iobm.eventsiobm.events/icobm/researchpapers/5-ICoBM-061.docx · Web viewiobm.events

Interplay of Trust & Distrust at Workplace: Examining the Effect of Psychological

Contract Breach on Organizational Disidentification

Authors:

1. Dr. Ghulam Ali Arain

Assistant Professor

Sukkur Institute of Business Administration

Email: [email protected]

2. Hira Rani

PhD Scholar

Sukkur Institute of Business Administration, Sukkur


3. Aneel Kumar (Corresponding Author)

Ph.D Scholar, Sukkur Institute of Business Administration and Assistant Professor, Department

of Commerce, Shah Abdul Latif University


[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]








Introduction

Today’s managers have realized the phenomena that employee’s identification in an

organization influences the work outcomes which are very much important for both employee as

well as the organization (Cooper & Thatcher, 2010). Following(Masterson & Stamper, 2003)

identification of employees’ in an organization keep up a correspondence with the belonging

dimension of organizational membership which has been perceived by employees, which

includes the view that an employee has contributed a lot in his working place in order to seek the

membership in that place. Therefore, this identification has been considered as vital element that

represents the overall relationship between organization & employee. However, the

varyingenvironment of employment relationship challenges the identification of employees in an

organization (Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). In this globalsituation which is plagued by

number of factors such as job insecurity, less promotional opportunities & uncertainty of pay

structure, employees are no more willing to believe that their deals will be reciprocated in future

or their promised obligations or responsibilities will be fulfilled by employer. In the result, there

is more probability that employees will experience breach of their psychological contracts

(Stephen J Deery, Roderick D Iverson, & Janet T Walsh, 2006; Morrison & Robinson, 1997).

Researchers, from centuries, have used the word ‘Psychological contract’ whenever they have

tried to define employee-employer relationship (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). According to(D. M.

Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998)Psychological contract is “an individual’s beliefs about

the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between the person and another

party” (p. 575). In contrast with written deal, psychological deal is hidden and unspoken. The

main idea behind the theory of that contract is the idea of psychological contractbreach which

can be describe through the employee’s experience with respect to their employer who couldn’t

fulfill the obligations towards employees regarding their promotion, progression, job security,

proper training and much more which is required to develop one’s professional career(Robinson

& Rousseau, 1994).

Researchers have argued that employees are more prone towards identifying with their

working place when their psychological contracts have been satisfied by their organization.

However, same employees move towards organizational disidentification when they experience

breach of their psychological contracts by their employer or organization (Epitropaki, 2013;

Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004).Although, many empirical studieshave used PCB as basis for

understanding how employees’ psychological contracts lead employees towards negative

attitudes at workplace(Z. X. Chen, A. S. Tsui, & L. Zhong, 2008; S.J. Deery, R.D. Iverson, &

J.T. Walsh, 2006; Jensen, Opland, & Ryan, 2010; Restubog, Bordia, Tang, & Krebs, 2010;

Rosen, Chang, Johnson, & Levy, 2009).Inspite of that,past studies have overlooked the role of

affect as mediating mechanism between PCB and work attitudes (Conway & Briner, 2005;

Samantha D. Montes & Zweig, 2009; H. Zhao, S.J. Wayne, B.C. Glibkowski, & J. Bravo,

2007). Therefore, through this paper, we are going is to fill this gap by empirically testing trust

and distrust as affect based mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and

organizational disidentification.

We preferred organizational disidentification as an outcome variable in our present study

because identification of employees is very much important and have direct relation with

organization’s performance but when this identification convert into disidentification, it damages

organizations’ reputation as well as performance. Therefore, it is one of the most salient negative

attitudes of employees when they experience breach of their psychological contract, which is the

independent variable of this study. Although disidentification has been tested a lot by

researchers(Gibney, Zagenczyk, Fuller, Hester, & Caner, 2011; Zagenczyk et al., 2013;

Zagenczyk, Gibney, Few, & Scott, 2011) but according to our knowledge, no one has tested

these dimensions by checking the mediating effect of Trust & Distrust simultaneously.

