Job satisfaction and employee performance
Post on 23-Jan-2016
DESCRIPTIONThesis on Job satisfaction
MS Thesis Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and Organizational Disidentification: Mediating role of Perceived Organizational Support and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity
MUHAMMAD IRFAN RAZAReg # MM131057raza393@yahoo.comMS (HRM)
SupervisorDr. S. M. M. Raza N.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIONFACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION & SOCIAL SCIENCESMOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD
Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and Organizational Disidentification: Mediating role of Perceived Organizational Support and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity
ByMuhammad Irfan RazaReg # MM131057
Human Resources Management An Honors Degree thesis Submitted to the Department of Business administration, in the fulfillment of the MS/ M-Phil degree program Requirement in the Faculty of Business Administration & Social SciencesMuhammad Ali Jinnah UniversityIslamabad, PakistanJanuary 2015
Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and Organizational Disidentification: Mediating effect of Perceived Organizational Support and moderating role of Equity SensitivityByMuhammad Irfan RazaReg # MM131057
__________________________Dr. S. M. M. Raza Naqvi(Thesis Supervisor)
____________________________Dr. Sajid Bashir (HoD)(Management and Social Sciences)
___________________________Dr. Arshad Hassan(Dean, Management and Social Sciences)
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIONFACULTY OF MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SCIENCESMOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABADCertificate
This is to certify that Mr. M. I. Raza A. has incorporated all observations, suggestions and comments made by the external evaluators as well as the internal examiners and thesis supervisor. The title of his Thesis is Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and Organizational Disidentification: Mediating role of Perceived Organizational Support and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity
Forwarded for necessary action.
--------------------------------------Dr. S. M. M. Raza Naqvi(Thesis Supervisor)
TABLE CONTENTSCHAPTER 011INTRODUCTION11.1 Problem statement71.2 Research questions81.3 Research objectives91.4 Significance of the study91.5 Theories supporting research study111.5.1 Equity Theory111.5.2 Norms of reciprocity121.5.3 Social exchange theory131.5.4 Organizational Support Theory14CHAPTER 0216REVIEW OF LITERATURE162.1 Psychological Contract:162.2 Psychological contract Brach:172.3 Organizational Identification182.4 Organizational Disidentification202.5 Psychological Contract Breach and organizational Identification/Disidentification222.6 Role of Equity Sensitivity262.7 Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support29Theoretical Model32Identification of Variables/Keywords32Conceptual Framework 2.132Hypothesis33CHAPTER 0334RESEARCH METHODOLOGY343.1 Research Methodology and Design343.1.1 Research Design343.1.2 Population and sample size343.1.5 Instrumentation353.1.6 Data Collection Technique and time frame373.1.7 Data Analysis Tools373.1.8 Analytical techniques and tool used383.2 Reliability41CHAPTER 0443RESULTS434.1 Descriptive Statistics434.2 Correlation Analysis454.3 Regression Analysis484.4 Mediated Regression Analysis48CHAPTER 0548DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION485.1 Discussion and conclusion48CHAPTER 648CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH486.1 Introduction486.2 Conclusion486.3 Limitations486.4 Recommendations & Direction for Future Research48REFERENCES48QUESTIONNAIRE48
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Instrumentations..37Table 3.2: Sample Characteristics............38Table 3.3: Scale Reliability......41Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics...44Table 4.2: Correlation Analysis....47Table 4.3: Regression Analysis for outcomes of PCB.........48Table 4.4: Mediated Regression Analysis........51Table 4.5: Moderated Regression Analysis..........53Table 4.6: Moderated Regression Analysis..........54Table 4.7: Summary of Accepted/Rejected Hypothesis...............55
OBBREVIATIONSPCB:Psychological Contract BreachEQ: Equity SensitivityPOS:Perceived Organizational SupportOI:Organizational IdentificationOD:Organizational Disidentification
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. S. M. M. Raza Naqvi, the supervisor of my Honor thesis, for her generous guidance on my work. Whenever I met any challenges on my research, he was always patient to give advice to me. Her experiences in research do not only bring me new insights, but also inspire me to carry out the thesis in a great success.Moreover, credits should also be given to my friends who assisted me to distribute and collected questionnaires, and gave comment on my research design. Without their kindness, this study could not be done in such a way.
Last but never the least; I would like to thank all the respondents for sharing with me their information and points of view on the above mention titled. Their generous support is undoubtedly the foundation of my study.
Muhammad Irfan Raza
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between breach of psychological contract and organizational identification & organizational disidentification with mediating role of perceived organizational support and moderating role of equity sensitivity. This study was conducted in nonprofit organizations (NGOs) of Pakistan. The survey was conducted on different areas of Pakistan such as Islamabad, Rawalpindi, and some district of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Primary data was collected using questionnaires which consist of 5 point likert scale as well as 7 likert scale for organizational identification and organizational disidentification. The sample size of the study was two hundred and seventy three (273) employees from various nonprofit organizations. The overall response rate was (67%). Results show that psychological contract breach was negative and significant relate to organizational identification and positive significant to organizational disidentification. Regression analysis shown that perceived organizational support and equity sensitivity will mediating and moderating the relationships. The current study found significant results. Out of six hypotheses five are accepted and one is rejected. At the end of this study we will discuss the discussion and conclusion, limitations and recommendations for future research have been discussed.51
The concept of psychological contract initially rooted in psychological sciences. Argyris (1960) was the first who discuss the concept of psychological contract, other researcher further explore this concept like Schein (1980), Levinson et al. (1962) and most famous Rousseau (1989; 1995; 2000). In literature the concept of psychological contract is widely used and emerged in every field to understand what employee ready to offer organization and in return what employee expect to received from organization. Employees works in organization and they expect some unwritten promises in form of regards, esteem, self identity from organization which are commonly known as psychological contract (Tijoriwala and Rousseau, 1998).In psychological contract literature psychological contract have two types; transactional contract and rational contract (Millward & Brewerton, 1999; Roussseau 1990, 1995; Millward & Hopkin, 1998). As name shown that Transactional contract are related to financial matters so transactional contract are those contracts which are naturally in short term and belongs to financial where as Rational contracts are long term and relate to other organizational benefits not financial (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). In Transactional contracts employee receive compensation, wages and short term guarantee from organization to compensate their work whereas Rational contracts are socio emotional and employee show their commitment in the form of organization citizenship behavior and identification of organization. On other hand organization give them training, skills, job security and self esteem for gain organizational goals (Bunderson & Thompson, 2003). When organization fail to fulfill these perceptions of employees in the scope of transactional or rational contract these create breach between employee employer (Morrison and Robinson, 1997) are known as breach of psychological contract.Psychological contract breach occurs when between the relationships one party think or perceives that other party has neglected him to provide their promises or commitment (Rousseau, 1995). E.g workers think that employer is obliged to offer him personal capacity building opportunities and if these promises does not fulfill by employer than breach will be further strengthen. Study of (Tyler and Lind 1992; Lind and Tyler 1988) discuss group value model which suggest that breach will minimize the employees affiliation towards organization (organization identification) and maximize the degree towards organization disidentification or detach him selves from organization. Low degree of identification and high degree of disidentification may be shown in large number of employees in their behaviors and attitudes because of less time in building relationship (McHoskey 1999), abandon or defecting (Gunn-thorsdottir et al. 2002), and create negative attitude to take revenge instant of corporation (Meyer 1992).Restubog et al. (2008) debate on organizational citizenship behavior and breach of psychological contract, study propose that organizational identification and trust mediate between psychological contract breach and organizational citizenship behaviors. Study of Ashforth and Kreiner (2004) and Gibney et al. 2011 interpret correlations of the study show that negative association between psychological contract breach and organizational identification. There is positive and significant relationship shown between breach and organizational disidentification (Ashforth & Kreiner 2004; Restubog et al. 2008; Gibney & colleagues 2011). In generally, when psychological contract breach take place in employees they feel that organization are not consider them as a valuable member and employees distance himself from organization and take lesser interest in the organization. Organizational support theory principally elucidates perceived organizational support (Aselage & Eisenberger 2003; Eisenberger et al. 1986) on the basis of perceptions that developed in their employees that employer values their considerations and welfare. According to reciprocity norm (Gouldner 1960) and social exchange theory (Blau 1964), perceived organization support relate positively with employee employer relationship thus it creates feeling of responsibilities in employees which help for organization to reach its targets (Eisenberger & Rhoades 2002; Eisenberger et al. 2001). In positive viewpoint organization handling with terms of fairness, good supervisory relation and job conditions whereas employees hold good attitudes and behaviors in terms of affective organizational commitment, increased OCB and decreased withdrawal through perceived organizational support which helps organization to reach its goals (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber 2011; Riggle et al. 2009; Eisenberger & Rhoades 2002; Eisenberger et al. 2001).Organization favorable attitude for employees increase their affective commitment to the employer (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2002). Further POS fulfill employees socio-emotional, association and support (Eisenberger, Sowa & Hutchison, Huntington, 1986; Eisenberger, Armeli, Lynch & Fasolo, 1998) thus employees affective commitment will enhances (Eisenberger and Rhoades, 2002; Rexwinkel, Rhoades, Lynch, Armeli, 2001; Bormann & Birjulin, 1999; Shore & Liden, Wayne, 1997; Randall, Settoon, Cropanzano, , Bennett & Liden, 1996; Guzzo, Noona & Elron, 1994; Tetrick & Sinclair, 1994; Shore & Wayne, 1993; Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Eisenberger, Davis-LaMastro & Fasolo, 1990). Those employees who believe that their organization will provide them little support will higher propensity to leave their job (Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 1999; Griffeth & Aquino, 1999; Wayne et al., 1997; Noonan & Elron, Guzzo, 1994). Whereas those employee who believe that their organization have been support them well will performing better and lower tendency to leave the organization. As a result POS will positively relate to the organization identification and task performances (Wayne et al., 1997). Social exchange theory and reciprocity norm theory will help us to analysis how POS mediate between psychological contract breach and organizational identification and organizational disidentification. POS is the valuable handling an employee received from organization (Shore & Shore, 1995; Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Eisenberger, Hutchison & Sowa, Huntington, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Perceived organization support is essential element for employee to maintain their jobs effectiveness and execute their attitude (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, Eisenberger, 1986). Literature identified a large number of compensations and desirable working situation which are positive relate with perceived organizational support; e.g. employees skills development (Wayne, Liden & Shore, 1997), autonomy in their jobs (Eisenberger, Cameron & Rhoades, 1999), friendly working conditions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Favorable working condition in organization will bridge psychological contract. When employees perceive that these conditions are in positive way, they feel that employer respect values and work for their wellbeing (Shore & Shore, 1995). In advance Kessler and Coyle-Shapiro (2002) commentary on their study that when employer provide favorable environment or fulfill employee contractual obligations will increase perceived organizational support. When employee sense that their organization have been fulfilled their psychological contacts (social-emotional) needs (Eisenberger et al., 1986), employee perceive that organization has treated him in positive way. This link further built strong ideological exchange between employee and organization (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Kacmar & Witt & Andrews, 2001; Witt, 1992). Eisenberger et al., (2001) further debate that this link that perceived organizational support and psychological contract will increased employees acceptance, reciprocity norm and exchange theory. As result perceived organizational support will increase the employee identification, their affective commitment, perform their tasks effectively and least turnover rate in the organization.Present study also helps us to address the limitations, investigate, empirical & theoretical, and outcomes of equity sensitivity. This study also focus on theoretical and empirical testimony concerning with selected variables and influence of equity sensitivity on other dependent variables. Equity sensitivity react different when work environment change, they hold different characteristics and react according to these characters. In particular the nonprofit organization environments makes more difficult to fulfill all premises that employees believe that organization will provide them. As a result these believe or promises are strengthen the psychological contracts where employees perceive that organization must fulfill their needs and return employees give them their services (Rousseau 1995). In different phenomenon various perceive psychological contracts has been breached, which results employee react negatively to identify the organization and positively related to the organizational disidentification. Through breach of psychological contracts employee react negatively and their behaviors and attitudes falls towards negative mode and hence their performance also decreases (Meta analysis, Zhao et al. 2007). This study may debate on that employees generally response positively to organization identification and negatively identify the organization when breach is happen. Employer employee relationships are critical process to understand the process to which incorporate with employee employer relationship. We further debate on organizational identification which is negative and organizational disidentification which is positive relate with breach. Negative attitude occurs when employees thinks that organizations are fail to fulfill their welfare and does not importance their contributions. Further study also explores the moderating and mediating role between breach and organizational identification & disidentification.Studying these theories we will be able to contribute literatures in existing body of knowledge. Initially we research on breach of psychological contract which relate to the social exchange theory, norms of reciprocity to explain the employee attitudes which are either identify or disidentify the organization. Restubog et al. (2008) and (Tyler & Lind 1992, 1988) who discuss group value model and social exchange theory which can clarify the breach to identifying and disidentifying the relationship. Secondly when psychological contract breach has been discussed, few other literatures have study on psychological breach of employees attachment to the organization as a contour of disidentification and identification. Breach have also send a strong symbolic message to employees which identify themselves as a valued member of organization (Restubog et al. 2008). In 2008 Restubog et al. show that breach was negative relates with organization identification hence employees trust was fully mediate between the relationships. In study of Restubog et al. (2008) examine the association between organizational disidentification and breach. The mediating effect of organizational support are explore within literature through study of K. L. Scott & W. T. Few & T. J. Zagenczyk & Ray Gibney (2011) which explore relationship between identification and psychological contracts with role of perceived organizational support in the collage, university members. Than study the equity sensitivity as a moderator in the study belongs to Scott W. Lester & Jill Kickul (2001) where the authors study the link among breach - employee behavior & attitudes. With the help of these relations we will able to study and further explore these links and add some literature in the existing body of knowledge. 