Mentors, supervisors and role models: do they ... - Wiley Online Library

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00097.x

Mentors, supervisors and role models: do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach? Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Clemson University Ray Gibney, Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg Christian Kiewitz, University of Dayton Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, The University of New South Wales Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 19, no 3, 2009, pages 237–259

Psychological contract breach has become a significant problem for many organisations in today’s business environment because it fosters a belief within employees that the organisation does not support them. Accordingly, we examine whether organisations can diminish the negative impact of psychological contract breach on perceived organisational support (POS) by providing employees with mentors, supportive supervisors and role models. In Study 1, we found that mentor relationships moderated the relationship between psychological contract breach and POS six months later. In Study 2, we showed that mentor relationships and supervisor support reduced the negative impact of contract breach on POS. Contrary to expectations, employees who maintained relationships with role models reported lower levels of POS in response to psychological contract breach than those employees who reported that they did not have role models in their organisations. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Contact: Thomas J. Zagenczyk, 101 Sirrine Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1305, USA. Email: [email protected] hrmj_097

237..259

INTRODUCTION

A

t first glance, the employer–employee relationship (EER) seems to be a simple one in which the employer offers compensation for performance of job duties. Yet employees often perceive that the employer makes promises related to training, promotions or other factors not explicitly recognised in formal contracts, particularly during recruiting and socialisation periods. These perceived promises form the basis of psychological contracts, defined as relatively stable mental models that encapsulate the perceived promises employees believe the organisation has made to them in exchange for their efforts on behalf of the organisation (Rousseau, 1995). Importantly, when organisations fulfil these psychological contracts, employees tend to have higher levels of organisational commitment and performance (Zhao et al., 2007). In contrast, failure to fulfil psychological contracts – termed psychological contract breach (PCB; Morrison and Robinson, 1997) – usually results in reduced performance, negative attitudes and withdrawal behaviours (Kiewitz, 2002; Zhao et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2008; Restubog et al., 2008). The negative ramifications of PCB have rendered the topic important for scholars and practitioners alike, especially as HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

237

Mentors and contract breach

empirical studies show that the majority of UK and US employees report experiences of breach (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000), with some estimates being as high as 89% (Rousseau, 1995). The high percentage of perceived PCBs and the associated problems pose a particular concern for organisations as downsizing, outsourcing and rapid change make it increasingly difficult for them to fulfil the obligations of employees (e.g. Rousseau, 1995). Because these trends are likely to continue (Rousseau, 1995), avoiding PCB is a difficult and perhaps an impossible task for today’s organisations. Yet organisations need to address this important issue, which naturally raises the question of how to do so. We advocate taking a proactive approach to the issue, as this promises a greater chance to diminish negative consequences in comparison to a passive or reactive approach. To this effect, we suggest that organisations actively utilise some of the human resource (HR) initiatives that are employed to facilitate newcomer socialisation and the creation of supportive work environments. More precisely, we posit that employees’ relationships with other key individuals in the organisation – including mentors, supervisors and role models – may substantially weaken the negative effects of PCB. Our rationale is that these third parties may shape employees’ perceptions of psychological breach by offering explanations for why breach occurred or by helping employees cope with it. In order to empirically test this notion, we explore whether relationships with mentors, supervisors and role models moderate the negative relationship between employees’ perceptions of PCB and perceived organisational support (POS; i.e. Eisenberger et al., 1986). We explore POS because research indicates that it influences a host of work-related behaviours, including job performance and turnover (review in Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). In the following sections, we elaborate on these notions and delineate a theoretical framework that accounts for the potential of mentors, supervisors and role models to moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. We then present results from two empirical studies and close with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES In recent years, psychological contract theory (Rousseau, 1995) and organisational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) have emerged as the dominant approaches in research on the EER (Guest and Conway, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005). These theoretical approaches both aim to contribute to our understanding of the EER, yet view this relationship from different perspectives. Psychological contracts theory has largely focused on explaining employee attitudes and behaviours as a function of employees’ perceptions regarding the extent to which the organisation has breached the promises that they believe it has made to them. Conversely, organisational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) suggests that employees evaluate the favourability of the treatment that they receive from the organisation and form global perceptions regarding the extent to which the organisation values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). When employees believe they are treated favourably by the organisation, they respond by holding attitudes and behaving in a manner that helps the organisation (Rhoades 238

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Ray Gibney, Christian Kiewitz and Simon Lloyd D. Restubog

and Eisenberger, 2002). Thus, psychological contract theory draws on a specific aspect of the EER (contract fulfilment/breach), while organisational support theory is concerned with employees’ overall assessment of the quality of the treatment they receive from the organisation, regardless of whether or not the organisation has delivered on its promises. While psychological contract and organisational support theories differ in how they approach the EER, both theories conceptualise the EER as a social exchange relationship in which employers offer rewards and favourable job conditions in exchange for loyalty and work effort from employees (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). Furthermore, both conceive of the EER as being governed by the norm of reciprocity, which obligates individuals to repay others who help them (Gouldner, 1960). Accordingly, an employee who is treated well will repay the organisation by helping it to reach its goals, while negative treatment fosters negative attitudes, emotions and behaviours. Noteworthy in this context is that employees anthropomorphise the organisation in order to discern its intentions, such that actions of individuals who represent the organisation are believed to represent the intent of the organisation itself (Levinson, 1965). This phenomenon is relevant for organisational support theory because benevolent actions by organisational agents are posited to signal organisational support to employees (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It also has relevance for psychological contract theory because employees are posited to respond favourably when organisational agents fulfil promised obligations (Rousseau, 1995). While employees tend to aggregate treatment from organisational agents when assessing psychological contract fulfilment and when formulating perceptions of support, they do differentiate the actions of the organisation itself from the actions of supervisors. For instance, empirical research clearly shows that individuals distinguish between PCB stemming from the organisation and supervisors (e.g. Hutchison, 1997; Restubog and Bordia, 2006; Chen et al., 2008) as well as organisational and supervisor support (Eisenberger et al., 2002) and support originating from supervisors, management and the organisation (Hutchison, 1997). Thus, employees may experience high levels of PCB and have low levels of organisational support, yet still perceive their supervisors to be supportive. Building on this literature, we advance the argument that PCB results in negative outcomes because it serves as a signal to employees that the organisation does not care about them or value the contributions that they make. In other words, we argue that breach diminishes employees’ POS. To support our argument, it is beneficial to elaborate on the interplay between these two constructs. According to Aselage and Eisenberger (2003), employees’ initial levels of POS are driven by the perceived favourableness of the promises that the organisation has made to them during the recruitment and socialisation process. That is, employees who are offered attractive employment packages will likely have higher initial levels of POS. However, the degree to which the organisation fulfils those promises leads to corresponding increases or decreases in POS (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). For example, CoyleShapiro and Kessler (2000) found support for their argument that employees’ beliefs that the organisation had fulfilled their psychological contracts would lead to higher levels of POS (also see Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005; Kiewitz et al., in press). Based on these notions and findings, we contend that employees’ beliefs about the ‘true’ intentions of the organisation, as exemplified by the attitudes and behaviours HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