The Concept of trust refers to one's anticipated standards appear to be certain, hopeful,

and conforms that future conducts are definitely constructive and surely will not exasperate one's

pursuits(Barber, 1983; Frost, Stimpson, & Maughan, 1978; Gambetta, 1988).As an illustration,

trust plays a magnificent and prominent role in the subjective experience of psychological

contract breach by one's employer (Robinson, 1996). A well-known framework developed

by(McAllister, 1995)clearly differentiates two types of trust: cognition-based trust and affect-

based trust. Cognition-based trust is one which is based on performance-relevant cognitionsfor

e.g. responsibility, fitness, dependability and consistency whereas(McAllister, 1995) also

described affect-based trust as one which refers to the “emotional bonds between individuals that

are grounded upon expressions of genuine care and concern for the welfare” of the other party

(p. 26). It puts emphasis on understanding, sympathy, rapport and attachment on the basis of

shared regard for the other person.He was in the view that peoples usually move towards affect-

based trust where they readily form the kinds of emotional bonding with co-workers when the

baseline level of cognitions-based trust is met. In short, he argued that cognition-based trust

works at initial stage of exchange relationship whereas affect-based trust has received more

importance when there is involvement of emotions in that exchange relationship(McAllister,

1995).Furthermore, researchers have argued that affect-based trust has close connections to

exchange relationship than cognition-based trust (Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2009).

Systematic research on trust in organizations has been extended more than 40 years (Lewicki,

McAllister, & Bies, 1998). The challenges of speed, quality, and global reach, which require

trust, also have swift distrust, through corporate shake-up, downsizing, and primary violations of

the psychological contracts connecting individuals with organizations (Morrison & Robinson,

1997; D. Rousseau, 1995). In spite of compelling argument that wherever there is trust, there is

also possibility of trust betrayal in an organization which opens the door towards distrust; less

work has been done on Distrust (D. H. McKnight & Chervany, 2000). Researchers have

explained distrust as condition of panic and threat where individual believe that second person

does not worry about his/her betterment therefore will not keep up his own side of deal (Govier,

1994). Researchers have argued that distrust possesses affective nature and has been defined as

certain negative expectation on the way to another’s behaviour based on the perceived

discrepancy (Lewicki, et al., 1998).

Previous research conceptualized trust & distrust as a similar components like two sides

of same coin (Barber, 1983; Deutsch, 1958; Rotter, 1980). However, modernpractical research

calculated trust & distrust as an exclusive& separate components(D. H. McKnight & Choudhury,

2006). Where trust has been described as perception of positivistic approach towards the favour

of an organization, distrust has been described as perception of destructive actions (Schoorman,

Mayer, & Davis, 2007) that the trustee will not perform in favour of trustor (Kramer, 1999).

Therefore on the basis of above mentioned arguments, we argue that experience of psychological

contract breach by employeespushes them towards negative affect such as damaged trust and

increased distrust which in turn change positive work attitudes of employees e.g., job satisfaction

(H. Zhao, et al., 2007)and organizational identification(S. L. D. Restubog, Matthew J. Hornsey,

Prashant Bordia, & Sarah R. Esposo, 2008).

In the early studies, many researchers have analysed the relationship of psychological

contract breach with work related outcomes that how it affects negatively on that (Conway &

Briner, 2005; Dulac, Coyle-Shapiro, Henderson, & Wayne, 2008; Samantha D Montes & Irving,

2008; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995) but very few (Lo & Aryee, 2003; Samantha

D Montes & Irving, 2008; Robinson, 1996) have examined that why psychological contract

breach has negative effect on work related outcomes especially organizational identification?