1.1 Problem statementIn 21st century organizations undergone substantial changes to meet their challenges through organizational support, fulfill employees psychological needs which create employees identification towards organizations which ultimately enhance the performance, job satisfaction and commitment of employees towards organizations and if employees beliefs are not fulfilled by employer or organizational support are not given in a right direction which create organizational disidentification which are harmful and employees distance himself from the organization. In contexts of nonprofit organizations where employees are psychological attached with organizations and mostly work in different communities, ICBs, unions which are characteristics of collectivist environment (Hofstede, 2001) provide quick response to affected peoples, IDPs, provide faculties like health, education, wash, awareness etc. in this situation employees are too much attached with organizations which perceived psychological contract, perceived organizational support, on the bases of these employee moderate their equity sensitivity which result in their performance, behavior and attitude (Giardini & Frese, 2008; Fox, Tett, & Wang, 2005; Gibson & Barsade, 2007; Stankov, & Roberts, 1998) either positive or negative which finally belongs to employees own their organization or distance them self form the organization. Individual has a unique sensitivity preference and use their sensitivity on fair and unfair situations which are also affect on employees decision whichever positive or negative side. This study will also useful in developing countries where grass domestic products and economy growth rate is low. Employees are attached with society or organization with different form; either financially or emotionally, and their reaction depend on either these form which own or distance them self form organizations. Guerts et al.(1998) concluded that when employee think that they are not treated fairly as compare to other co-workers or the effort they have utilized, feelings of frustration and negative perceptions are created in their mind. In organizations where employees dont see any other opportunity, they start spreading rumors, reduce their input and affect the outcome of organization, and employees are distance themselves from organization as a result organization face different problems. In light of all above discussion we found very common problem in our private sector organizations (ngos) where employees distance them self form organization when their psychological needs are not fulfilled by employer or vice versa which are ultimately produced different positive or negative outcomes. Hitherto the link between these variables has not to my knowledge, has not been explore in the literature. To explore this gap between breach and organizational identification and disidentification we conduct this study in private sector organizations (nonprofit organizations). In Pakistani context no vital study has been investigated by the past researcher in those areas. In this study we build our arguments on the basis of empirical and theoretical study to test the all linkage and their role in the organization which add new dimensions and figures in the existing body of knowledge. 1.2 Research questionsKeeping in mind that every individual have different assumption and beliefs and on the bases of these assumption they own or disown their organization and react differently in fair or unfair situation in the organization. To understand this situation the aim of my research is: What is the interrelationship between breach of psychological contract, equity sensitivity, perceived organizational support, organizational identification and organizational disidentification? : Does perceive organizational support will mediate between psychological contract breach, organizational identification and organizational disidentification?: Does equity sensitivity will moderate the relationship between psychological contract breach, organizational identification and organizational disidentification? 1.3 Research objectivesThe key objectives of this research are To find out impact of psychological contract breach on organizational identification? To find out impact of psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification? To find out the mediating role of perceived organizational support between psychological contract breach and organizational identification? To find out the mediating role of perceived organizational support between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification? To find out moderating role of equity sensitivity between breach of psychological contract and organizational identification? To find out moderating role of equity sensitivity between breach of psychological contract and organizational disidentification?1.4 Significance of the studyPresent research will open new dimensions and direction to explore the new horizons in psychological contract, identification and disidentification of organization. Present study is unique in different dimensions. This effort develops an integrated model of organizational identification and disidentification with breach of psychological contract. This study focus on the relationship between psychological contract breach and its outcomes which are identify or disidentify the organization. Further we examine the moderating and mediating role of equity sensitivity and perceived organizational support which are very useful for organizations and explore the further dimensions. variables of our current model are not directly studied by any researcher specially in developing countries and the links between these variables are also comparatively new will be fruitful for organizations and researchers in future to grasp these gaps. This study was mainly important for organizations who recognize that how to fulfill employees needs to meet to organizational challenges because satisfied employees are blessing and gift for the organization while unsatisfied employees hurts the organization badly. In every culture employees holds different norms and beliefs, on the bases of these employees react different in different environment. In nonprofit organizations where employees are working in highly competitive environment and attached with organizations either financially or emotionally and employees also beliefs that employer fulfill their psychological needs, provide organizational support to achieve their organizational goals, if these beliefs are not fulfilled by employer employees react either positive or negative way which affect the organizational performance. Current study fruitful for all organizations (ngos), through the use of these results organization will achieve their goals more effectively. This study will also help to find out the behavior of employees and their attachment or detachment towards organization and also immensely important for private sector organizations and future researchers. By testing these variables it will be add new aspects and dimensions in the existing body of knowledge.1.5 Theories supporting research study1.5.1 Equity Theory Through Equity theory we explain the employee behavior and attitude at work floor. Adam (1965, 1963) presented equity theory. Inequity exists when one person perceives that their outcomes to input ratio different from others ratio. Equity theory focuses on perception whether it prevails in reality or not. Equity theory compares the degree of inequity by comparing ones ratio to others. This theory focuses on exchange relationship between where employee gives input and gets output. He believes that equity motivate when fairness comes between organization and coworkers. On the work floor equity structure based on the ratio between inputs and outcomes, Input means contributions done by employees and outcomes stand by organization doing for employees. (Koppes & Vinchur, 2011) study on job satisfaction and motivation through the result of comparison of perceived employee inputs and outcomes to the outcomes and inputs form organization. This model can be explained as:
Where OA and OB are organization side means outcomes and IA and IB are Input from employee. In organizational context outcome may be psychological rewards, feedback, support for administration or supervisor and salary etc (De Cooman, Hofmans, De Gieter, & Jegers, & Pepermans, 2012) on other side input refer to commitment to the organization, qualification, etc (Anderson, 1976). According to Adams (1963, 65) equity feeling outcome of (1) comparison between inputs and outcomes for self to organization, and (2) comparison between both ratio means self to other colleagues. When this ratios is unfair, inequity is practiced, which further turn into conflict situation and burnout stress. When larger the inequity the stress is higher, to reduce this stress organization should eliminate the inequity which further belongs to organizational identification. Generally equity theory tested by monitoring the reaction of employees in inequity situation by intentionally overpaying or underpaying them (Landy & Conte, 2010; p. 375). In this situation when employee overpaid would raise their performance and own their organization or quality and when underpaid would lower down the performance and distant them self from organization. This theory is used to measure the equity sensitivity. There are inputs and outputs in a relationship inputs is what employee given to the organization and output means what receive form organization when this situation happened employee react towards organizational identification or disidentification. In general when employee inputs are high their organizational identification is high and when output is low relative to other their disidentification are happened. 1.5.2 Norms of reciprocityMany of us ready or agree to help colleagues when he/she is under work pressure. People remember and thanks to those who remembered their important days in his life. And many of us have buying gifts for friend who remember last time during the illness. These are all examples of norm of reciprocity. Norm of reciprocity is a social rule among people who return some favors and other acts of goodness or response to positive action with other who act as a positively (kind reward action) (Gouldner, 1960). This rule gives fair social exchange and positive behaviors. Yet, norm can also be use as to gain unfair advantage. The norm of reciprocity is that people will response to each other by returning fair for fairness and respond unfair for unfairness. As a result this theory is important in exchange between input and output ratio.In literature we found two key elements of norm of reciprocity as either positive or negative aspects. In positive the exchange of favors with favors and benefits with benefits with individuals. This norm commits benefits or favor until he or she repays (Chen, 2009). This positive reciprocity norm is normal in society when one person helps others expect good feedback from other side. On other side negative norm is that when individuals act against unfair or unfavorable treatments (Chen, 2009). In generally both type of reciprocity norm either positive or negative emphasizes the return as other party react either fair or unfair means. Studies show that individual who react crime or anger might more support the reciprocity norm negatively to hostility by punishing or mistreatment. (Eisenberger, Lynch, Rohdiek and Aselage 2004). Carlsmith, Robinson and Darley, (2002) conduct a research on college students and most of them believe that punishment should be decide on seriousness of the crime instant by set examples to preventing parallel crimes. This theory is more important for mediating and moderator variables such as perceived organizational support and equity sensitivity. In POS employees beliefs that employer give than all their promises in return of his work and in equity sensitivity individuals act against fair or unfair situation which are provide employee psychological contract which further own or distance himself from organization. This theory assumes that when one employee gives some things to organization it also expects reciprocation. 1.5.3 Social exchange theoryIn 1958 George Homans explain Social exchange theorywith his publication "Social Behavior as Exchange".Social exchange define as the exchange among persons, less or more reward, intangible or tangible or exchange of activity among two or more persons.Further (Blau 1964) explain social exchange theory that person are mutual depends on each others and when one person propose some things to other they expects reciprocate by other party. In contexts of our present study social exchange theory is very important and widely used in research. This theory is the most significant and mold theory for understand the workplace behavior. We found their roots in the literature for last more than 10 decades (Mauss, 1925; Malinowski, 1922), in anthropology Sahlins, 1972; Firth, 1967), sociology (Blau, 1964) and social psychological studies (Kelley & Thibault, 1959; Homans, 1958; Gouldner, 1960). Despite this many social exchange have different views and their relation which creates sense of responsibility (Emerson, 1976). Social exchange theory are interrelated and interdependent on person to person and interactions each other (Blau, 1964). Social exchange theory also stress on interdependent transactions which alternatively generate strong relationships, while this happened only under certain circumstances. Social exchange theory has been explore different areas such as social power (Peterson, Molm, & Takahashi, 1999), independence (Westphal & Zajac, 1997), networks (Cook, Molm, & Yamagishi, 1993; Galaskiewicz, Brass, Greve, & Tsai, 2004), organizational justice (Konovsky, 2000), leadership (Wayne, Liden, & Sparrowe, 1997) and psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1995).There is strong consequence of social exchange theory on breach of psychological contract and its outcomes. Breach happen when individual received different in return what they expect from employer or when there is a difference between employee perceived and individual actually received from employer. This theory gives us how employees respond when their psychological contract are broken and then further show its effects on organizational identification and disidentification. 1.5.4 Organizational Support TheoryOrganization support theory is that managers are concerned with their employee that they are dedicated with organization and in return organization is focus on employees welfare and care their contribution (Eisenberger et al. 1986). When this identification is given to employees they approve their esteem and affiliation. Hutchinson, Sowa, Eisenberger, & Huntington, 1986; ; Shore & Shore, 1995; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2002) support and discuss the social emotional needs of employees which increase their work efforts, change employee perception which concern that their contributions valuable for the organization and organization care about their well being. Such perceived organization support increase employee satisfaction, their affective commitment, expectation towards organization and improve their performance which help organization to reach their goals. The representative of the organization are generally fair or unfair orientation towards employees which conflicting the individuals motives (Eisenberger et al. 1986). In light of this, Levinsons (1965) draw organization support theory idea that every employee in the organization represents the organization which gives the basic social exchange relationships between employer employee. With this in mind that such relationships provide organizational identification in form of commitment and work effort which are coherent with reciprocity norm, such type of support from employers employee compel to support and minimize the stress and conflict in the organization which alternatively oblige employee to organizational identification (Eisenberger et al. 2001; Gouldner 1960). In literature social exchange has generously control on organizational support theory Eisenberger et al. (1986) proposed socio-emotional need for esteem, regards and recongnization are the important function of perceived organization support Armeli et al. 1998. Fulfilling of these socio-emotional needs reduce the organizational disidentification like psychosomatic and psychological reactions when employee faces high work pressure (Ilies et al. 2010; George et al. 1993). In general the gratification of these needs employee fit himself into social identity from organizational membership (Fuller et al. 2006; Eisenberger et al. 1986; Eisenberger and Rhoades, 2002). Organizational support theory is vital to analysis the perceived organizational support variable. Which are further links between breach of psychological contract to organizational identification and disidentification.