239


of organisational agents, exert a crucial influence on the PCB–POS relationship, capable of either intensifying or alleviating this association. While discussion of the relationship between PCB and POS helps us to understand why breach is damaging, the main objective of this research is to explore the ways that organisations can buffer the effects of broken promises on negative outcomes. In order to better understand the roles of supervisors, mentors and role models, we need to examine the interaction of individuals within a broader social network of actors (Emerson, 1976). Rousseau (2001) argues that when information is missing or unavailable, employees’ co-workers provide information that facilitates understanding of signals from the organisation. Accordingly, we argue that when employees perceive a PCB, they will turn to others in the organisation to better understand what has occurred, for an explanation or for support. Ho and Levesque (2005) and Dabos and Rousseau (2004) suggest that social influence exerted by co-workers who are sources of friendship and advice influence employees’ beliefs about what the organisation is obligated to provide to them and beliefs about the extent to which the organisation fulfils its obligations. In this article, we argue not for social influence but rather for social support (Cohen and Willis, 1985): that supervisors, mentors and role models will help employees to deal with PCB. These individuals will shape employees’ perceptions of PCB by offering explanations for why breach occurred or providing support to help them cope with breach. Mentors may help employees deal with PCB by providing career-related support and psychosocial support (Kram, 1985). Traditionally, mentoring relationships have been defined as relationships in which a senior person working in the protégé’s organisation helps the protégé develop personally and professionally. Studies have shown that employees who have mentors have higher salaries, are more likely to be promoted, tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and are less likely to quit than those who do not have mentors (see reviews by Allen et al., 2004; Dougherty and Dreher, 2007). Mentors usually help protégés by providing them with career-related and psychosocial support (Kram, 1985). Career-related support includes the provision of sponsorship, exposure, visibility, coaching, protection and challenging assignments. Senior employees use their experience and influence within the organisation to help junior employees acclimatise to the organisation, attract the attention of others and earn promotions. Psychosocial support includes friendship, acceptance, confirmation and counselling. Such support intends to ‘enhance an individual’s sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role’ (Kram, 1985: 32). We expect that both career-related and psychosocial support provided by mentors will mitigate the negative effects of PCB. Specifically, mentors may be able to minimise the harmful effects of PCBs by serving as advocates for employees. Influential mentors may be able to persuade the organisation to fulfil its obligations to their protégés. Mentors may also be able to teach employees how to respond to PCB in an organisationally appropriate way, particularly when breach angers but does not seriously affect employees. Mentors may also assuage employee responses to breach through friendship and counselling. Specifically, when mentors serve as friends or counsellors, they may allow employees to ‘let off steam’ and then offer explanations to employees for why the organisation was unable to fulfil its promises. Attribution theory suggests that individuals tend to initially make dispositional attributions for the actions of others, but are more likely to draw situational 240



attributions if they take the time to fully consider the circumstances (e.g. Fiske and Taylor, 1991). Discussions with mentors may help employees to more objectively understand the causes of PCB and make attributions that are less damaging when appropriate. Hypothesis 1: Mentor relationships will moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. Specifically, the negative effects of breach on POS will be stronger for respondents who report that they do not have a mentoring relationship compared to those who report having a mentoring relationship.

Supervisors may ‘stand up for employees’ who have been wronged, and make them feel supported, despite the fact that promises from the organisation itself may not have been kept. One of the key assumptions of POS is that employees aggregate the treatment that they receive from organisational agents who control valued outcomes into a general perception of support (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The greater the extent to which an employee believes that the actions of an organisational agent are representative of the actions of the organisation itself, the stronger the influence an organisational agent will have on that employee’s POS (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Supervisors are considered to be particularly important because they are responsible for directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance, as well as conveying these evaluations to higher level managers (Eisenberger et al., 2002). In a longitudinal study of the supervisor support–POS relationship among retail sales employees, Eisenberger et al. (2002) determined that POS changed in response to changes in perceived supervisor support (PSS). These results are evidence that supervisor support is an antecedent to POS. While supervisor support is an important driver of POS, employees do distinguish between relationships with supervisors and relationships with the organisation itself. Kottke and Sharafinski’s (1988) factor analytic results demonstrated that employees distinguish between POS and PSS. Thus, employees may experience PCB from the organisation and not respond negatively to the same extent if they believe that they are supported by supervisors. Consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis (Cohen and Willis, 1985), which contends that social support reduces the adverse effects of stress, we argue that a supportive relationship with a supervisor may ameliorate the negative effects of PCB experienced by an employee. Supervisors may offer explanations that may change employee attributions for breach or even attempt to rectify PCB that negatively affects subordinates. As a result, employees may maintain positive perceptions of their relationship with their organisations, despite broken promises. Hypothesis 2: Supervisor support will moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. The negative effects of breach on POS will be stronger for those respondents with low levels of supervisor support compared to those with high levels of supervisor support.