Furthermore, in these studies, the measurement and conceptualization of these two affect-based

mediators is vague and uncertain. For instance,(Stephen J Deery, et al., 2006), (Omodei &

McLennan, 2000) and (Robinson, 1996)observed low trust as a mediator; (HAO Zhao, Sandy J

Wayne, Brian C Glibkowski, & Jesus Bravo, 2007)examined mistrust, by taking reverse scores

of the trust measure, as a stronger mediator; (Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004) and (Suazo,

2009)conceptualized distrust/mistrust as part of the definition of psychological contract violation

(PCV); (Dulac, et al., 2008)analyzed PCV as an affect that mediate the linkof PCB with

organizational trust. Moreover, researchers have argued that affect-based trust is an important

and significant mediator in exchange-based relationship(Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, &

Rich, 2012), and according to social exchange theory, trust and distrust both are necessary for

establishing, maintaining and destroying any stable relationship. Dirks & colleagues have further

confirmed that when any relationship become complex, it involves elements of Trust & Distrust

simultaneously. Therefore, keeping in view the importance of both elements in exchange

relationship, we have put trust and distrust here simultaneously as affect-based mediators in the

relationship between PCB & organizational disidentification.

In short, this study serves two major objectives: first, although many researchers have

examined trust/low trust(Stephen J Deery, et al., 2006; Samantha D Montes & Irving, 2008;

Robinson, 1996) butas trust and distrust are two different constructs not two sides of same coin

(Dimoka, 2010; Lewicki, et al., 1998), no one has testedtrust and distrust before as an underlying

affect-based mediatorssimultaneously between PCB and organizational disidentification.Second,

above mention studies has not conducted a comparative analysis on trust and distrust as the

affect-based mediating mechanism between PCB and organizational disidentification in order to

know whether trust is stronger mediator or distrust.

Literature Review & Hypotheses

Organizational science research has often been interested in exploring the phenomena of

individual-organization relationship because behavior and attitude of employee towards their

organization has direct relationship with the effectiveness of the organization. For example,

performance of employee on their job affects the organization’s success. In a sense, the

employees are the organization (Humphrey, 2012). However, organizations continuously reform

their psychological contract with their members for surviving in hard financial position.

Therefore their members' identification with an organization rapidly adapts changes due to

change in psychological contract and that change ensures a happy and productive workforce

(Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004).Researchers have used the word ‘Psychological contract’ from

decades in order to describe the exchange based relationship between employee and

employer(Shore & Tetrick, 1994). According to(D. Rousseau, 1995) psychological contract can

be defined as state where two parties are conversant with each other within organization,

Employee and organization work systematically on behalf of their obligations and given

assignments. Psychological contract creates mutual and strategic relationship of employee with

organization in order to work collaborately and properly to maintain better understandings

(Conway & Briner, 2005; D. Rousseau, 1995). Thus, the phrase psychological contract is a

symbol or figure of speech in order to better understand the implicit & explicit responsibilities

between employee & organization (Guest & Conway, 2004). However, concept of the breach of

psychological contract is a situation of frustration for workers due to unfulfillment of promises

by organization (Robinson & Morrison, 2000). On every occasion when workers believe or feel

the discrepancy between inducements provide by employer & contribution made by an

employee, they become the victim of the breach of psychological contract. From the last two

decades, more attention has been paid on psychological contract breach because of varying

environment of psychological contract. And these variation in the contract are due to the

downsizing, globalization, increasing dependency on impermanent employees and reshuffling

which in return generate problems in maintaining employee’s psychological contract (Stephen J

Deery, et al., 2006; Kissler, 1994; Morrison & Robinson, 1997).

Relationship between Psychological Contract Breach & Organizational Disidentification

Disidentification occurs when employees psychologically disconnect themselves from

their working place (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). On the other hand, the vital & emerging element

of psychological contract literature is the concept of breach which has been described

by(Morrison & Robinson, 1997) as “the cognition that one’s organization has failed to meet one

or more obligations within one’s psychological contract in a manner commensurate with one’s

contributions” (p.230). Earlier research has exhibited that the concept of psychological contract

breach is ordinary (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994)& it has connection with many negative

attitudes & behaviors such as low level of satisfaction & commitment, high turnover intention &

lowered citizenship behavior(HAO Zhao, et al., 2007).

