原文 ：
Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Insights from the Group Value Model
Restubog, Simon Lloyd D. Horny, Matthew J. Bordia, Prashant. Esposo, Sarah R.
Psychological contract breach takes place when employees perceive that their organization has failed to deliver satisfactorily on its promis (Rousau, 1995). The belief that a promi or future obligation exists is bad exclusively on the employee’s own perception. Such a belief may be intentionally or unintentionally conveyed via 公司流程管理recruitment interviews, performance appraisals, written personnel policies, or organizational practices (Deery et al., 2006). Breach, which is a cognitive asssment involving the discrepancy between what has been promid and what has been delivered, is empirically and theoretically distinct from contract violation which refers to an emotional respon arising from perceived contractual transgression (Bordia et al., in press; Robinson and Morrison, 2000).
Unsurprisingly, psychological contract breach has negative conquences for organizations and employees (Bordia et al., in press; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000; Kickuland Lester, 2001; Restubog et al., 2007; Robinson and Rousau, 1994; Turnley and Feldman, 2000; Zagenczyk et al., in press; Zhao et al., 2007). One well-documented conquence of psychological contract breach is that employees are less willing to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (Restubog and Bordia, 2006; Restubog et al., 2006, 2007; Robinson, 1996; Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Turnley and Feldman, 2000; Turnley et al., 2003). Traditionally, the negative ramifications of psychological contract breach have been explained using the framework of social exchange theory (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2004), part of Blau’s (1964) larger exchange theory. According to this perspective, employees are largely driven by instrumental considerations associated with ‘give and take’ between the individual and the group. Upholding contracts will increa OCBs for two reasons: (1) becau the employee feels compelled to reciprocate the positive behavior of the organization; and (2) becau by engaging in positive behavior the employee is maximizing his or her chance of being treated well by the organization in the future.
According to social exchange theory, a precursor for the development of positive周记我的老师 employment relationships is that parties abide by certain rules of exchange (Blau, 1964).The content of the exchange process can be purely economic (e.g. money, goods and rvices) or more social in nature (e.g. information, advice and positive regard). If employees feel as though their outcomes are less than they were promid (or that they are giving more than they are getting from the organization), they will restore equity by engaging in negative, withdrawn and/or counterproductive behaviors.
We view the group value model not as a competing theory to ‘replace’ social exchange 飘动反义词theory, but as a complementary theory that adds breadth to our understanding of psychological contract breach. Although social exchange theory may be sufficient to explain respons to contract breach in many contexts, we argue that the focus on instrumentality and lf-interest implicit within exchange theory has distracted attention from the symbolic and relational conquences of psychological contract breach. The findings of the prent study suggest an additional means of theorizing the damaging effects of psychological contract breach, with a specific focus on the conquences of co
ntract breach for understanding the quality and strength of the relationship between the individual and the organization (identification). In so doing, we (1) provide an empirical and theoretical bridge between the psychological contract literature and the parallel literature on organizational identification, and (2) provide a theoretical account for why relational and transactional contract breaches might have different effects. In addition, we have integrated the relational constructs of organizational trust and organizational identification within a broader framework. This work helps open up new lines of inquiry regarding the conquences of contract beach, and at the same time has the potential to enrich employers’ understandings of how to understand, anticipate and defu the deleterious outcomes associated with perceptions of contract breach.
From a theoretical perspective, it makes n to argue that the group value model would be particularly predictive when symbolic concerns about the relationship between 尚师徒the organization and the individual are heightened. For example, we predicted (and found) that the variables associated with the group value model were more tightly linked to OCBs when the contract breach was relational rather than being transactional in natur
e. But there are other circumstances when symbolic concerns might be more 茅箭区pronounced: for example, when employees have a collectivist orientation; when levels of identification are high; when employees intend to stay with the organization in the long term; and/or when employees are new to the organization and the building blocks of 马脸trust and mutual respect have yet to be established. The corollary of this is that the social exchange model – with its focus on instrumentality and lf-interest concerns – might be more predictive when employees have an individualist orientation; when levels of identification are moderate to low; when employees are not intending to stay with the organization in the long term; and/or when employees have established a cure place within the organization over time. To date, however, the predictions remain speculation. Future rearch is needed to sharpen our understanding (both theoretically and empirically) of the conditions under which the social exchange and the group value models might be more or less uful.
发字
There are two assumed mechanisms for why psychological contract breach might influence OCBs. One explanation is that there exists a universal norm of reciprocity, such
that helpful behaviour is repaid in kind (Gouldner, 1960). If the organization engages in unsupportive or unhelpful ways (e.g. by breaching a psychological contract), then employees are relead from their felt obligation to engage in positive behavior such as OCBs. A cond explanation – favored by Blau (1964) – is that people are motivated to reciprocate helpful behavior becau to do so furthers their lf-interest. If we repay positive behavior from the organization with positive employee behavior (e.g. OCBs), we maximize our chances of receiving further positive behavior in the future. If we fail to repay a benefit, we risk violating the cycle of positivity, meaning that we lower our chances of receiving further positive behavior in the future. Both 无论都怎么造句explanations suggest a somewhat immediate and proximal relationship between contract breach and OCBs, and for this reason rearchers have often been content to identify a direct relationship between the two, without examining mediating mechanisms.