Finally, admired peers, such as role models, may exhibit behaviours and attitudes that influence the way that employees respond to breach. Gibson defined role models as ‘person(s) an individual perceives to be similar to some extent, and because of that similarity, the individual desires to emulate (or specifically avoid) aspects of that person’s attributes or behaviours’ (Gibson 2003: 592). Individuals utilise informal HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

241


developmental relationships, such as role model relationships, to acquire information regarding what behaviours and attitudes will help them to succeed in the organisation (Gibson, 2003). We suggest that there are two mechanisms through which role models may influence employee responses to PCB. First, role models may ‘buffer’ the effects of breach in the same manner as mentors or supervisors by offering employees social support to deal with breach. In this case, employees would necessarily have to have interaction with their role models rather than just observing them. Gibson (2003) refers to role models with whom an individual interacts as ‘close’ role models. However, we should also note that individuals who serve as role models do not represent formal agents of the organisation in that capacity, and thus would not be required to provide this kind of support. We suspect that this would only occur when the role model had some other motivation to help the employee. Such motivation may stem from liking the employee or the satisfaction derived from helping another. The second mechanism through which role models would influence employee responses to breach is indirect and would occur through a different type of role model. This type of role model – termed a ‘distant’ role model (Gibson, 2003) – influences others through more indirect channels. According to Gibson (2003), employees learn from observation of distant role models through processes described in social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). Bandura’s (1986) theory emphasises the importance of observing and modelling the behaviours, attitudes and emotional reactions of others in learning the behaviours and attitudes of those individuals. In support of this view, Ibarra (1999) found that investment bank and management firm employees making the transition from junior to senior positions adapted to new professional roles by temporarily holding images of ‘provisional selves’ (p. 765), or ‘trying on’ the identities of individuals they identify as role models. In other words, through interaction and observation, employees acquired the tacit knowledge, attitudes, routines and impression management techniques that are useful in making role transitions (Ibarra, 1999). Consistent with social learning theory and research on role models, we argue that employees will observe the manner in which distant role models respond to PCB and respond in a similar manner themselves. Thus, if employees see that their distant role models react to broken promises in a calm fashion, they are likely to do the same themselves. On the other hand, if an employee’s role models are upset about breach, they may respond in a similar fashion themselves when they experience breach. Hypothesis 3: Role model relationships will moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. Specifically, the relationship between breach and POS will be stronger for respondents who report that they do not have role models in their organisation than respondents who have role models available in their organisation.

We conducted two studies to examine the predicted relationships. Study 1 draws on data from a longitudinal survey in which we examined the role that mentor relationships play in the relationship between PCB (at Time 1) and POS (at Time 2). In Study 2, we replicate the moderating effects of mentor relationships and also test the moderating roles of supervisor support and role model relationships. 242



STUDY 1 Sample and procedure We used an online survey to collect data from full-time employees for Study 1. Research comparing online and traditional paper-and-pencil surveys reveals that there are no significant biases that exist between the two methodologies (e.g. Mehta and Sivadas, 1995). In line with previous research (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Gettman and Gelfand, 2007; Gibney et al., in press), respondents were recruited through MarketTools.com, an organisation that maintains a large opt-in database of individuals willing to participate in online surveys. Through MarketTools.com, we sent the link to our survey (i.e. URL) via e-mail to 1,000 full-time, white-collar employees who volunteered to participate in the study. We chose to sample employees from a wide array of organisations and jobs because psychological contracts researchers suggest that researchers collect data from populations other than MBA students (Guest, 1998; Turnley and Feldman, 1999). Employees who volunteered to participate were given access to a secure website where they completed a survey. In exchange for their participation, participants received a small credit for merchandise purchased online. Responses to the survey were submitted to a secured database. The survey presented to employees at Time 1 assessed the independent variables in Study 1 – demographic variables, PCB, and questions related to mentors. We received completed surveys from 497 employees for a response rate of 49.7%. Podsakoff and Organ (1986) suggest collecting independent and dependent variables at different points in time to ameliorate the effects of common method variance. Consistent with this recommendation, we administered a second online survey six months after the first survey. We collected demographic variables and our dependent variable, POS, at Time 2 to minimise the possibility that common method variance would influence our results. The second survey was administered to the 497 participants who completed the initial survey at Time 1. A total of 220 respondents completed the Time 2 surveys for a response rate of 44%. Participants were 66% female and 91% Caucasian. Age ranged between 26 and 72 years with a mean of 46.8 years. Mean organisation tenure was 8.8 years. Respondents were employed in a wide variety of occupations, such as administrative assistant, clinical research associate, communications specialist, computer applications specialist, consultant, customer service representative, legal secretary, materials specialist, programmer, school psychologist, senior engineer, shift supervisor and teacher. With respect to education, 19% of employees had completed high school, 20% held associate’s degrees, 33% had completed undergraduate degrees and 28% held graduate degrees. To ensure that sampling bias did not influence our results, we compared participants who responded to both Time 1 and Time 2 surveys (n = 220) and individuals who responded only to the Time 1 survey (n = 497) with respect to demographic variables. Analysis of variance results showed no significant differences between the two groups. Measures Psychological contract breach. Employees completed Robinson and Morrison’s (1995) PCB measure at Time 1. Unlike global measures of PCB, which assess HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

243


employees’ overall perceptions of PCB, the measure created by Robinson and Morrison assesses specific psychological contract terms. Participants assessed the extent to which they believed the organisation provided relative to what they were promised for each of 19 items using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I am receiving much less than I expect) to 5 (I am receiving much more than I expect). All items were reverse-scored to serve as a measure of PCB. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.84. Mentor relationships. We determined whether employees maintained relationships with mentors using a single item developed for this study: ‘I have a mentor in my current organisation who supports my development (yes/no).’ Our question regarding mentoring is similar to questions used in previous research to determine whether or not employees had mentoring relationships (e.g. Allen and Poteet, 1999; Ragins et al., 2000). Overall, 110 of the 220 respondents (50%) reported that they had a mentor. Moreover, we conducted a construct validation by comparing employees with and without a mentor in a number of important work attitudes using an independent sample of 240 full-time employees. Univariate analysis (controlling for gender, age and tenure) showed that participants who reported having a mentor had significantly higher levels of POS (M = 4.99; p < 0.01) and organisational identification (M = 5.01, p < 0.01) and lower levels of organisational cynicism (M = 4.08, p < 0.05), turnover intentions (M = 2.90; p < 0.01) and organisational disidentification (M = 2.53; p < 0.01) relative to their comparison group (Morganisational support = 4.22, Morganisational cynicism = 4.26, Mturnover intentions = 3.52 and Morganisational identification = 4.18, Morganisational disidentification = 3.15). Perceived organisational support. POS was measured using a six-item version of the Survey of Perceived Organisational Support (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Employees answered all POS questions using a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item from the scale is, ‘My organisation values my contributions to its well-being’. The reliability of the scale was 0.91. Control variables. We controlled for gender (0 = male and 1 = female), age (years), tenure (years) and POS at Time 1. We controlled for tenure because employees with greater tenure tend to have higher levels of POS, as employees with low POS are more likely to quit (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) also note that studies control for gender to account for the possibility that it influences POS. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found a significant correlation between age and POS, so we included it as a control variable. As the design of this study was longitudinal, we also controlled for POS at Time 1 in order to ascertain a baseline measure of POS using the same scale that was previously described for Time 2 POS above. At Time 1, the reliability of the POS scale was 0.88. Analysis and results Before testing our predictions, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test the construct independence between PCB and POS. A two-factor solution was supported: c2 (41, n = 220) = 82.17, p < 0.01, c2/degrees of freedom (df ) = 2.00. All the items also loaded significantly onto their specified factors. The key fit indices were 244



TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations (SD) and bivariate correlations for Study 1 variables Variable

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

– 46.7 8.81 4.58 5.12 – 4.81

– 9.60 8.01 1.55 0.61 – 1.64

-0.18 -0.16 0.09 -0.01 0.12 0.11

0.29 -0.09 0.15 -0.15 -0.07

0.02 0.03 -0.07 0.01

-0.70 0.51 0.70

-0.47 -0.61

0.71

Gender Age Tenure POS (T1) PCB MR POS (T2)

Notes. n = 220. Bold correlations are significant at p < 0.05. Bold and italic correlations are significant at p < 0.01. Age and tenure were measured in years. POS, Perceived Organisational Support; PCB, Psychological Contract Breach; MR, Mentor Relationship; T1, Time 1; T2, Time 2.

as follows: goodness of fit (GFI) = 0.94, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.97, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.98 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07. Furthermore, this two-factor model fit the data significantly better than a one-factor model: c2 (42, n = 220) = 312.89, p < 0.01, c2/df = 7.45, GFI = 0.67, TLI = 0.82, CFI = 0.86 and RMSEA = 0.17, Dc2 (1) = 230.72, p < 0.01. This analysis provided support for viewing PCB and POS as separate constructs (Table 1). Results of moderated regression analysis used to test Hypothesis 1 are presented in Table 2. The independent variable was centred at its mean prior to the creation of the interaction terms (Aiken and West, 1991). Control variables were entered in step 1, followed by the independent and moderator variables in step 2, and the interaction term in step 3. Hypothesis 1 predicted that mentor relationships would moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. The interaction term (PCB ¥ mentor relationship) was significantly associated with POS (b = 0.15, p ⱕ 0.01), after accounting for control variables and main effects. Entry of the interaction term explained a significant amount of variance in predicting POS at Time 2 (DR2 = 0.02, F[1, 209] = 8.01, p < 0.01) after controlling for control and main variables. To fully test for the moderating effects, we examined the sign and the significance of the slope of the relationship between PCB and POS at dichotomous levels (1 representing that the employee had a relationship with a mentor and 0 indicating that the employee did not have a relationship with a mentor). This interaction was plotted in accordance with Aiken and West’s (1991) recommendations for illustrating significant interactions (see Figure 1). The slopes were significant for both mentor relationship and no mentor relationship. This suggests that the negative effects of PCB at Time 1 on POS at Time 2 were stronger for those employees without a mentor (t[209] = -9.52, p < 0.01), in comparison to those employees with a mentor, (t[209] = -6.49, p < 0.01). In other words, in comparison with those employees with a mentor, there was a sharp decrease in the levels of POS for those without a mentor as contract breach increased. Overall, Hypothesis 1 was supported in Study 1. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

245


TABLE 2 Study 1 hierarchical moderated regression predicting T2-perceived organisational support from T1 perceptions of psychological contract breach and mentor relationship b

Variable and step Step 1 Step 1: Controls Gender Age Tenure POS (T1) Step 2: Main effects T1 Psychological contract breach (PCB) Mentor relationship (MR) Final step: interaction terms (centred) PCB ¥ MR

Step 2

0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.69**

R2

DR2

0.48**

0.48**

0.66**

0.18**

0.68**

0.02*

Final

0.04 0.06 0.02 0.35**

0.03 0.05 0.01 0.33**

-15* 0.47**

-0.24** 0.49** 0.15*

Notes. n = 220. Standardised coefficients are reported. * p ⱕ 0.05. ** p ⱕ 0.01. Age and tenure were measured in years. POS, Perceived Organisational Support; T1, Time 1; T2, Time 2.

FIGURE 1 Psychological contract breach–mentor relationship interaction (Study 1)

Standardised Values of POS (Time 2)

2 1.5 1 Mentor

0.5

No Mentor 0 –3

–2

–1

0

1

2

–0.5 –1

Standardised Values of Psychological Contract Breach (Time 1) Discussion Results of Study 1 provide support for Hypothesis 1, which predicted that mentor relationships would moderate the relationship between PCB at Time 1 and POS at Time 2. Specifically, having a mentor reduced the negative effect of PCB at Time 1 on POS at Time 2 six months later. A particular strength of this study is the time lag 246



between collection of our independent and dependent variables, as well as the establishment of baseline POS at Time 1. The fact that mentor availability buffered the effect of PCB (Time 1) on POS (Time 2) over and above the effects of POS at Time 1 allow us to suggest that (1) PCB results in changes in employees’ POS, and (2) that having a mentor reduces this effect. In the next study, we replicate the findings of Study 1 and examine the roles of supervisors and role models in minimising the adverse impact of PCB. STUDY 2 In Study 2, we extended the previous study in two important ways. First, with the goal of establishing constructive replication (Lykken, 1968), we operationalised breach using a global-based measure as opposed to the facet-based measurement method employed in the first study. In Study 2, we asked participants to provide an overall evaluation of the extent to which their organisation has adequately met its commitments. Second, we explored the role that supervisors and role models play in ameliorating the negative impact of breach. Sample and procedure The opportunity to complete an online survey was presented to 274 college/ university faculty members and staff who were members of a professional association that was concerned with student advising. All members of the association were provided a link to the survey through an email distributed through the association’s listserv. Completed responses were provided by 177 individuals (69% female) for a response rate of 65%. Respondents’ mean age was 48.7 years and their organisational tenure was 11.11 years (standard deviation = 9.76). In terms of education level, 5% of respondents held bachelor’s degrees, 34% held master’s degrees, 56% held PhDs and 5% held other degrees, including JDs, MDs and EdDs. Measures The response format for all items except gender and tenure was a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree), with items coded such that a higher score indicated a greater amount of the focal construct except when reverse-coded items were considered. Psychological contract breach. PCB was measured using the three items from Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) five-item PCB scale with path loadings that exceeded 0.71. We selected these items because the 0.71 criterion indicates that approximately half of the variance in responses is due to the underlying construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In order to examine whether the shortened measure of PCB used in the present study was equivalent with the complete measure, we administered the complete five-item scale to an independent sample of 307 bank employees. Bivariate correlation analysis suggests that the shortened and complete versions were highly correlated (r = 0.93, p < 0.001). For this study, the reported scale reliability was 0.96, which was slightly greater than the scale reliability (0.84) reported by Robinson and Morrison (2000) for the five-item scale. A sample item is, ‘I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions to HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