Researchers have argued that whenever employees feel committed themselves toward

their organizations, they tend to identify with organization because of their emotional attachment

with that. But, when these employees believe that they have inferior quality of attachment with

their working place, they will be more prone towards disidentifying with that organization & will

try to create separation from that organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Pratt, 1998; Simon Lloyd

D Restubog, Matthew J Hornsey, Prashant Bordia, & Sarah R Esposo, 2008; Zagenczyk, et al.,

2011). Epitropaki (2003) conducted study on bank employees regarding theirpsychological

contract breach and he found a threat of disidentification when they perceive breach of their

psychological contract. Moreover, research have claimed that when individuals consider that

their organization has not completed the contents of their psychological contract, they will not

consider individual-organization attachment as satisfying or worthwhile for the fulfillment of

their needs, they will feel mismatch between promised & delivered inducements & because of

that inconsistency, they will believe that their investment in an organization will not be

reciprocated in future by their employer. As a result, they will not make satisfying contribution

in organizational duties, their member designation in an organization will lose its value & their

oneness to identify with employing organization will be decline (Epitropaki, 2013).In relation to

psychological contract breach,(Zagenczyk, et al., 2011)confirmed a positive relationship between

breach of employees’ psychological contract and organizational disidentification, see also

(Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004; Simon Lloyd D Restubog, et al., 2008). In general, psychological

contract breach will provide signal to employees that they are not respected part of their working

place hence they will be more likely to disidentify with the organization(Zagenczyk, et al.,

2011).Thus based on the above mentioned arguments(Epitropaki, 2013; Simon Lloyd D

Restubog, et al., 2008) we propose that;

Hypothesis 1: psychological contract breach has positive association with organizational

disidentification

Trust as an Affect-Based Mediator between Psychological Contract Breach &

Organizational Disidentification

Research hasclaimed that the establishment of stable relationship with the organization is

critical during the first months of employment(Allen, 2006; Boswell, Boudreau, & Tichy, 2005;

Carr, Pearson, Vest, & Boyar, 2006; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000).For that reason,

researchers have argued that trust is a crucial component for managing every established

relationship(Robinson, 1996). As a universal constructive approach on the way to another shared

entity, trust works as a guideline, affecting one's explanation of social behaviors within a

relationship. Although trust is a cognitive component but besides cognition, affective foundation

of trust also exists which comprises of emotional attachment with individuals(Lewis & Weigert,

1985). People make touchingand affecting contributions in trust based relationships, showing

real and legitimate care and concern for the betterment of others, by believing on the good

quality of that relationship and having faith that these emotions and attachments will be

reciprocated(Pennings & Woiceshyn, 1987; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Ultimately, the

emotional ties linking individuals can provide the basis for trust. However, trust shatter with

broken promises & when relationship dissolves, employees move away from organization, they

become less prone to further contribute in an organization (Robinson, 1996).Based on the above

mentioned arguments, we argue that breach of the employee’s psychological contract hurt the

emotions of employees which break trust and that broken trust leads them towards increasing

level of organizational disidentification.

Even, number of researchers have argued that when employees perceive inconsistency

between promised & delivered inducements, they drop trust on their employer which cause

employees to be less motivated and disappointed and that disappointed feelings further motivate

employees to act in ways that generate separation of employees from their working place such

asorganizational disidentification (Stephen J Deery, et al., 2006; Robinson, 1996; Robinson &

Rousseau, 1994). Likewise, theory and empirical research also advocates that the perception of

employees that their organizations has failed to fulfil its promises direct them towards negative

affect because no fulfilment of promises undermines the trust and support of employees

(Robinson, 1996; Tekleab, et al., 2005). Several empirical studies have also verified the negative

association of psychological contract breach with many employees’ work related attitudes and

behavior such as organizational citizenship behavior, satisfaction and performance & positive

association with turnover intentions (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley &

Feldman, 2000). Moreover, researchers have also claimed that these negative effects are not

direct rather they involve employee’s trust as a mediating mechanism in that relationship (Lo &

Aryee, 2003; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).

