedure where respondents see their own trajectories as they take shape over time; may introduce consistency bias. Used relatively new measure of organizational commitment the 3CAS. Within an organization, not known which target of commitment subjects have in mind when giving answers.

2. Conway (2005) has intended to explain 6 diff challenges PC researches might follow to develop theories otherwise will have limitations on how PC are defined. Key: concepts should be clarified, developed and defined. Challenge 1: What are the differences between expectations, obligations and promises? Promises: individual's relief in terms of a reciprocal exchange. (Rousseau 1989); Expectations: what employees believe is expected of them and what they expect in return from the employer (Rousseau and Greller 1994); Obligations: reciprocal obligation between the organization and the employee (Morrison and Robinson 1997). Two problems: 1) it is difficult to interpret theoretical statements about psychological contracts; 2) if it is not well defined, any type of belief have to be accepted as part of it.

   • Challenge 2: What is meant by implicit promise? Explicit promises written or verbal commitments (Rousseau and McLean Parks 1993). Implicit promises are interpretations of patterns (Levinson 1962): fascinating contribution of the psychological contracts, intangible and unverifiable, 3 problems: 1) impossible to make a distinction between what is & is not in the contract; 2) can be unbounded and infinite; 3) can be considered weak promises. Challenge 3: Are PC beliefs only those shaped by employee’s current organization? PC beliefs can be produced by the actual workplace or also by previous experiences in other or, difficult to determine one from the other.
     • Challenge 4: What are the precise links in the reciprocal exchange between the employer and the employee? Notion of exchange: is important to try to understand the exchange relationship. Contracts are agreements to exchange services for compensation (Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni 1994). Social exchange: generates expectations of retribution, but individuals do not know the details of the exchange, contrary to PC were people do know that they can expect something in return for the exchange. (Mental model). It is very important to specify the exchange for all. There can be four possibilities of exchange: 1) one for one; 2) one for many; 3) many for one; and 4) many for many. Six types of social exchange: 1) love; 2) services; 3) goods; 4) money; 5) information; 6) status. They are configured in two dimensions: Concreteness versus Symbolism, and Particularism versus Universalism.
       • Challenge 5: Who, or what, do employees perceive to be the organization? Org are a one single contract maker for employees, but they don’t think in org there can be many departments/people that can establish different expectations about a PC. There are two types of contract makers: principals and agents; the two types may generate different messages and develop different expectations. The relationship between employees and them develops a big variety of understanding for exchange. Challenge 6: How do employees anthropomorphize the organization? People think of it as an entity with mind without thinking that it involves different areas, agents, principals, and others. They attribute human qualities to the org due to this, people think the organization does not meet what it “promised”. Selfish gene: they are not capable of moral decision-making. Non-human things don’t have motivations and intentions.

3. Conway & Coyle-Shapiro (2012) conduct a study showing an ongoing reciprocal relationship between employee performance and the employee’s perception of fulfillment/PCB. A positive relationship between fulfillment of PC by the employer and employee performance. Association between an employees’ perceived PC fulfilment and employee performance will be weaker in a supportive scenario (high POS) as opposed to an unsupportive scenario. Longer organizational tenure will weaken the association between perceived PC fulfilment and employee performance and vice versa for employee’s shorter tenure.

   • Longitudinal design with 4 time points: Performance data prior to survey survey collection performance data for the period post the survey collection second survey. 2 time points were 8 months apart to avoid the results being affected by irregular peaks and troughs in performances. 146 sales advisors consisting of 70% female. A dichotomous variable was made (Goodman and Blum) in order to gauge who participated in surveys in time 2 and time 4 (these people were likely to be older and worked fewer hours), and those in just time 2 (people likely to be younger and worked more hours). A further dichotomous variable was made to gauge who participated in both surveys and permitted the authors to link their surveys with the performance data.
   • Measures: PC fulfilment – measured at time 2 & 4. It captured various promises including opportunities for promotion, pay and job security. POS – Measured at time 2 & 4. Five items used with the highest factor loading from original 36-item. Task performance was measured by sales made and targets met. Sales Made – Org awarded scores based on the types of sales made by an employee and an aggregate was made per month. Sales Targets met – were normally distributed, and a monthly average was computed by subtracting sales made points from a sales target. Tenure – was a log transformed to more normally distribute the variable and to reflect the psychological experience of relationship length in a better way. The questionnaire included questions about gender, whether or not the employee was a graduate and working hours.
   • A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted and a two-factor measurement model was tested to measure the validity of POS and PC fulfilment. Hypothesis 2 was generally supported. For hypothesis 1, results showed sales made remained a significant predictor of PC fulfilment at time 2 and sales targets met remained a significant predictor of PC fulfilment at time 4. The design also helped in finding out that changes in performances predict changes in PC fulfilment. Hypothesis 3 also supported in 4/6 sets. The reciprocal relationship between PC fulfilment and employee performance was supported in 5 out of 6 test and the relationship was stronger at later time points. Limitations: Only a small number of time points. Future research can also explore additional factors that moderate the ongoing employee-employer exchange