CHAPTER 02REVIEW OF LITERATURE When two parties beliefs that they have mutual obligations between employee and employer or more than two parties (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1998) are define as Psychological contract. When these obligations are not fulfill from organization and organization does not perform according to the expectations of employees (Robinson and Morisson, 2000) are referred to as breach of psychological contract2.1 Psychological Contract:Argyris 1960 was the first who initiate the concept of psychological contract. Psychological contract was developed by organizational scholar Denise Rousseau that illustrates the mutual perceptions and beliefs, and the informal relationship between employer and employee. They discuss detailed practice and define their relationship between organization and employee. This is conspicuous from the formal writtenagreementsofemployees, which mutually identify their responsibilities and duties. Psychological contract are unwritten agreements take place before the formal agreement between two parties, the employee and employer. The contract start when selection process is began and two parties are not defining each other. This process can be start through observation and signaling theory when employee receives signaling from organization and construct expectation from organization according to their own perception and through towards organization. Both parties construct unwritten promises to gain mutual benefits. Applicant becomes employee psychological contract link relationship among employee and employer. Rousseau define in their work that employee reciprocal exist between employee and employer and employee assume responsibility from organization and their responsibility towards organization Rousseau (1989). Rousseau also suggests that most employees want to transactional relationship. (Levinson et al. 1962) define psychological contract that employee employer to share their assumptions and their contributions.In 1993 two scholars discuss three type of psychological contract as promise, payment and acceptance (Rousseau and Park, 1993). Promise is the first stage of psychological contract it perceived in first interaction. In next step decide what is being offered to them as payment and last when both first two are according to the employee it is accepted. Transactional contracts and rational contracts are also discussed by (Rousseau & Park, 1993; Rousseau, 1989) in their research as type of psychological contract. Transactional contracts are refer to wages, salaries and those are short term contract where as rational contracts are long term as commitment, job satisfaction, and organization identification. Both are very important in nature.2.2 Psychological contract Brach:Brach of psychological contract happens when employees in the organization perceived that employers have failed to accomplish their promises or not deliver their beliefs. In breach employee react as negatively, employee change their attitude and behavior in negative manner. In psychological contract breach employee reduced loyalty to organization, reduced organizational commitment and increase turnover intention (Hussain, 2013). Morrison and Robinson, (1997) explain that employee in the organization perceived that organization will fulfill their beliefs based on their perception, when these beliefs are not fulfill breach has take place, this breach further strength employee to change their attitude and behavioral (Kraatz, & Rous-seau, Robinson, 1994; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Psychological contract breach is the situation when employee belief that organization fails to fulfill their promises (Briner & Conway, 2002). Contract are define as positive way as trust, sincerity to organization than these beliefs are not fulfill from organization it leads to breach of psychological contract (Sykes, 1996). Psychological contract depends on individual rational and transactional beliefs regarding promises so it is individual employee perceived regarding effort and rewards and fair or unfair between them. Breach is happened when one or more contracts are not fulfill form organization employee feel emotional experience that breach has occurred (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).Many researchers discuss psychologically contract and many of them has the similar definition which composed of beliefs, assumption, expectations, reciprocity and obligations. In light of these researcher Rousseau define psychological contract as it contain employees beliefs in a reciprocity responsibility between employee and employer (Rousseau, 1989). Researchers explain that it has a subjective nature that depends on the employee beliefs regarding their own view of point that organization must fulfill them (Rousseau, 1989; Bellou, 2009; Rousseau, 1995). In further Rousseau (1989) discuss in his study that contract is essential element exist between employee and organization because it is essential to mediate between job outcomes. Psychological contract begins when job applicant holds a job in organization and their beliefs start comparison with other party (Hess & Jepsen, 2009).2.3 Organizational Identification Many researchers define organizational identification in the literature that identification is the positive link with organization to fulfill the expected role, task, goal, performance, organization citizenship behaviors, job satisfaction, commitment and tenure (Bartel, 2001; Ashforth, 2001; van Knippenberg, 2000) which are alternatively benefiting both employee and employer. In literature many researcher examined the relationship between employee and employer and define their relationship in term of identification of themselves in the work floor (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; V. Knippenberg, Ellemers & Haslam, Platow, 2003; Pratt, 1998; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Elsbach, 1999). Every member in organization identifies themselves with organization in term of what organization though to present them. To understand the concept of organization identification we must understand the concept of organization fit. Organization fit define as work environment and individual match with each other (Johnson, Kristof-Brown, & Zimmerman, 2005; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982; Dawis, 1992; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Characteristics of person may include biological or psychological needs, goals, beliefs, abilities, and self esteem whereas environmental characteristics include extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, cultural values, norms, traditions and other characteristics of individual and collectives social environment (French et al., 1982). Fit concept is very important in industrial and organizational psychological fields (Edwards, 2008). It is measurement of self concept and perception of employee towards organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1989; Pratt, 1998) constructs their perceived identification which fit with commitment of the organization: individuals may recognize themselves negative way whereas other may good fit with similar organizations and feel to good reorganization and committed. In last decades organizational behavior play important role to study the organizational identification (Rousseau, 1998; Pratt, 1998; Whetten & Godfrey, 1998). At every level individual, group or organizational level identification is very important implications. It has found positive relation with ocb and performance whereas negative related to turnover intentions (Rao, Bhattacharya, & Glynn, 1995; Tyler, 1999; Hinkle, Abrams & Ando 1998; van Knippenberg, 2000; Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Pratt, 1998; Haslam, 2001; Griffeth, Wan-Huggins, & Riordan, 1998; Bartel, 2001). Identification also holds quality of work and work control (Ashforth,2001). Almost every organization results/outcomes are strongly attached with employee perception either positive or negative. Many other researchers also discuss the dark side of organization (Elsbach, 1999; McLean Parks, Dukerich, & Kramer, 1998; Michel & Jehn, 2003) where employees hold negative feeling towards organization.Male and Tetrick (1992) define psychological group of identification that they share their common experience and characteristics with each other in the group Tetrick & Mael (1992). In specific organizational identification certain group of people shares their perceived experience of its failures or success (Mael and Ashforth (2001). Employee perceives themselves as a member of this organization Rousseau (1998). Members identify themselves with the organization when employee perceive that at least they are part of the organization Kreiner and Ashforth (2004), it is the cognitive perception of individual member in group or organization not behaviors results Gould (1975) in Mael and Tetrick (1992). In literature researcher give lot of emphasis on organizational identification which is important implications in organizational. Mael and Ashforth (1995) found that organizational identification has positively relates to organization citizenship behavior and performance which motivate employees. In healthcare sector employees likely to engage in extra role, improve quality, identify themselves and minimize the cost of work Golden, Duckerich, and Shortell (2002). 2.4 Organizational DisidentificationMany researcher works on other side of identification Ashforth (2001), Bullis and DiSanza (1999), Dukerich et al. (1998), and Elsbach (1999) which are known as organizational disidentification. Disidentification occurs when employee show their attributes and behaviors negatively and perceived that he or she are not fit with the organizational environment and resist to organization (Bhattacharya & Elsbach, 2001). Individuals are opposed to some or all characteristics of their organization (Ashforth, 2001). Ashforth (2001) also correlates disidentification positively with abuse, poor attention span, and absenteeism (Ashforth, 2001). Disidentified employee retains poor attitude and performance which promote negative norm and culture in the organizational environment. Example is; if someone challenges the value and missions of the organization other party or opponents who support these values and mission are disidentify them. In disidentification individual or group of peoples are disidentify with the organization as peoples are like or identify in organizational identification. Disidentification is a opposing him selves from organization not just for accidental or began with unfit with their environment Elsbach (1999). Disidentification may be entitled with separation form organizations mission, vision, culture or norms frequently and force himself to separate her identity and reputation from those organizations. Employees involve finding out objectionable aspects of the organization which help them to psychological separation from organization. It is very important that clearly define the identification and disidentification. Many scholars discuss that identification is not opposite to disidentification. To clarify this discusses the relationship between disidentification and identification. At initially they seem uni-dimensional variable. In the past research (Elsbach, 2001, 1999; Ashforth, 2001; Di-Sanza & Bullis, 1999; Pratt, 2000; Dukerich et al., 1998), disidentification and identification are separate variable. Both are containing unique psychological state. Identification is typically positive or connecting aspect of the organization from individual where as disidentification is typically negative or disconnecting state of the organization from individual. Despite of this the purpose of identification & disidentification to conserve the identity of the organization,the environment and the fact that experience in time to time. The best example coated by Elsbachs (2001). He discusses the califormia legislative staff where every member of legislative show identification or disidentification to the legislature and every member use different tactics to recognize them self identification. They identify them self in policy making process and distance them self for political matters, where identified himself for politicking and disidentify with ordinary mechanics of law making. In organization number of reason are seem to disidentify or unrecognized the organization which will produced conflicts between member and organization and as a result turnover and absenteeism are strongly occur in employees which are harmful for the organization. Results show that cost of turnover is high (Griffeth & Hom, 1995). When disidentifying employees it manager responsibility to minimize individual negative views towards organization. However managers of the organization are not desire disidentification in their employees which are harmful for the organization. 