247


the organisation.’ Employees answered all PCB questions using a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Mentor relationship. We determined whether or not employees had mentor relationships in the same manner as in Study 1, except that the term ‘organisation’ was changed to ‘college/university’. The new item read, ‘I have a mentor at my college/university who supports my development (yes/no).’ Overall, 113 respondents (64%) reported having mentors. Perceived supervisor support. PSS was measured using three items from Kottke and Sharafinski’s (1988) PSS scale. An example item from this scale is, ‘My supervisor is willing to extend him/herself in order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability’. Employees answered all PSS questions using a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.90. Role model relationships. Role model relationships were measured using two reported items from Gibson and Barron’s (2003) role model availability scale. An example item is, ‘I have enough role models available to demonstrate for me how to succeed in my college/university’. Employees answered all questions related to role models using a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The reliability coefficient for this scale was 0.86. Perceived organisational support. POS was measured using the same six items reported in Study 1. Again, employees answered all POS questions using a sevenpoint Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The reliability of the scale in Study 2 was 0.91. Control variables. As in Study 1, we controlled for gender (0 = male and 1 = female), age (in years) and tenure (in years). Analysis and results Before analysing the data, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test the construct independence of the study variables. The model fit statistics were good: c2 (51) = 110.48, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.92; and RMSEA = 0.07. The one-factor model had significantly worse fit to the data: Dc2 (54) = 788.36, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.64; TLI = 0.56; and RMSEA = 0.28, Dc2(3) = 677.88, p < 0.01. These analyses provided support for viewing PCB, POS and supervisor support as distinct constructs. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study variables are presented in Table 3. Zero-order correlations were in the expected direction with the exception of the relationship between role model relationships and PCB (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). Results of moderated regression analysis used to test Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 are presented in Table 4. Hypothesis 1, which predicted that mentor relationships would moderate the relationship between PCB and POS, was again supported, as the interaction term (PCB ¥ mentor relationship) was significantly associated with POS (b = 0.14, p ⱕ 0.05), after accounting for control variables and main effects (see 248



TABLE 3 Means, standard deviations (SD) and bivariate correlations for Study 2 variables Variable

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

0.30 48.7 11.11 2.02 5.55 – 5.10 5.05

0.46 19.8 9.76 1.48 1.26 – 1.45 5.05

0.03 0.13 -0.07 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.16

0.67 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 0.07 0.06

0.00 -0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.09

-0.58 -0.41 0.47 -0.66

0.47 0.52 0.55

0.59 0.31

0.47

Gender Age Tenure PCB PSS MR RMR POS

Notes: n = 177. Bold correlations are significant at p < 0.05. Bold and italic correlations are significant at p < 0.01. Age and tenure were measured in years. POS, Perceived Organisational Support; PCB, Psychological Contract Breach; PSS, Perceived Supervisor Support; MR, Mentor Relationship; RMR, Role Model Relationship.

TABLE 4 Study 2 hierarchical moderated regression predicting perceived organisational support from perceptions of psychological contract breach and supervisor support, mentor relationship and role model relationship

Step 1: Controls Gender Age Tenure Step 2: Main effects Psychological contract breach (PCB) Perceived supervisor support (PSS) Mentor relationship (MR) Role model relationship (RMR) Final step: Interaction Terms (centred) PCB ¥ SS PCB ¥ MR PCB ¥ RMR

R2

b

Variable and step Step 1

Step 2

Final

0.16* 0.10 -0.04

0.10 0.06 -0.02

0.10 0.05 -0.03

-0.51** 0.17* -0.10 0.20**

-0.51** 0.12 -0.10 0.22**

DR2

0.03

0.51

0.49**

0.53

0.02*

0.15* 0.14* -0.18*

Notes: n = 177. Standardised coefficients are reported. * p ⱕ 0.05. ** p ⱕ 0.01. Age and tenure were measured in years. POS, Perceived Organisational Support; PCB, Psychological Contract Breach; PSS, Perceived Supervisor Support; MR, Mentor Relationship; RMR, Role Model Relationship.


249


FIGURE 2 Psychological contract breach–mentor relationship interaction (Study 2)

Standardised Values of POS

1.5

–2

1

0.5

0 –1

0

1

2

3

Mentor No Mentor

–0.5

–1

–1.5

–2

Standardised Values of Psychological Contract Breach

Figure 2). Among employees without mentors, the negative impact of breach on POS is magnified (t[158] = -6.77, p ⱕ 0.001) in comparison to those respondents with mentor relationships (t[158] = -3.34, p ⱕ 0.001). Thus, mentors tend to reduce the negative effects of PCB on POS. Hypothesis 2 predicted that PSS would moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. The interaction term (PCB ¥ supervisor support) was significantly associated with POS (b = 0.15, p ⱕ 0.05), after accounting for control variables and main effects (see Figure 3). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. The PCB–supervisor support interaction suggests that breach had a stronger negative relationship with POS for respondents with low levels of supervisor support (t[158] = -7.46, p ⱕ 0.001) compared to respondents with high levels of supervisor support (t[158] = -3.50, p ⱕ 0.001). Thus, higher levels of supervisor support reduce the negative effects of PCB on POS as greater levels of breach are perceived, while supervisors who are not perceived as supportive strengthen the negative relationship between PCB as perceptions of breach increase. Hypothesis 3 predicted that role model relationships would moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. Although the interaction term (PCB ¥ role model relationship) was significantly associated with POS (b = -0.18, p ⱕ 0.05), the direction of the simple slopes is contrary to what we have predicted (see Figure 4). The beta coefficient for this relationship was negative, suggesting that having role models available actually worsened the effects of PCB on POS. Thus, when role models were largely unavailable, there was a weaker relationship between breach and POS (t[158] = -4.09, p ⱕ 0.001). However, when employees reported that role models were prevalent, the effect of PCB is magnified (t[158] = -7.35, p ⱕ 0.001). This interaction 250