4. Dulac et al (2008) examine PCB and PCV within social exchange relationships to account for employee outcomes. Researchers suggest favorable attitudes arise from high quality social exchange relationships. But when problems occur, individual’s affective responses to these cognitions depend on their overall social exchange relationship quality. Cognitions of breach may be less prevalent in high-quality social exchange relationships, yet it is important to understand how employees make sense of and react to these cognitions when they do indeed emerge.

   • Hypothesis 1a. Employees’ perceptions of PCB partially mediate the relationship between POS and affective commitment, trust in organization, and turnover intentions. Hypothesis 1b. Employees’ perceptions of PCB partially mediate relationship between LMX and affective commitment, trust in organization, and turnover intentions. Hypothesis 2a. POS moderates the positive relationship between perceived PCB and PCV: the relationship is stronger for individuals who perceive that they have a low-quality exchange relationship with their organization. Hypothesis 2b. LMX moderates the positive relationship between perceived PCB and PCV: the relationship is stronger for individuals who perceive that they have a low-quality exchange relationship with their supervisor. Hypothesis 3. Violation mediates the relationship between PCB and affective commitment, trust in organization, and turnover intentions.
   • Survey done, n=152 responses, 20-52 yo, 52% men. Work Experience: ranged from 0-32 years with an average of 5 years. Variables: POS was measured with an 8 item shortened version of Eisenberger and colleagues’ (1986) scale. Leader member exchange: was measured at time 1 with the seven-item Leader-Member Exchange VII Scale (1984). PCB was measured at time 2 with a five-item measure. Work outcomes were measured at time 2 using the revised version of the six-item measure advanced (1993). The degree of trust in organization was assessed with three items (1996). Turnover intentions were assessed with a three-item measure from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (1979). Control variables: Individuals’ educational level, age, sex, and number of previous jobs were included as control variables in the analyses to rule out potential alternative explanations for our findings.
   • Results: Sig positive relationships were found b/w POS and affective commitment and trust in the organization. Sig negative relationship between (POS) and breach. LMX was found to be sig and negatively related to breach. LMX and work outcomes had no sig relationships. Breach was positively and sig related to both violation and turnover intentions. Violation was sig related to all 3 outcomes. Control variables: (age and education----significantly related to affective commitment, whereas age& number of previous jobs---significantly related to trust). Hypotheses 1A&1B: were both supported for turnover intention but not for affective commitment and trust in organization. Hypotheses 2A&B: were both supported. Hypotheses 3: was fully supported.
   • Results suggest that PCB does indeed help explain why social exchange relationships are related to turnover intentions but the effect for PCB was not found for affective commitment and trust in organization. Evidence that once breach has been realized, the quality of the social exchange relationship experienced influences feelings of violation effectuated by situation: individuals with lower-quality social exchange relationships respond with stronger feelings of violation following perceived breach than do individuals with higher-quality relationships. The quality of an employee’s dyadic social exchange relationship with org are negatively related to violation. It may be that the supportive relationships that comprise high-quality LMX and POS relationships serve as a buffer and form of social support that reduce negative feelings and emotions directly. During the initial phases of employment relationships, high quality may be more prone to overlook potential imbalances in their exchang
     • Possible this buffering effect is unsustainable over time periods longer than six months, and over multiple events of unmet promises. Limitations: the absence of controlling for the effects of a variable that may have influenced the suggested outcomes: individual mood.

Images and files in the map