2.5 Psychological Contract Breach and organizational Identification/DisidentificationMany researchers conceptualize and debate on employee - employer relationship in a social exchange relationship where the organization furnish employees with physical, mental and social needs in exchange for employee roles to achieve its organizational goals (Rousseau, 1995; Eisenberger et al. 1986). This concepts depends on psychological contracts theory which debates that unwritten employees beliefs, assumptions that organization must fulfill regarding job security, training, promotion and other related factors which are not in written contracts play a very important role in employee attitude for exchange relationship which relate to organization effectiveness (Rousseau, 1995). Many studies suggest that employees early experience with organization; experiences during recruiters and early socialization with organization members begin to develop psychological contract promises or perceived organization values (Rousseau, 1995). During passage of time employee interact with other coworkers (Rousseau and Dabos, 2004) and supervisors (Rousseau, 2001) and further develop psychological contact. Psychological contract is very important for redesigning organizational structure, downsizing, technological innovation and change, outsourcing and provide strength during difficult economic times (Robinson and Morrison, 2000).The most important theories reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) and Social exchange theory (Blau 1964) are important to debate on the results of breach. Social exchange theory explains through the gratification of employees contracts, which creates feelings of responsibilities within entities to reach the organizational goals (Rousseau, 1995). Gouldners explain the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) that individual entrust to help other individual who help them which are a generalized moral norm. On the other hand the organizations who not fulfill perceived beliefs and assumption of employees which are further motivate employees to seize negative organization related behaviors and minimize contributions towards organization (Zhao et al. 2007) actually harmful for organization and give opportunity for revenge (Bordia et al. 2008) and also withhold from customers (Bordia et al. 2010) this type of act support the negative reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960), which are danger for other party to take revenge from other party who treated negatively. There is largely research evidences supported (Zhao et al. 2007) the instrumental approach support by psychological contracts theory limit their power in some cases, particularly when significance of psychological contract breach is naturally by symbolic (Restubog et al. 2008; Fuller et al. 2003). Many different models are used and one of them is a group value model (Lind and Tyler, 1988;1992) was develop to address the fact that behaviors of employees are not mutually or equity perspectives which minimize workers efforts towards organization to compensate their losses which accrue due to its actions. Unfair treatment and response towards employees may be the products of their feelings which are result of the expense of actual cost. Further, group value model propose group values which are used to treatment for employees is important for individuals to perceived organization values or group values because such treatment s creates symbolic worth of employee which is valuable member of the organization or group. More further, fair or unfair treatment or just or unjust treatment will be influence the perceptions of employees if or not he/she belong to organization as a useful entity. In fact these perceptions have influence on employees which becomes psychologically attached or separate from the organization (Tyler and Lind, 1988). A research conduct and illustrate on the group value model that there are negatively relate breach and organization identification and positively between breach and organization disidentification and Zagenczyk et al. (2011a) Restubog et al. (2008). Both concepts are similar and describe the function of organization membership that performs in employees self concepts. Organization identification is a form where employees emerge their attributes and redefine self concepts (Mael and Ashforth 1989). Dutton et al., 1994 also define identification is likely when employees perceive that organization or group consider them as a distinct entity or in a positive manner. Especially when employees look organization values, mission, purpose etc. they likely perceive the organization in a positive manner and define their attributes which are similar to those which are define by the organization. Further employees perceive that organization consider them as a meaningful entity and distinguish themselves from others, under this type of perception employees are likely to become psychologically attached to organization. In organization contents this type of attachment is desirable because when employees positively psychologically attached with organization become more attached with organization and engaged in positive citizenship behavior and minimize the negative intentions towards organization (Riketta, 2005).When employees psychologically detach or separate themselves from the organization is known as Organizational Disidentification (Ashforth and Kreiner, 2004). In other hands, employee will disconnect from organization when they feel that they will stand direct opponent side to those who defines the organization (Elsbach and Bhattacharya, 2001). As identification is a distinct self concept occurs when organization provides positive and distinct self concept to employees. Similarly disidentification occurs when employee perceive that their value is different from organization and they believe that organization has a negative reputation (Kreiner and Ashforth, 2004; Elsbach and Bhattacharya, 2001; Bhattacharya and Elsbach 2002). Under such situation, disidentification enables employees to separate or disconnect themselves from organization or groups and maintain their self-concept. Thus disidentification among employees is high is not a desirable state because they always impel employees to negative opinions regarding organization and employee share their negative attitude to other coworker to leave the organization altogether (Kreiner and Ashforth, 2004).Although past literature (Restubog et al. 2008; Gibney et al. 2011; Ashforth et al. 2004) also explores link between breach and identification and some past research also empirically illustrate the importance of these variables and why these variable are interrelated. In todays breach of psychological contract is ordinary or inescapable within the organization (Rousseau 2001), it is important for us to understand why and who this variable in interrelated with organizational identification and disidentification. It is also important for us to debate on why breach influences on employee and change their attitudes, interventions and innovations can be adopt and change the situations within employer employee relationship (Zagenczyk et al. 2009).In light of previous studies, I expect in my research that breach of psychological contract would be negative related to organizational identification and positive relate to organizational disidentification. When psychological contract breach occurs employee thinks that they are not consider as a valueable members of his organization and separate themselves (Zagenczyk et al., 2011a; Restubog et al., 2008). in identification, psychological contract breach will not only produce feelings of rejection but also weaken the employees psychological attachment towards organization also reevaluate what they believe and where they stand for, these type of attachment may decrease the organization attractiveness, especially when employees are responsible to initiate some steps within the organization. In other hand disidentification, beach is lead employees to perceive organization negatively that their values are distinct and opposite to the organizational values. Hypothesis 1: There a negative and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach and organizational identification.Hypothesis 2: There a positive and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.2.6 Role of Equity SensitivityIn current research the moderating role of equity sensitivity is most interesting variable of this study. Equity sensitivity proposes that every individual in the organization have unique sensitivity to fair and unfair situations which are further force to change their attitudes and behaviors according to the situations either positive or negative (King el at., 1993; Huseman et al., 1987, 1985; Miles el at., 1989). This concept explore the perceptions of individuals what is and what is not equal and then use the other source of information to react the unfair situation (Miles, King and Day 1993). Individuals equity sensitivity may be moderate between the reactions of individual behavioral and emotional those pursue a breach of contract (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Equity sensitivity concept was studied by different examiner that every individuals hold distinctive sensitivity in fair and unfair situation which effect individual reactions & attitude, either positive or negative (King et al., 1993; Huseman et al., 1987, 1985; Miles et al., 1989;).Empirical and theoretical evidence show that in same inequitable situations equity sensitivity react different with others (Kickul et al., 2005; Huseman et al., 1985; Jackson & Patrick 1991). Different studies has also link equity sensitivity to a extensive range of different work attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, responsibilities and rights (Raja et al. 2004), violations of contract and action policies (Walker et al. 2007; Kickul & Lester 2001), outcomes (Miles et al. 1994), ethical behavior and attitudes (Mudrack et al. 1999), commitment and job satisfaction (Mone and ONeill 1998), efficiency in job (Burroughs and Bing, 2001), and OCB (Restubog et al. 2007; Akan et al. 2009). Adamss (1963, 1965) original study the equity theory, organizational behavioral scholars have dedicated lot of interest towards dimension of fair or unfair situation in the organization. Every member in organization is much concerned about how much he or she gets (outcomes) in proportion to how much he or she contributes (inputs) in the organization. In this situation equity theory tells about the comparison the ratio of individual with another individual to determine whether the situation is equitable. When things are inequitable or unequal then employees are react differently.Adams (1963, 65) explain equity theory that every individual have different sensitivity to react different in fair and unfair situation. In light of this theory we explain the following views: (i) individual wants to fair relationships (ii) compare outcomes and inputs to other party (iii) show negative feeling or reaction when feeling inequitable condition (iv) try to balance these situations. According to Adam theory it is universal phenomenon that every individual compare their inputs and outcomes with other opponent. This situation experience during inequity situation regardless of whether under-rewarded or over-rewarded of outcomes. Adams (1965) also explains that inequity distress appears in both situations either under rewarded or over rewarded (Tornow, 1971; Carroll & Dittrich, 1978). Huseman, Miles, and Hatfield (1985, 1987) originally debate on equity sensitivity concept and more dynamics of equity perceptions. Equity sensitivity may vary their perception when they compare their outputs/input ration with other referent.Huseman and his colleagues (1987, 1985) explain the three types of individuals sensitivity to equity which vary from individual to individual: (i) Benevolent (inputs greater than outcomes), (ii) equity sensitive (those who seek equity preference, who seek balance their inputs and outcomes with others), and (iii) entitled (outcomes greater than inputs) Huseman et al., (1985, 1987). Other than the management sciences equity theory used a number of other fields such as expectations of consumer (Kurtz, Clow, and Ozment, 1998), one to one business marketing (Boyd and Bhat 1998; Patterson, Spreng, and Johnson, 1997), customer suggestions and complaints (Pinkerton and Lapidus, 1995), and pricing tag Monroe and Martins, 1994), satisfaction of customers (Oliver and Swan, 1989), and relationship between seller buyer exchange (Arenson, Huppertz, and Evans, 1978).This study further examines the breach of psychological contract (inequity form) which reciprocally effect on equity sensitivity and affect the employee behaviors, attitude and their reaction towards organizations. These forms of breach relate with extrinsic and intrinsic outcomes. Extrinsic includes benefits, pay etc and intrinsic includes emphasize on worthiness of job. When these form are not fulfilled employee react more negative in their attitudes and behaviors which affect their identification and employee react towards organizational disidentification.
Hypothesis 3: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and Organizational identification.