FIGURE 3 Psychological contract breach–supervisor support (SS) interaction (Study 2)


1 0.5

–2

0

–1

0

1

2

3

–0.5

SS z = 1 SS z = –1

–1 –1.5 –2 –2.5

Standardised Values of Psychological Contract Breach


FIGURE 4 Psychological contract breach–role model relationship (RMR) interaction (Study 2) 1.5 1 0.5 –2

–1

0

0

1

2

–0.5

3

RMR z = 1 RMR z = –1

–1 –1.5 –2

Standardised Values of Psychological Contract Breach effect is such that increased breach results in lower levels of POS when role model relationships are high. Discussion We found support for two of our three hypotheses in Study 2. In Hypothesis 1, we speculated that the presence of mentoring relationships would lessen the negative association between PCB and POS. We found that employees with mentors tended HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

251


to have higher levels of POS when breach was high, while employees without mentors tended to have lower POS under high breach conditions. We also found support for Hypothesis 2, as employees who had high levels of supervisor support tended to have higher levels of POS when PCB was high, while employees with low supervisor support tended to have lower levels of POS when PCB was high. The results we found for Hypotheses 1 and 2 were consistent with social support theory (Cohen and Willis, 1985). During tough times, supportive relationships helped buffer the negative effects of stressful situations. Our results for Hypothesis 3, which predicted that role model relationships would lessen the effects of PCB on POS, were somewhat but not completely surprising. While we found a significant interaction effect, the simple slopes were not in the expected direction. Specifically, employees with role models tended to have lower levels of POS when PCB was high, while employees without role models tended to have higher levels of POS when they perceived higher levels of breach. One explanation for this pattern of results stems from the different types of relationships (‘close’ vs. ‘distant’; Gibson, 2003) that employees maintain with role models. While individuals interact with role models in ‘close’ relationships, ‘distant’ role models are observed from afar, and in fact no interaction between employee and role model is necessary. In such cases, a role model would not provide social support or help an employee to deal with the fallout of PCB. Another explanation here is that a role model may not necessarily be a ‘role model’ in the classic sense. For example, it is possible that some employees may model the behaviours of ‘rogue’ or ‘trouble-maker’ employees who are likely to ‘settle the score’ with the organisation if promised obligations are not adequately fulfilled. Thus, employees may have selected role models who responded to PCB in a counterproductive manner, and as a result learned to respond in the same manner themselves. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) suggests that individuals learn from observing the behaviours of others – so if role models construed PCB as a signal that they were not valued by the organisation, it is quite possible that those who emulated them did so as well. Future research is needed to more fully understand the interplay between role models and employee responses to PCB.

GENERAL DISCUSSION The experience of PCB is not a question of ‘if’ but of ‘when’. The organisation of work is a human endeavour and thus prone to errors, intentional or unintentional. Even the best-managed organisations have to face the fact that eventually they, too, will (perhaps unwillingly) breach the psychological contracts of their employees, potentially triggering unwanted consequences. In our view, the potentially severe negative consequences of PCB (e.g. deviance; Restubog et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2008) challenge organisations not to ignore the situation but to proactively approach it. Organisations can do so – according to our study’s findings – by utilising mentors and supportive supervisors. The results of this study inform scholars and practitioners interested in better understanding the factors that influence the employee–employer relationship. We extend the literature on the EER by examining the role that the social context, 252



specifically relationships with other individuals with whom employees maintain relationships, has on their perceptions of their exchange relationship with the organisation. This addresses Emerson’s (1976) long-standing criticism that social exchange theory fails to consider contextual factors that influence the behaviour of individuals in social exchange relationships. Our results also offer some initial empirical evidence for the effects that supervisors, mentors and role models have on the EER. Previous conceptual research by Scandura and Williams (2002) also argues that mentors may play an important role in determining how employees will respond to breaches of the psychological contract. Our research also contributes to the mentoring literature. Previous meta-analyses of this literature have found correlations between mentoring and outcomes such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment, etc. to be somewhat weaker than expected (e.g. Allen et al., 2004). Our results suggest that perhaps mentoring is important contextually – that is, in certain situations, having a mentor is particularly valuable to employees. Our results indicate that the experience of PCB is one such occasion. Mentors may also be critical during other stressful times, such as during layoffs, job changes, mergers, etc. While having a mentor is usually a good thing, it may be of greater importance depending on the situational context. Interestingly, our notions and recommendations parallel those emerging from organisational research in other areas. Advice by scholars and practitioners on how to build high-performance organisations inevitably points to the role of talent (human capital) as a crucial source of competitive advantage (e.g. Sherer, 1995). In fact, recent management writings describe the future of organisational success in terms of a global battle for talent, where the pool of talent an organisation can attract and retain becomes a key factor for not only market success but also for survival of the venture. Serendipitously, two of the three support mechanisms described in this article not only help organisations to potentially lessen the fallout from PCB but also to develop and nurture valuable employees. This might be even more important in view of results of studies examining the expectations of the next generation of employees to arrive in the workplace. This generation, often called Generation Y or Gen Y, appears to be extremely receptive to positive, encouraging supervision, mentoring and role modelling (Martin and Tiulgan, 2006), treatment they are probably accustomed to receiving from parents (Hira, 2007). Organisations that can effectively employ such practices may gain a competitive advantage over competitors, as they will be better able to attract and retain talented employees. LIMITATIONS Like most research, our study has limitations and results should be viewed with these in mind. First, common method variance is a concern, as all measures used in this study were the result of employee self-reports. However, the moderating effects of supervisor support and mentor relationships were complex interactions that could not easily be explained by common method variance (Brown et al., 2001). In addition, we collected data at different points in time in our first study, a practice suggested to reduce the effects of common method bias (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). We should note, however, that our approach differed from the approach recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986) because we collected measures of our dependent HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

