原文 ：
Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Insights from the Group Value Model
Restubog, Simon Lloyd D. Hornsey, 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 promises (Rousseau, 1995). The belief that a promise or future obligation exists is based exclusively on the employee’s own perception. Such a belief may be intentionally or unintentionally conveyed via recruitment interviews, performance appraisals, written personnel policies, or organizational practices (Deery et al., 2006). Breach, which is a cognitive assessment involving the discrepancy between what has been promised and what has been delivered, is empirically and theoretically distinct from contract violation which refers to an emotional response arising from perceived contractual transgression (Bordia et al., in press; Robinson and Morrison, 2000).
Unsurprisingly, psychological contract breach has negative consequences for organizations and employees (Bordia et al., in press; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000; Kickuland Lester, 2001; Restubog et al., 2007; Robinson and Rousseau, 1994; Turnley and Feldman, 2000; Zagenczyk et al., in press; Zhao et al., 2007). One well-documented consequence 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 increase OCBs for two reasons: (1) because the employee feels compelled to reciprocate the positive behavior of the organization; and (2) because 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 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 services) or more social in nature (e.g. information, advice and positive regard). If employees feel as though their outcomes are less than they were promised (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 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 responses to contract breach in many contexts, we argue that the focus on instrumentality and self-interest implicit within exchange theory has distracted attention from the symbolic and relational consequences of psychological contract breach. The findings of the present study suggest an additional means of theorizing the damaging effects of psychological contract breach, with a specific focus on the consequences of contr
act 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 consequences of contract beach, and at the same time has the potential to enrich employers’ understandings of how to understand, anticipate and documented翻译defuse the deleterious outcomes associated with perceptions of contract breach.
From a theoretical perspective, it makes sense to argue that the group value model would be particularly predictive when symbolic concerns about the relationship between 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 nature. But there
are other circumstances when symbolic concerns might be more 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 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 self-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 secure place within the organization over time. To date, however, these predictions remain speculation. Future research 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 useful.
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 released from their felt obligation to engage in positive behavior such as OCBs. A second explanation – favored by Blau (1964) – is that people are motivated to reciprocate helpful behavior because to do so furthers their self-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 explanations suggest a somewhat immediate and proximal relationship between contract breach and OCBs, and for this reason researchers have often been content to identify a direct relationship between the two, without examining mediating mechanisms.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。