Hypothesis 4: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification. 2.7 Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational SupportLast few decades perceived organizational support has important variable in the fields of psychological science and management sciences (Allen et al., 2008; Rhodes and Eisenberger, 2002; Fuller et al., 2003; Stamper et al., 2003; Aube et al., 2007). Researcher define perceived organization support variable in various way. Eisenberger define in 1986 that employee in the organizations perceived that employer care their welfare and value their contributions Eisenberger (1986). How organizations recognize the contributions of employees and care about their wellbeing (Allen et al., 2008). Many scholars define basic principle of organizational support theory in their studies (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Eisenberger and Aselage 2003) that employees in the organization develop overall perceptions regarding their organization that organization cares about their wellbeing and provide all essential needs of employees. In light of social exchange theory and reciprocity norm many authors commentary on perceived organizational support positively relate to employee - employer relation it creates feeling of responsibilities which help for organization to reach its targeted results (Eisenberger and Rhoades 2002: Eisenberger et al. 2001; 1986). Perceived organizational support and HR practices links positive employee attitudes and behaviors. Supervisor support, good working condition and fair reward system link strong positive relationship with perceived organizational support (Eisenberger and Rhoades, 2002) it also strengthen employee beliefs which are helpful for employer to achieve their goals. In this mata-analysis of Rohades and Eisenberger (2002) identify that rewards has positive relate to perceived organizational support through which employees polish their capabilities (Shore, Wayne, & Liden, 1997), identity within their job (Cameron, Rhoades, & Eisenberger, 1999), and self recognition in management (Tetrick, Bommer, Shore, & Wayne, 2002). On other antecedent beliefs in their supervisor which care and value employee contributions (Sharafinski & Kottke, 1988) supervisors act on behalf of the organization and employee identify them as an organization. When employees perceive positive and significant treatment from supervisor employee indicate them as organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 2002b). There are also many empirical studies show a strong and significant relationship of job satisfaction and organizational commitment Riggle et al., 2009; Aube et al., 2007; Rhodes and Eisenberger, 2002) which help their organization to target their goals (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). It is the duty of the organization to care their employees and increase their affective commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Through affective commitment employees fulfill their socio-emotional needs through emotional support (Huntington, Eisenberger, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986; Eisenberger, Fasolo, Armeli & Lynch, 1998). This Perceiced organizational support enhance commitment to the organization (Wayne, Liden, & Shore, 1997; Eisenberger, Rexwinkel, Armeli, Lynch & Rhoades, 2001; Shore & Wayne, 1993; Eisenberger, Fasolo & D. LaMastro, 1990; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Cropanzano, Randall, Bormann & Birjulin, 1999; Bennett, Settoon, & Liden, 1996; Tetrick & Shore , 1991; Sinclair & Tetrick 1994;) which are further helpful them to identify their organization and produce better result for their organization. employees who believe that their organization are not support or little support are higher intention to leave the organization and increase absenteeism (Griffeth, Shore & Allen, 1999; Aquino & Griffeth, 1999; Wayne et al., 1997;) which leave towards organizational disidentification, similarly who believe that organization support them well are more satisfied with their work and performing better results which lead towards organizational identification. Consequently perceived organizational support is positive and significantly relate to organization performance (Wayne et al., 1997).Perceived organizational support is significant and positive relate with organization in form of fairness, supervisor relationships, work conditions, etc which force employees to hold positive attitudes in form of affective organizational commitment and react in good behavior to enhance performance, increase citizenship, decrease withdrawal and absenteeism that every organization want (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber 2011; Riggle et al. 2009; Eisenberger et al. 2001).Perceived organizational support and breach of psychological contract are the important variables in the field of researcher. Perceived organizational supports are generally positive reciprocity and employees belief in their contribution, as employees tends to be performs better to pay back. On other construct psychological contract breach is the feeling of disappointment arising in their belief because employees think that organizations has broken its promises, in general it has a negative reciprocity and employee perform poorly to pay back.
Hypothesis 5: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational identification.
Hypothesis 6: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.
Theoretical ModelIdentification of Variables/Keywords
Finding of this study has based on conceptual framework 2.1. Key variables of current study and their keywords which are used in this study are as follow: Dependent Variable: Organization Identification (OI)Dependent Variable: Organization Disidentification (OD)Independent Variables: Psychological Contract Breach (PCB)Moderating Variables: Equity Sensitivity (ES)Mediating variables: Perceived Organizational Support (POS)
Conceptual Framework 2.1
H1: There a negative and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach and organizational identification.
H2: There a positive and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.
H3: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational identification.
H4: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.
H5: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and Organizational identification.
H6: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.
CHAPTER 03RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this chapter we thoroughly discuss the population size of our research, sampling techniques & tools, instruments used to measure the variables and some other research methodologies which are used in this research. 3.1 Research Methodology and Design 3.1.1 Research DesignIn this study we examine the theoretical and empirical analysis of the linkage between organizational identification and organizational disidentification with Breach of psychological contract. Further we also investigate mediating role of perceived organizational support and moderating role of equity sensitivity in this study and explore their different dimensions. 3.1.2 Population and sample sizeThe population of current study represents different non-profit organizations (local & international organizations) in different locations of Pakistan. Different areas belong to Islamabad, Rawalpindi and some district of Azad Jammu & Kashmir are selected for data collection. Approximately more than 25 different private sector organizations (non-profit organization) were selected and among of them different questionnaires are distributed. Some famous organizations are Muslim Aid UK, WWF, US Aid, Care international, Plan International, Save the Children, ROZAN, Water Aid, message trust, NRSP, HRDF etc. were used for gather the required information. The sample size for this study was two hundred and seventy three (273) questionnaires. Questionnaires are filled through by manually, sending emails and used different technologies like Google docs etc. More than 410 questionnaires were distributed among different organizations. Through email and Google docs we received ninety eight (98) questionnaires which of them eighty eight (88) are useable. One hundred and eighty five (185) questionnaires were filled through personal distribution and collection. The overall response rate was sixty seven percent (67%). The convenience sampling technique was used to attain the required data. This technique is widely used in social sciences which allow researchers to collect data on the availability of the subject. This technique is also helpful to meet the time frame and best utilizations of resources in minimize time and resources. Due to time frame and other resources we used cross sectional data to analysis the results.3.1.5 InstrumentationIn this study closed ended Questionnaires will be used to collect the primary data. Nominal scale are used which contain five likert scale options as Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), Agree (4) and Strongly Agree (5) which are used for psychological contract breach, perceived organizational support and equity sensitivity whereas seven likert scale ranges from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) are used for organizational identification and organizational disidentification. 18.104.22.168 Psychological contract breachPsychological contract breach were measured using five scale items taken form Robinson and Morrisons (2000) with five likert scale options from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). The value of cronbachs alpha reported as 0.775. 22.214.171.124 Organizational Identification and organizational disidentificationOrganizational identification and disidentification was measured using Kreiner and Ashforth (2004) which contain six, six items scale. Seven likert scale are used ranges from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) for both organizational identification and organizational disidentification. The value of Cronbachs alpha is 0.914 and 0.882 respectively.126.96.36.199 Equity SensitivityEquity sensitivity was measured using 16 scale items which are developed by Sauley & Bedeian (2000) and further used by Foote and Harmon (2006) and other researcher in the literature for measuring equity sensitivity. 16 items with 05 point likert scale are used ranges from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). The value of cronbachs alpha is 0.856. 188.8.131.52 Perceived Organizational SupportPerceived Organizational Support (POS) was measured using eight-item scale taken from survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al. 2001), 08 items with 05 likert scale are used ranges from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). The value of cronbachs alpha reported as 0.849.
Breach of Psychological ContractRobinson and Morrisons (2000)05 Items
Perceived Organizational SupportRhoades and Eisenberger (2002)08 items
Equity SensitivitySauley & Bedeian (2000)16 items
Organizational IdentificationKreiner and Ashforth (2004)06 items
Organizational DisidentificationKreiner and Ashforth (2004)06 items
Five Likert Scale are used as Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither, Agree and Strongly Agree3.1.6 Data Collection Technique and time frameIn this study we use Convenience sampling technique because it is easy to use and gather required data within time constrain where a large number of respondents are there. This technique is widely used in the research studies. In this study we used two hundred and seventy three respondents from more than twenty five (25) private sector organizations (non-profit organization) which are international as well as local organizations.3.1.7 Data Analysis ToolsData are collected through closed ended questionnaires, SPSS software were used to analysis the data. Correlation and regression analysis are run to analysis the data. Correlation analysis and regression analysis are used to check the relation between dependent and independent variable while regression analysis show how much change in independent variable caused to change dependent variable. Factor analyses are also used to check the causal relationship between variables.3.1.8 Analytical techniques and tool usedIBM SPSS Statistic 17 was used for determination of further results; various statistical analyses like reliability test, descriptive test, Liner Regression, correlation were used to find out the impact of variables on each others. Cronbachs alphas were used to calculate the internal reliability of the scale. Table 3.2Sample CharacteristicsRespondents demographic characteristics
less than 2 year8330.4
more than 5 years10638.8
CHIP176.2Save the children51.8
Helping Hands103.7US Aid93.3
Islamic Relief145.1World vision62.2
Gender wise frequency analysis reports that majority of the respondents was male. Total number of males consists of 141 out of 273 that work out to be 51.6% of the sample. On the other hand total number of female respondents is relatively low (i.e. 132 in number & 48.4%). The above descriptive statistics also explain marital status of the respondents and result indicates that a total of 156 respondents that work out to be 57.1% are married & unmarried respondents consist of 117 that make it 42.9%. The survey also collects data about the qualification of the respondents. Here the highest percentage has been seen for Master level i.e. 16 years of education. There are 122 of the respondents has formal education for 16 years i.e. 44.7%. However in other qualification categories 85 respondents (31.1%) are found in MS/M.phil Category, 66 respondents has completed their Bachelor degree which are 24.2% of the total sample. Experience wise the highest percentage consists of 5-10 years group that is a total of 130 respondents making it 47.6% of the total sample. However, 68 respondents are reported in less than 5 years making it 24.9% of sample. Rest 75 respondents (27.5%) are reported as above the 10 year of experience. In this study we also gather data about respondent current organization tenure; we found that most of the respondent belongs to more than 5 years which are 106 respondents (38.8), and less than 2 years respondents belongs to less than 2 years which are 30.4% of the total size. This study also contains information about the sample size of questionnaires that are distributed among different organization. Approximately 25 non-profit organizations are selected for sampling size. The maximum numbers of questionnaires are received form Care international, CHIP, WWF which are 18, 16 and 16; whereas minimum numbers of questionnaires are received form lead international, save the children and world vision as 5, 5 and 6 respectively. 3.2 Reliability Through IBM SPSS Statistic 17 we run reliability test on collected data of different variables in private sector organizations (non-profit organizations), the calculated reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) show that collected data is reliable for further analysis. Table 3.3 explains the reliability of different variables. Table 3.3Scale ReliabilitiesVariableCronbachs AlphaNo. of Items
Breach of Psychological Contract.77505 Items
Perceived Organizational Support.84908 items
Equity Sensitivity.85616 items
Organizational Identification.9146 items
Organizational Disidentification.8826 items
Internal reliability of a scale refers to its ability to consistent results when administered with several numbers of items or even in the case of checking reliability by various methods such as split half method and others. Reliability test is the one of the common test to verify the validity of scale that asses the reliability of a scale. It refers to its internal consistency in measuring a construct. The range of Cronbachs Alpha is 0 to 1. However, higher values are indicates greater reliability of the scale. It also capable to measure the inter correlation among various items in the scale. Generally the Alpha values above 0.7 are taken to be reliable, whereas on the other hand, lower values shows lower reliability of the scale in measuring construct or its different dimensions. The above table 3.3 gives details of Cronbachs Alpha coefficient used to collect data for this study. Through this table internal consistency of scales used are visible. The highest Alpha value has been seen for the scale used to measure organizational identification is 0.914. It refers to the high reliability of the scale used. The lower cronbachs alpha is reported breach of psychological contract which is .775 which is relatively low compared to others. All the scale used for survey shows a good reliability values.Equity sensitivity instruments are frequently used to measure the equity sensitivity in literature. Equity sensitivity preferences instrument are also used for measuring the equity sensitivity due to criticized by many authors that poor items developments, sample scoring, lack of content validity and item ambiguity (Bedeian & Sauley, 2000). The critique of equity sensitivity instruments direct to the development of the equity preference questionnaires, sixteen-item scale which are developed by Bedeian and Sauley (2000) are used to measure equity sensitivity. In previous reliability and validity which are associated with equity sensitivity instruments, the equity preference questionnaires which are developed using more systematic item development. Bedeian and Sauley (2000) developed equity preference questionnaires using more than six studies and developing final version which consists of 16 items. Recent studies of (Wheeler, 2007; Straus & Shore, 2008) conduct their studies and conclude that equity sensitivity questionnaires are more valid and reliable for measuring the equity sensitivity constructs.