253


variable (POS) at both Time 1 and Time 2. Thus, the responses to the POS scale at Time 2 may have been influenced by responses at Time 1, although we believe that the six-month time lag makes this possibility less likely. Further, we believe that our methodological approach is more rigorous because we demonstrate that the incremental variance explained by breach is significant beyond that explained only by Time 1 POS. Second, we used online surveys to collect information from respondents. This potentially creates a bias, as respondents would need to have access to the Internet to respond to our survey. Thus, it is possible that we oversampled white-collar employees (who have access to the Internet at work) as opposed to blue-collar employees (who are perhaps less likely to have Internet access at work). Third, the fact that employees in the second study that we present were highly educated may limit the generalisability of our results to other samples in which employees have lower levels of educational attainment. Fourth, although we have argued that breach is inevitable, the severity of breach is important as well. We did not measure the severity of PCB, but instead the extent to which employees believe that it has occurred. It is possible that different types of relationships, such as relationships with mentors, would more effectively buffer the negative effects of severe or important breaches of the psychological contract. It may be that where these strong relationships are particularly useful is with respect to the relationship between breach and feelings of psychological contract violation – emotive reactions including frustration, disappointment, betrayal and anger (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). That is, mentors offer social support when employees are experiencing strong negative emotions and help to quell these feelings before they perform deviant behaviours that harm the organisation or its members (Bordia et al., 2008). Fifth, we did not control for all variables that could have influenced POS. It is possible that employees who worked in organisations with mentoring programmes may have been provided more extensive HR practices overall or that the presence of mentoring relationships was a proxy for the overall higher levels of HR sophistication. Finally, our measure of mentor availability does not capture the quality of the mentoring relationships. Future research should explore whether high-quality mentoring relationships are necessary to buffer the negative effects of PCB.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Our study offers a number of avenues for future research. First, research that addresses the methodological shortcomings of our study is desirable. That is, longitudinal research designs that incorporate not only perceptual and attitudinal variables but also objective outcomes such as turnover or supervisor ratings of performance would help to determine the causal direction of relationships and make the results more useful to practitioners. Second, while our results demonstrate that mentoring and supervisory relationships help employees to maintain their beliefs about the quality of their exchange relationship with the organisation, more information concerning the nature of these relationships will help to better inform scholars and practitioners. While we have shown that the extent to which supervisors are supportive/not supportive weakens/strengthens the negative relationship between breach and POS, other 254



aspects of the supervisory relationships may be important as well. For instance, employees with high levels of leader–member exchange, or the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources between employee and leader (Graen and Cashman, 1975), may also buffer the negative effects of PCB. More information about the nature of mentoring relationships would also be useful. For instance, the quality of the mentoring relationship from the perspective of the protégé (Ragins et al., 2000) may play an important role in buffering the effects of broken promises. While we would expect that high-quality mentoring relationships would reduce the negative fallout from PCB, low-quality or dysfunctional mentoring relationships may actually create scenarios where employees respond to PCB in a more negative manner. Also of interest may be the role that the organisation plays in facilitating mentoring relationships for protégés. It is possible that organisationally sponsored mentoring programmes, to the extent that they are regarded as discretionary treatment provided by the organisation, would have a stronger effect on employee POS than would mentoring relationships employees develop without the assistance of the organisation. Finally, future research might explore the buffering effects of other developmental relationships on the relationship between PCB and outcomes. For instance, it is possible that friends and advice ties may determine how employees respond to PCB. Indeed, a social networks study of employees in a recruiting organisation by Zagenczyk et al. (2006) demonstrated that employees tend to form perceptions of support that are similar to those of other employees from whom they receive advice, as well as to those of other employees who are located in similar structural positions in organisational friendship and advice networks (structurally equivalent employees). Taken in conjunction with social networks research examining the role of friendship and advice ties on employee perceptions of and responses to PCB (e.g. Dabos and Rousseau, 2004), we speculate that other relationships in organisations may influence how employees’ responses to PCB influence their POS. Social influence exerted by mentors who are not members of the organisation may also influence employee responses to PCB. For instance, Baugh and Fagenson-Eland (2005) have examined the different functions provided by mentors within and outside organisations. Mentors from outside the organisation may have agenda that differ from mentors who are organisation members: they may attempt to motivate their protégés to leave the organisations for which they work. Under such circumstances, mentors may actually exacerbate the effects of PCB. Family members may also attempt to influence an employee. For instance, one could imagine how an especially overprotective parent could positively influence a young employee’s turnover intentions following the failure of an organisation to provide that employee with a promotion or other rewards that are perceived to be deserved. In fact, this may be quite relevant when the characteristics of recent college graduates entering the workforce are considered. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Our research has a number of important implications for organisations and managers. For one, organisations can create scenarios in which potential mentors and protégés can meet informally to increase the likelihood that such developmental HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

255


relationships will materialise informally. Indeed, in Study 1, nearly 86% of the employees who maintained relationships with mentors described the relationships as being informal in nature as opposed to being created formally by the organisation. Second, organisations could create experiential settings where supervisors could practice or learn to better utilise supportive behaviours. For example, organisations that already have assessment centres in place could use these to create programmes that would help supervisors help employees deal with the disappointment that stems from unfulfilled promises at work. Finally, organisations can strive to develop cultures in which employees actively support one another.1 For example, enhancing communication between supervisors and employees, team building and company outings may create a family-oriented organisation that can help to reduce employees’ tendency to act out in response to PCB (Restubog and Bordia, 2007). CONCLUSIONS In this article, we explored support mechanisms that organisations can put in place to lessen the impact that breach has on employee perceptions of their social exchange relationships with the organisation. We hypothesised that supervisory relationships, mentoring relationships and role model relationships would moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. Our findings indicate that mentoring relationships and supportive supervisory relationships reduce the negative relationship between PCB and employee beliefs that the organisation values their contributions and cares about their well-being. However, employees who maintained relationships with role models actually had lower POS in response to PCB. Our results inform scholars examining the effects of context on exchange relationships between employer and employee as well as practitioners seeking to find methods to lessen the negative fallout of PCB. Acknowledgements An earlier version of the manuscript was included in the Best Paper Proceedings of the 68th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, California, August 2008. We gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments of Dana Haggard and Dean McFarlin. Note 1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions related to practical implications. REFERENCES Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Allen, T.D. and Poteet, M.L. (1999). ‘Developing effective mentoring relationships: strategies from the mentor’s viewpoint’. Career Development Quarterly, 48: 59–73. Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E. and Lima, L. (2004). ‘Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: a meta-analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 127–136. 256