The objective of this study is to analysis the organizational behaviors and their outcomes of psychological contract breach. In this research we develop relationship between breach of psychological contract and their effect on organizational identification and organizational disidentification with mediating role of perceived organizational support and moderating role of equity sensitivity. The following variables are used in current research Psychological contract breach (PCB) Organizational identification (OI) Organizational disidentification (OD) Equity sensitivity (ES) Perceived organizational support (POS)To test relationship between these variables we use correlations, regression and other mediating and moderating analysis to check our hypothesis.4.1 Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive statistics used to analysis the data in sample and summaries form. Descriptive statistics tells us about the details of data that has been used and collected such as N number of respondents, maximum, minimum, standard deviation and mean value of the data. It also gives information in percentage and summarized form. The details of research data is presented in the table 4.1 as below.Table 4.1Descriptive Statistics(Minimum, Maximum, Mean and Standard Deviation)VariableNMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation
Perceived Organizational support2731.005.002.1351.60455
Breach of Psychological Contract2732.004.803.6630.60231
This above table 4.1 explains descriptive statistics of the variables under study. The table summarized the data related to N number of participants, maximum, minimum, and also shows the standard deviation and mean of variables. The first column of the table consist of variable names, the 2nd column explain about the sample size of the study which are three hundred and nine, 3rd & 4th column tell us about the minimum and maximum values collected data. The 5th column tells about the mean value of each variable. The data has been collected as a whole value instead of fraction values. Gender represent in two forms 1 for male & 2 denote for females. The mean value for Breach of Psychological Contract is 3.6630 with standard deviation of .60231. The mean value of organizational Identification is 4.3010 with standard deviation of 1.17941 and mean value of organizational disidentification is 4.0201 with standard deviation of .90472. Perceived organizational Support as mediator is observed to have mean value of 2.1351 with standard deviation of .60455. Moderator variable Equity Sensitivity has mean value of 2.7283 having standard deviation of .96335. Perceived organizational support indicates to have lowest mean and organizational identification has measure with highest mean and highest standard deviation. The, results of the study are same as others studies are available in literature. 4.2 Correlation AnalysisThe purpose of correlation is used to signify the relationship between two or more variables which are moves in similar or opposite direction. Correlation test was used to check the relationship between independent variables, breach of psychological contract and dependent variables, organizational identification. It is different from regression analysis which is not considering causal linkages for the variables understudy. In correlation we analysis the variables are moving in same or opposite direction with zero correlation. It may have values from -1 to +1 means +1 is perfect positive correlate and -1 means perfect negative correlation. However 0 means there is no correlation exists between variables. Correlation analysis is indicated in below table 4.2. Results are explain hereThe table also show the results with reference to the demographic variables such as psychological contract breach has significant correlation with Gender (R= .169 having p0.01), qualification (R = -.140 having p0.05), while organization tenure (R = .014) and experience (R = -.157 having p0.01) has negative and significant relationship. The correlation analysis of dependent variable as organizational identification has shown their correlation with other demographic variables as gender (R = -.130, significant), qualification (R = -.128 having p0.01), organizational tenure (R = .094) and experience (R = -.207) have negative relationship. Organizational disidentification has correlate with other variables as gender (R = .116, insignificant), qualification (R = .076), organization tenure (R = .116), and experience (R = .051). The above table also illustrate demographic variables has correlate with moderating variable of equity sensitivity and mediating variable of perceived organizational support. This study also depicts the relationship of independent variable (breach of psychological contract) and dependent variables. Organizational identification having (R = -.207 with p value of 0.01) show strong negative significant correlation and organizational disidentification having (R = .375 with p value of 0.01) show strong positive significant correlation with psychological contract breach. Further correlation between perceived organizational support with organizational identification having (R = .257 with p value of 0.01) and with organizational disidentification having (R = .409 with p value of 0.01) significant correlation exists between these variables. Moderating role of equity sensitivity correlate with organizational disidentification having R is equal to -.331 with p value 0.01 and organizational identification R is equal to .236 with p value 0.01. Perceived organizational supports (mediator) correlate with dependent variable (breach of psychological contract) having R is equal to -.740 , correlate with organizational identification R is equal to .257 with p0.01 show positive correlation and organizational disidentification having R is equal to -.409 with p0.01 show negative correlation. The result of current correlation is same as the previous researchers has explored in their studies.Table 4.2CorrelationCorrelation Matrix123456789
3. Organizational Tenure.132*.170**1
5. Psychological Contract Breach.169**-.140*.014-.157**1
6. Perceived Organizational Support-.144*.013-.024.042-.740**1
7. Equity Sensitivity-.178**-.106-.116.074-.558**.568**1
8. Organizational Identification-.130*-.128*.094.034-.207**.257**.236**1
9. Organizational Disidentification.116.076.116.051.375**.409**-.331**-.139*1
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).4.3 Regression AnalysisRegression analysis is widely used to predict and exams the relationship among variables. Correlation analysis shows the strength of relationship of X variables with Y variable. Whereas the regression analysis explain the predictions about Y from the values of X. It is used to illustrate conclusion regarding variable dependence on each other. The analysis is used to estimate the dependence of one variable over other variable where dependent variable is regressed on independent variable.
Table 4.3Regression Analysis for outcomes of PCBPredictor : PCBOrganizational IdentificationOrganizational Disidentification
Breach of psychological contract-.189**.064.035**.366***.154.130***
*** p 0.001, ** p 0.01, * p 0.05In the table 4.3 shows the direct relationship of psychological contract breach with other two dependent variables such as organizational identification and organizational disidentification. In organizational identification result show that having beta () = -.189 with significant level of P 0.01 negative and significant relationship with psychological contract breach. In organizational disidentification beta () having .366 having P0.001 strong positive significant relationship with psychological contract breach which depict that when breach of psychological contract take place organizational identification has negatively relate to identification of organization whereas organizational disidentification has strongly positively relate when breach of psychological contract take place. H1: There a negative and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach and organizational identification.Results of regression analysis show that organizational identification has negative and significant relationship with breach of psychological contract having beta () = -.189 with significant level of P .001. According to the results, which supporting the hypothesis that breach of psychological contract is negatively and significantly relate to organizational identification. Thus our hypothesis is accepted
H2: There a positive and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.
Results of regression analysis show that organizational disidentification has positive and significant relationship with breach of psychological contract having beta () = .366 with significant level of P 0.001. According to the results, which supporting our hypothesis that breach of psychological contract is positively and significantly relate to organizational disidentification. Our hypothesis is accepted
4.4 Mediated Regression AnalysisFigure 4.1
Predictor Criterion IIITo understand the mediating roles of variable in research we go through the paper of Barron and Kenny (1986) who explain the following conditions which are must be fulfilled to prove mediation. Figure 4.1 was explains the mediating role and their influence on other variables in the research. Predictor must be related to mediator (I) Mediator to criterion (II) Predictor to criterion (III)Mediating role of perceived organizational supportTo test the mediation, regression analysis was used and run test on the data. This was confirmed by placing independent variable (psychological contract breach) followed by mediating variable (i.e. perceived organizational support) and in the end dependent variable (i.e. organizational identification and organizational disidentification). Mediating test was run through three steps. In 1st move control variables in independent box, than next step perceived organizational support and last step take psychological contract breach in that box, dependent variable (organizational identification and disidentification) was moved in dependent box and then run the regression test.
Table 4.4Mediated Regression AnalysisPredictorsPerceived Organizational Support (POS)Organizational Identification (OD)Organizational Disidentification (OI)
Psychological contract breach-.736**.542.527***
Psychological contract breach-.189**.064.033**.336**.154.130***
Perceived Organizational Support .244***.088.058***-.400***.181.157***
Psychological contract breach -.021ns.088.000ns.155ns.192.011ns
*** p 0.001, ** p 0.01, * p 0.05, ns = insignificantH3: Perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational identification.
The results (Table 4.4) indicate that organizational identification have ( = -.189, R =.033, having p0.01) significant relationship with psychological contract breach. Through use of Barron & Kenny (1986) rules further statistics show that breach of psychological contract becomes insignificant when perceived organizational support as a mediator is consider () = -.021, R =.000 insignificant, which support our hypothesis.
H4: Perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.
Table 4.4 explains mediating role of perceived organizational support with organizational disidentification. Regress analysis predictor organizational disidentification having ( = .336, R =.130, having p0.001) statistics depict that there is positive and significant relationship among organizational identification and psychological contract breach. In next we run test on perceived organizational support as a mediator in step III which indicates beta () = .155, R =.192 insignificant indicates that perceived organizational support is fully mediate between organizational disidentification and psychological contract breach. Thus our hypothesis is accepted
Table 4.5Moderated Regression Analysis (ES)PredictorsOrganizational Identification (OI)
Main Effect: Equity Sensitivity
Psychological Contact Breach-.089***
Interaction term (Psychological Contract Breach * Equity sensitivity) -1.261***.112.041***
*** p 0.001, ** p 0.01, * p 0.05, ns = insignificantH5: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and Organizational identification. In table 4.5 regression analysis has been used to analysis the moderating role of equity sensitivity. Result shown that interaction term between breach of psychological contract and equity sensitivity has significant relationship with organizational identification = -1.261 with R = .112 having P0.001. Results show that equity sensitivity moderate between the psychological contract breach and organizational identification hence our hypothesis accepted.
Table 4.6Moderated Regression Analysis (ES)PredictorsOrganizational Disidentification (OI)
Main Effect: Equity Sensitivity
Psychological Contact Breach.280***
Interaction term (Psychological Contract Breach * Equity sensitivity) .608ns.181.010ns
*** p 0.001, ** p 0.01, * p 0.05, ns = insignificantH6: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification. Statistics in Table 4.6 explains the moderating role of equity sensitivity with predictor of organizational disidentification. Result shown that interaction term between breach of psychological contract and equity sensitivity has insignificant relationship with organizational disidentification = .608 with R = .181. The P value (insignificant) indicates that insignificant relationship exists between organizational identification and psychological contract breach. So our hypothesis has been rejected.