Aselage, J. and Eisenberger, R. (2003). ‘Perceived organisational support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 24: 491–509. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baugh, S.G. and Fagenson-Eland, E.A. (2005). ‘Boundaryless mentoring: an exploratory study of the functions provided by internal vs. external mentors’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35: 939–955. Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D. and Tang, R.L. (2008). ‘When employees strike back: investigating the mediating mechanism between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1105–1117. Brown, S.P., Ganesan, S. and Challagalla, G. (2001). ‘Self-efficacy as a moderator of information-seeking effectiveness’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1043–1051. Chen, Z.X., Tsui, A.S. and Zhong, L.F. (2008). ‘Reactions to psychological contract breach: a dual perspective’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 29: 527–548. Cohen, S. and Willis, T.A. (1985). ‘Stress, social support, and the buffering hypotheses’. Psychological Bulletin, 98: 310–357. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Conway, N. (2005). ‘Exchange relationships: examining psychological contracts and perceived organisational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 774–781. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Kessler, I. (2000). ‘Consequences of the psychological contract for employment relationship: a large-scale survey’. Journal of Management Studies, 37: 903–930. Dabos, G.E. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004). ‘Social interaction patterns shaping employee psychological contracts’, in K.M. Weaver (ed.), Academy of Management Proceedings: Best Papers. [CD-ROM]. New Orleans, LA: Academy of Management, pp. N1–N6. Dougherty, T.W. and Dreher, G.F. (2007). ‘Mentoring and career outcomes: conceptual and methodological issues in an emerging literature’, in B.R. Ragins and K.E. Kram (eds), Handbook of Mentoring at Work, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986). ‘Perceived organisational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500–507. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001). ‘Reciprocation of perceived organisational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 42–51. Eisenberger, R., Stinglehaumber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002). ‘Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organisational support and employee retention’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 565–603. Emerson, R. (1976). ‘Social exchange theory’. Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 335– 362. Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social Cognition, 2nd edn, Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error’. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39–50. Gettman, H.J. and Gelfand, M.J. (2007). ‘When customers shouldn’t be king: antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment by clients and customers’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 757–770. Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T.J. and Masters, M.F. (in press). ‘Perceived organizational obstruction: an initial study’. Group & Organization Management. Gibson, D.E. (2003). ‘Developing the professional self-concept: role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages’. Organisation Science, 15: 591–610.


257


Gibson, D.E. and Barron, L.A. (2003). ‘Exploring the impact of role models on older employees’. Career Development International, 8: 198–209. Gouldner, A.W. (1960). ‘The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement’. American Sociological Review, 25: 161–178. Graen, G. and Cashman, J. (1975). ‘A role-making model of leadership in formal organisation: a development approach’, in J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (eds), Leadership Frontiers, Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Guest, D.E. (1998). ‘On meaning, metaphor, and the psychological contact: a response to Rousseau’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 19: 673–677. Guest, D.E. and Conway, N. (2002). ‘Communicating the psychological contract: an employer perspective’. Human Resource Management Journal, 12: 22–38. Hira, N.A. (2007). ‘You raised them, now manage them’. Fortune, 155: 10, 38+. Ho, V.T. and Levesque, L. (2005). ‘With a little help from my friends (and substitutes): social referents and influence in psychological contract fulfilment’. Organisation Science, 16: 275–289. Hutchison, S. (1997). ‘A path model of perceived organisational support’. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 12: 159–174. Ibarra, H. (1999). ‘Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 764–791. Kiewitz, C. (2002). ‘The work anger model (WAM!): an inquiry into the role of anger at work’. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 63: 5-A, 1904. Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S.L.D., Zagenczyk, T.J. and Hochwarter, W. (in press). ‘The interactive effects of psychological contract breach and organizational politics on perceived organizational support: evidence from two longitudinal studies’. Journal of Management Studies. Kottke, J.L. and Sharafinski, C.E. (1988). ‘Measuring perceived supervisory and organisational support’. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48: 1075–1079. Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organisational Life, Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Levinson, H. (1965). ‘Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organisation’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9: 370–390. Lykken, D. (1968). ‘Statistical significance in psychological research’. Psychological Bulletin, 70: 151–159. Martin, C.A. and Tiulgan, B. (2006). Managing the Generation Mix: From Urgency to Opportunity, Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Mehta, R. and Sivadas, E. (1995). ‘Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys’. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37: 429–439. Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997). ‘When employees feel betrayed: a model of how psychological contract violation develops’. Academy of Management Review, 22: 226–256. Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006). ‘Transformational leadership and job behaviours: the mediating role of core job characteristics’. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 327–340. Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986). ‘Self-reports in organisational research: problems and prospects’. Journal of Management, 12: 531–544. Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L. and Miller, J.S. (2000). ‘Marginal mentoring: the effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes’. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1177–1194. Restubog, S.L.D. and Bordia, P. (2006). ‘Workplace familism and psychological contract breach in the Philippines’. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55: 563– 585.

258



Restubog, S.L.D. and Bordia, P. (2007). ‘One big happy family: understanding the role of workplace familism in the psychological contract dynamics’, in A.I. Glendon, B. Myors and B.M. Thompson (eds), Advances in Organisational Psychology: An Asia-Pacific Perspective, Brisbane: Australian Academic Press, pp. 371–387. Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P. and Tang, R.L. (2007). ‘Behavioural outcomes of psychological contract breach in a non-western culture’. British Journal of Management, 18: 376–386. Restubog, S.L.D., Hornsey, M., Bordia, P. and Esposo, S. (2008). ‘Effects of psychological contract breach on organisational citizenship behaviours: insights from the group value model’. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1377–1400. Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002). ‘Perceived organisational support: a review of the literature’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698–714. Robinson, S.L. and 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, 6–9 August 1995. Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000). ‘The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21: 525–546. Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994). ‘Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but the norm’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 15: 245–259. Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organisations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D.M. (2001). ‘Schema, promises, and mutuality: the psychology of the psychological contract’. Journal of Organisational and Occupational Psychology, 24: 511–541. Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. (2002). ‘Leadership in the context of psychological contract breach: the role of mentoring’, in L.L. Neider and C.A. Schriesheim (eds), Research in Management, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 167–195. Sherer, P. (1995). ‘Leveraging human assets in law firms: human capital structures and organisational capabilities’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 4, 671–691. Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (1999). ‘The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect’. Human Relations, 52: 895–922. Zagenczyk, T.J., Gibney, R., Murrell, A.J. and Thatcher, J.B. (2006). ‘Social influence and perceived organisational support: a social networks analysis’. Paper presented at the 2006 Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA, 11–16 August. Zhao, H., Wayne, S.J., Glibkowski, B.C. and Bravo, J. (2007). ‘The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis’. Personnel Psychology, 60: 647–680.


259