Table 4.7Summary of Accepted/ Rejected Hypothesis
Hypothesis Statements ResultsH1:There a negative and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach and organizational identification.Accepted
H2:There a positive and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.Accepted
H3:Perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational identification.Accepted
H4:Perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.Accepted
H5:Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and Organizational identification.Accepted
H6:Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.Rejected
Total number of Hypotheses:06
CHAPTER 05DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION5.1 Discussion and conclusionThe main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between psychological contract breach with organizational identification and disidentification with mediating role of perceived organizational support and moderation role of equity sensitivity. Tables 4.7 accept five hypotheses and reject one hypothesis. Five hypotheses which are accepted are found significant relationship with other variables. Equity sensitivity as a moderating variable between organizational disidentification and breach of psychological contract was rejected in this study. In organizational disidentification employees are distant himself from their organization and their belief are broken down so equity sensitivity will not affect or moderate between organizational disidentification and psychological contract breach in this situation equity sensitivity does not matter. In developing countries where employees are attached with their organization either financially or emotionally and believe that organizations give those all psychological needs when these needs are not provided and breach occurs employees distant himself from organization. The results shown that in non-profit organizations equity sensitivity will not moderate between breach of psychological contract and organizational disidentification. Results of current research show the same results as other researcher was explained in their studies, Sauley and Bedeian (2000) Thomas J. Zagenczyk et al. (2012). When employee works in the organization psychological contract will help employees to frame work their attitude and behaviors according to their expectation. When relationship between employer employee has been destabilized than employee equity preferences input and output ratio has been changed and their preferences shift from organizational identification and organizational disidentification and vice versa. Previous studies have shown that when organization has not fulfilled its promises then breach occurs. This breach has mostly negative consequences for both employee and employer sides. Their consequences include organizational commitment, frustration of employees, employees loyalty towards organization, organizational identification and organizational disidentification. Breach occurs in private sector organization (nonprofit organizations) due to politics in organization, policies of organization, informal structure of organization, and their beliefs towards organization. Previous studies have been shown significant negative relationship exists between organization identification and positive significant association among breach of psychological contract and organizational disidentification Zagenczyk et al. (2011a) and Restubog et al. (2008). The hypothesis testing the linkage between psychological contract breach and identification & disidentification was also show significant statistics by the data. The significant statistics show that breach of psychological contract has negative associate to organizational identification and positive associate to organizational disidentification. In table 4.3 of chapter 4 shows the direct relationship of breach of psychological contract with other dependent variables. With organizational identification result show that having beta () = -.189 with significant level of P .001 negative and significant relationship with psychological contract breach whereas organizational disidentification show beta () having .366 with significant level of P .001 with positive significant relationship with psychological contract breach which show that when breach occurs organizational identification has strongly negative approach and strongly positive relate to organizational disidentification. Further table 4.4 explains mediating role of perceived organizational support which statistically explain that perceived organizational support have fully mediate between organizational identification ( = -.021, R =.000 insignificant) and organizational disidentification ( = .155, R =.192 insignificant).The current study serves its purpose of investigating that organizational identification and organizational disidentification are predicted by psychological contract breach with moderator as equity sensitivity and mediating role of perceived organizational support. Aside from the support for these questions, the current study has found significant result of first five hypotheses and rejected one hypothesis.In literature found that broken of psychological contract has received great attention and focus of the researcher for few decades. In this research we study the broken psychological contract implications and their effect on employees attitudes and behaviors. The current research begins to analyze role of psychological contract breach with mediators or moderator role POS and ES in the relationship and employee affiliations towards organizational identification and organizational disidentification. In nonprofit organizations where employees found challenging environment and deliver their works in short span of time employee also expect from their employer to fulfill their promises. To meet these challenges organizations have altered psychological contract with their employees. Psychological contract provide different consequences in the relationship to fulfilled employees belief. Scholars suggests that when organization provide employees beliefs and assumptions employee exhibit positive attitudes and behaviors such as commitment, hard work, and feeling satisfied with organization with further belongs to organizational identification, however sometime organizations have failed to fulfill employee promises which result in the breach of psychological contract which are belongs to organizational disidentification. When an employee perceives a misfit in the reciprocal promise in the organization, their attitude and behaviors changed which further move towards organizational disidentification. Employees who feel psychological contract broken displeasure with their management and neglect there in job role performance and are less likely to be loyal to the organization. Literature show negative results which are minimize the extra role behaviors, lower job satisfaction, negative feeling, lower level of loyalty and trust. Some research suggests a empirical study between breach of psychological contract and irritation, frustration, depression and decreases in loyalty (Ugwu, & Ogwuche, 2013).Many researcher discuss when organizations who not fulfill employees beliefs which are motivate employees to seize negative organization related behaviors & attitudes and minimize contributions towards organization (Zhao et al. 2007) actually harmful for organization and give opportunity for revenge (Bordia et al. 2008) and also withhold from customers (Bordia et al. 2010) this type of act support the negative reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) which began organizational disidentification. Many other research support that there will be negative association between breach of psychological contract and organization identification and positive between breach of psychological contract and organization disidentification Restubog et al. (2008) & Zagenczyk et al. (2011a). Study of Zagenczyk et al. (2011a) and Restubog et al. (2008) also support the results of current study.
CHAPTER 6CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
6.1 IntroductionPurpose of current research was to analysis the relationship between variables which are used in this study. Current research explore whither there was a negative and significant relationship exists between organizational identification and psychological contract breach and significant and positive relationship between breach an organizational disidentification. Current study also statistically found mediating and moderating role of ES and POS between PCB and other dependent variables. Within this chapter we will discuss the literature and empirical results and draw their limitations, implications and their recommendations which are helpful for private sector organization (nonprofit organizations) and probable for future research. 6.2 ConclusionIn this section we will draw the conclusion which is related to this study. We will draw conclusion on the bases of empirical and theoretical study, available information in the literature and recommendation made by the researcher.Literature review was prepared on the bases of breach of psychological contract, organizational disidentification/identification, perceived organizational support and equity sensitivity which empowered by researcher to construct model, assumptions and develop their hypothesis which evaluate and analyze the finding of earlier studies and compare the results of current study with previous studies. Literature focused on the concept of psychological contract breach. In literature we found two different scales to measure psychological contract breach. In current study used scale of Robinson and Morrisons (2000) which shows better reliability. Further equity sensitivity is also an important variable in this study; we found two different types of scales in the literature. equity sensitivity was measured using Sauley and Bedeian (2000) because other scale was criticize by many research due to dichotomous response patterns which are difficult to measure and data gather. Kreiner and Ashforth 2004 scale was used to measure the organizational identification and disidentification. Literature support that there will be negative association between breach of psychological contract and organization identification and positively relate with breach of psychological contract and organization disidentification Zagenczyk et al. (2011a) and Restubog et al. (2008). Both concepts are similar and describe the function of organization membership that performs in employees self concepts. Organization identification is a form where employees emerge their attributes and redefine self concepts (Mael and Ashforth, 1989). Identification is likely when employees perceived that organization or group consider them as a distinct entity or in a positive manner (Dutton et al. 1994). Our hypothesis was also developed on the basis of these literature and further current study shown the same results as previous authors discuss in their research.This study also addressed the difference between organizational identification and organizational disidentification. It also discussed organizational identification and organizational disidentification in general and examined the role of perceived organization support and equity sensitivity which influences between the relationships. 6.3 LimitationsEvery study has some limitations which dependent on different factors. In current study there are also some limitations which are explain belowCross sectional data is used in this study which is the main limitation of current study. Longitudinal studies require data collection in different time slots did not allow a longitudinal analysis of variables under this study. The main limitation of current study was the collection of data from different nonprofit organizations based on Islamabad, Rawalpindi which are not cover the whole population of Pakistan. Another limitation is that data was collected and investigations in a single nature of job which are not cover whole population sample technique are used to collect the required data. This limits concluding results for a wider contextual level of culture and hierarchical level. Further research should perhaps be the investigations of multiple hierarchical and cultural levels to increase the generalizability of research findings. Important limitations of this study was that there is too little information available in the literature as it is an emerging idea and there is no much literature and relevant studies are available in this context. Being a human and as we know human nature the favourism phenomenon may have also affected the results because each and employer have a list of some good and bad affiliation towards their organization. This psychological term may have affected the result as well.6.4 Recommendations & Direction for Future ResearchCurrent study has investigated the link between breach of psychological contact and organizational identification & organizational dis-identification having moderating and mediating role of equity sensitivity and perceived organizational support. Results show significant relationship between variables. Similarly POS mediate the relationship between breach of psychological contract and organizational identification & disidentification, equity sensitivity will moderating between breach of psychological contract and organizational identification whereas organizational disidentification is not moderated through equity sensitivity in this study. Equity sensitivity variable is numerous opportunities for further research. First all variable or construct can be further investigate in terms of their relationship with other variables such as frustration, organizational commitment and job performance. Equity sensitivity either uniquely or interactively predicts other important organizational outcomes such as employee performance, maybe mediated by justice perceptions (cf. Colquitt et al., 2001). Second equity sensitivity involves employee reaction to unfair situation this consequences may relate to employee emotion state. So in future research can be study the link between emotional intelligence and equity sensitivity or other related constructs. Equity sensitivity has different consequences at work floor due to differences of opinions at work (Detert & Edmondson, 2011). Employees can be express their preferences depends on cultural situation, explore further theoretical and practical implications. Organizational identification and disidentification are relatively new variable in the literature and it needs to be further exploring in other fields as private and public sector organizations. This construct was investigating through breach of psychological contract and in future will be examined with other variables as well. In future research will be containing broader and spacious samples which are larger exploratory of the population, investigate issues such as gender and performance rating, ethnicity. Different personnel sectors (such as; executives, senior managers and leaders) which give their hundred percent honest measurement and better results. The results of this study could serve as a useful source of information in further research even though these results may be in private sector organizations specific. It is recommended that similar studies should be conducted in economic and other sector in order to extend the relevance of the results on the relationship between the psychological contract breach and organizational identification and organizational disidentification. Comprehensively, in the future larger sample size should be recommended for study of diversified population the impact of other variables on the research findings use different scales to analysis the results and should be work on other sectors like governments, public and private business sectors to explore the further dimensions in the literatures.
Adams, G. L., Treadway, D. C., & Stepina, L. P. (2008). The role of dispositions in politics perception formation: The predictive capacity of negative and positive affectivity, equity sensitivity, and self-efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20, 545565. Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 76, 422436. Akan, O. H., Allen, R. S., & White, C. S. (2009). Equity sensitivity and organizational citizenship behavior in a team environment. Small Group Research, 40, 94112. .Albert, Stuart, and David A. Whetten. "Organizational identity." Research in organizational behavior (1985).Allen, D., Shore, L., & Griffeth, R. 1999. A model of perceived organizational support. University of Memphis and Georgia State University.Allen, M.W., Armstrong, D.J., Reid, M.F. and Riemenschneider, C.K. (2008), Factors impacting the perceived organizational support of IT employees, Information & Management, Vol. 45, pp. 556-563.Allen, R. S., Biderman, M. D., & White, C. S. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation to equity sensitivity and response to under-reward situations. The Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 5(2), 114-136. Allen, R. S., Takeda, M., & White, C. S. (2005). Cross-cultural equity sensitivity: a test of differences between the United States and Japan. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(8), 641-662.Aquino, K., & Griffeth, R. W. 1999. An exploration of the antecedents and consequences of perceived organizational support: a longitudinal study. University of Delaware and Georgia State University.Aselage, J. and Eisenberger, R. (2003), Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 491-509.Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 2039.Aube, C., Rousseau, V. and Morin, M.E. (2007), Perceived organizational support and organizational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work autonomy, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 479-495.Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail vs. snail-mail. Marketing Research, 8, 3036. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Elsbach, K. D. (2002). Us versus them: The roles of organizational identification and disidentification in social marketing initiatives. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21, 2636.Bing, M. N., & Burroughs, S. M. (2001). The predictive and interactive effects of equity sensitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 271290.Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Fuller, J. (2003). Are Chameleons good citizens? A longitudinal study of the relationship between self-monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 131144. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life: New York: Wiley.Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R. L. (2010). Breach begets breach: Trickle-down effects of psychological contract breach on customer service. Journal of Management, 36, 15781607.Bordia, Prashant, Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, and Robert L. Tang.(2008). "When employees strike back: investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1104.Boyd, D. E. and S. Bhat (1998), The Role of Dual Entitlement and Equity Theories in Consumers Formation of Fair Price Judgements: An Investigation Within a Business-to-Business Service Setting, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 17 (1), 1-14.Carrell, M.R., and Dittrich, J.E. (1978), Equity theory: The recent literature, methodology, considerations, and new directions, Academy of Management Review, 3, 202-210.Clow, K.E., Kurtz, D.L., and Ozment, J. (1998). A longitudinal study of the stability of consumer expectations of services, Journal of Business Research, 42: 63-73.Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Social interaction patterns shaping employee psychological contracts. In K. M. Weaver (Ed.), Academy of management proceedings: Best papers (pp. N1N6). Academy of Management.Davison, H. K., & Bing, M. N. (2008). The multidimensionality of the equity sensitivity construct: Integrating separate benevolence and entitlement dimensions for enhanced construct measurement. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20, 131150. Dommeyer, C., & Moriarty, E. (2000). Comparing two forms of an e-mail survey: Embedded vs. attached. International Journal of Market Research, 42(1), 3950.Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239263.Eisenberger R, Armeli S, Rexwinkel B, Lynch PD, Rhoades L (2001) Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol 86:4251Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, Sowa D (1986) Perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol 71:500507Eisenberger R, Stinglhamber F (2011) Perceived organizational support: fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. American Psychological Association Books, WashingtonEisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lync, P. D., & Rhoades, L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 42-51.Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 51-59.Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507.Elsbach, K., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what youre not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12, 393413.Foote, D. A., & Harmon, S. (2006). Measuring equity sensitivity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 90108. Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., & Relyea, C. (2003). A social identity perspective on the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 789791.Gibney R, Zagenczyk TJ, Fuller JB, Hester K, Caner TC (2011) Exploring organizational obstruction and the expanded model of organizational identification. J Appl Soc Psychol 41:10831109Gibney, Ray, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, and Marick F. Masters. (2009). "The negative aspects of social exchange: An introduction to perceived organizational obstruction." Group & Organization Management 34.6: 665-697.Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161178.Guzzo, R., A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. 1994. Expatriate managers and the psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 617-626.Hofstede, G. (2001) Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd edition. Sage Publications. Iyengar, S. S., &Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Huppertz, J.W., Arenson, S.J., and Evans, R.H. (1978), An application of equity theory to buyer-seller exchange situations, Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 250-260.Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1987), A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct, Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234.Huseman, Richard C., John D. Hatfield, and Edward W. Miles. (1985). "Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings." Perceptual and Motor Skills 61.3f, 1055-1064.Jill Kickul & Scott W. Lester, (2001) Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior, The Academy of Management Review, 12, 300-311Kickul, J. (In press). When organizations break their promises: Employee reactions to unfair processes and treatment. Journal of Business Ethics.Kickul, J., & Lester, S. W. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator of the relationship between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 191217.King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133142.King, W. C., JR., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 301-317. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 10751079.Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 127.Lapidus, R.S., and Pinkerton, L. (1995), Customer complaint situations: An equity theory perspective, Psychology and Marketing, 12, 105-122.Levinson H, Price C, Munden K, Mandl H, Solley C. (1962). Men, management, and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. Marketing, 2636.Martins, M., and Monroe, K. B. (1994), Perceived price fairness: A new look at an old construct, in C.T. Allen and D.R. John (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 21, pp. 75-78). Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 429439.Miles, E. W., Hatfiled, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585596. Millward, L. J. & Hopkins, L. J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 1530-1556.Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. (1999). Contractors and their psychological contracts. British Journal of Management, 10, 253-274.Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe, and Sandra L. Robinson. (1997). "When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops." Academy of management Review, 226-256.Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S., & Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity sensitivity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 539560.ONeill, B. S., & Mone, M. A. (1998). Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 805816. Oliver, R.L., and Swan, J.E. (1989a), Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchant and product satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 372-383.Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.Patrick, S. L., & Jackson, J. J. (1991). Further examination of the equity sensitivity construct. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 1091-1106. Patrick, S. L., & Jackson, J. J. (1991). Further examination of the equity sensitivity construct. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 10911106.Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W., and Spreng, R.A. (1997), Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25: 4-17.Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. 1999. Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 159-174.Restubog SLD, Hornsey M, Bordia P, Esposo S (2008) Effects of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behavior: insights from the group value model. J Manag Stud 45:13771400Restubog, Simon Lloyd D., Prashant Bordia, and Robert L. Tang. (2007). "Behavioural Outcomes of Psychological Contract Breach in a NonWestern Culture: The Moderating Role of Equity Sensitivity*."British Journal of Management, 376-386.Rhoades L, Eisenberger R (2002) Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J Appl Psychol 87:698714Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.Riggle RJ, Edmondson DR, Hansen JD (2009) A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. J Bus Res 62:10271030Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358384.Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Developing a standardized measure of the psychological contract. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Robinson, Sandra L., and Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison. (2000). "The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study." Journal of organizational Behavior , 525-546.Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promises, and mutuality: The psychology of the psychological contract. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 24, 511541.Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rousseau, D.M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1998). Assessing psychological contract: Issues, alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679695.Rousseau, Denise M. (1989). "Psychological and implied contracts in organizations." Employee responsibilities and rights journal, 121-139.Sauley, K .S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26, 885-910.Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Settoon, R., N. Bennett, & R. Liden. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219-227.Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. 1991. A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 637-643.Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. 1994. Perceived organizational support and organizational justice: Westport, CT: Quorum.Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 774-780.Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Chen, S., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Social exchange in work settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Management and Organization Review, 5, 32893302.Stamper, C.L. and Johlke, M.C. (2003), The impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 569-588.Thomas J. Zagenczyk & Ray Gibney & W. Timothy Few & Kristin L. Scott (2011) Psychological Contracts and Organizational Identification: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support: J Labor Res (2011) 32:254281Tornow, W.W. (1971), The development and application of an input-outcome moderator test on the perception and reduction of inequity, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 614-638.Tse, A.C.B. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed, and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: e-mail vs. mail. Journal of the Market Re-search Society, 40(4), 353361.Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82111.Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leadermember exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590598.Wheeler, K. G. (2007). Empirical comparison of equity preference questionnaire and equity sensitivity instrument in relation to work outcome preferences. Psychological Reports, 100, 955-72Yamaguchi, I. (2003). The relationship among individual differences, needs and equity sensitivity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4), 324-344.Zagenczyk, T. J., Gibney, R., Few, W. T., & Scott, K. L. (2011a). Psychological contracts and organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support. Journal of Labor Research, 32, 254281.Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2011b). Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management. Zagenczyk, T., Gibney, R., Kiewitz, C., & Restubog, S. (2009). Mentors, supervisors and role models: Do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach? Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 237259.Zagenczyk, Thomas J., et al. (2011). "Psychological contracts and organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support." Journal of Labor Research, 254-281.Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647680.
Dear Respondent,I am a student of MS in management sciences program at Muhammad Ali Jinnah University conducting a research on the topic: Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and Disidentification: Mediating role of Perceived Organizational Support and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity. For this I need your valuable input. It will not take more than 10 minutes to fill this questionnaire. The data will be used for academic purposes only and will not be shared with any one for any other purposes. In order to ensure anonymity, you are not required to mention your name anywhere on the questionnaire.Thank you for your cooperation,
M. Irfan RazaMS Scholar, Muhammad Ali Jinnah University Islamabad, Pakistan.
1. GenderMale 1 Female 2
1. QualificationLess Bachelor 1 Bachelor 2 Master 3 Above MS 4
1. Organization TenureBelow 02 year 1 03-05 years 2 Above 05 years 3
1. ExperienceBelow 05 1 05-10 years 2 Above 10 years 3
1. Name of Organization : -----------------------------------------------------------------
Serial #ITEMSStrongly DisagreeDisagreeDisagree SomewhatUndecidedAgree SomewhatAgreeStrongly Agree
01When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult1234567
02I am very interested in what others think about my organization1234567
03When I talk about this organization, I usually say we rather than they1234567
04This organizations successes are my successes1234567
05When someone praises this organization it feels like a personal compliment1234567
06If a story in the media criticized this organization, I would feel embarrassed1234567
07I am embarrassed to be part of this organization1234567
08This organization does shameful things1234567
09I have tried to keep the organization I work for a secret from people I meet1234567
10I find this organization to be disgraceful1234567
11I want people to know that I disagree with how this organization behaves1234567
12I have been ashamed of what goes on in this organization1234567
Serial #ITEMSStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
Psychological Contract Breach
13Almost all the promises made to me by my employer during recruitment have been kept so far.12345
14I feel my employer has come through in fulfilling its promises made me when I was hired12345
15So far my employer has done excellent job of fulfilling its promises to the contributions.12345
16I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions.12345
17My employer has broken many of its promises with me even though upheld my side of the deal.12345
Perceived Organizational Support
18The organization values my contribution to its well-being.12345
19The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me.(R)12345
20The organization would ignore any complaint from me.(R)12345
21The organization really cares about my well-being.12345
22Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice.(R)12345
23The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work.12345
24The organization shows very little concern for me.(R)12345
25The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.12345
Serial #ITEMSStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
26I prefer to do as little work as possible at work while getting as much as I can from my employer. (R)12345
27If I could get away with it, I would try to work just a little bit slower than the boss expects. (R)12345
28When I am at my job, I think of ways to get out of work. (R)12345
29It is really satisfying to me when I can get something for nothing at work. (R)12345
30It is the smart employee who gets as much as he or she can while giving as little as possible in return. (R)12345
31If I had to work hard all day at my job, I would probably quit. (R)12345
32I am most satisfied at work when I have to do as little as possible. (R)12345
33Employees who are more concerned about what they can get from their employer rather than what they can give to their employer are the wisest ones. (R)12345
34At work, I feel uneasy when there is little work for me to do.12345
35I would become very dissatisfied with my job if I had little or no work to do.12345
36All other things being equal, it is better to have a job with a lot of duties and responsibilities than one with few duties and responsibilities.12345
37A job that requires me to be busy during the day is better than a job which allows me a lot of loafing.12345
38At work, my greatest concern is whether or not I am doing the best job I can do.12345
Serial #ITEMSStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
39Even if I receive low wages and poor benefits from my employer, I would still try to do my best at my job.12345
40I feel obligated to do more than I am paid to do at work.12345
41When I have completed my task for the day, I help out other employees who have yet to complete their tasks.12345