Furthermore, Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) can be applied here as a

basis for studying affect as mediating mechanism between PCB and work attitudes. The AET

argues that any negative event experienced at workplace (e.g. PCB) leads employee towards

negative affect (e.g. trust) because of which he/she adopt negative work related attitudes &

behaviors such as organizational disidentification. Therefore, we argue on the basis of affective

event theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) by connecting the above arguments that breach of

psychological contract perceived by employees undermines the employee’s trust towards

employer & leads an employee to decrease their further involvement in organizational activities

in order to rebalance their exchange relationship which in turn pushes employee towards

disidentification from the organization. Thus we anticipated that;

Hypothesis 2: Trust mediates the relationship between PCB and organizational disidentification.

Distrust as a Mediator between Psychological Contract Breach & Organizational

Disidentification

It is worth noting fact that organizations does not only stimulate trust through their

employees by fulfilling contract, delivering promises & indicating about organizational values

but also produce distrust through these same mechanisms (Elsbach, Stigliani, & Stroud, 2012).

According to the case study of(Elsbach, et al., 2012), behaviors & conducts that give indication

regarding employer’s unfair treatment, disrespect & dissatisfaction with respect to employees

does not only reduce the employee’s level of trust but actually cause distrust.

One of the main behavior that(Elsbach, et al., 2012) identified as producing distrust involve

reneging on promises such as (laying off workers after they took pay cut to prevent lay off).

When workers will believe that their promises have been willfully violated by their higher

authority, they will be more prone towards disidentification with their employing organizations

(Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Researchers have argued that distrust possesses affective nature and

has been described as certain depressing anticipations towards another’s behaviour based on the

perceived discrepancy (Lewicki, et al., 1998) and according to(Young, 2006) affective

components are more dominant in situations where a negative event (e.g., PCB) has already been

take place. Similarly,(Dulac, et al., 2008) have also proposed that negative events or

circumstances are interpreted within the context of social exchange relationships. When

difficulties arise, such as contract breach, individuals differ in their affective response on the

basis of their social exchange relationship quality. In short, psychological contract breach is a

negative event of working environment which promotes affective reactions (e.g. distrust) and

that affective reaction leads employees towards negative work attitudes such as increasing level

of organizational disidentification.

Furthermore, Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) can also be applied

here as it argues that any negative event experienced at workplace (e.g. PCB) leads employee

towards negative affect (e.g. distrust) because of which he/she adopt negative work related

attitudes& behaviors such as organizational disidentification. Many researchers have used the

theoretical framework of AET in their studies on antecedents and consequences of affects at

work place e.g. (Li, Ahlstrom, & Ashkanasy, 2010; Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004; HAO Zhao, et

al., 2007).Therefore, following the lead of Affective event theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)

by connecting above mentioned arguments we argue that experience of breach of the

psychological contract causes distrust towards employees with respect to their workplace which

in turn affects negatively to employee’s identification in an organization. Therefore it has been

hypothesized that;

Hypothesis 3: Distrust mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and

organizational disidentification

Proposed Research Model

---------------FIGURE1---------------

Research Context

Early research on psychological contract breach has been conducted on western countries

(Cassar & Briner, 2011; Dulac, et al., 2008; Parzefall & Coyle-Shapiro, 2011; Suazo, 2009).

Recently, many practitioners and scholars have integrated their research sample from South Asia

(Arain, Hameed, Lacaze, & Peretti, 2011; Zhen Xiong Chen, Anne S Tsui, & Lifeng Zhong,

2008; Raja & Johns, 2010; Raja, et al., 2004; Wei & Si, 2013). Therefore, keeping in view the

standard moves, this research has been conducted in Pakistan. Focused population for this study

was Pakistani doctors. The reason that why we select doctors was that, we were interested to

measure the effect of psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification by testing

the mediating effect of trust and distrust and as for as doctor’s profession is concerned, their

identification with their hospitals is very much crucial because they have to deal with patients

directly. If they will experience any sort of breach by their hospitals with respect to their

psychological contract than this will not only break their trust level but also will generate distrust

and in turn, they will be likely to move towards the state of organizational disidentification with

their hospital which in turn affects negatively on the name and reputation of hospital as well as

on intention of patients. Because, individual always want to identify with the place from where

they are fully satisfied but if their satisfaction level become down than they will not be willing to

contribute further in that place. Therefore, identification of doctors in relation to their hospitals is

very much important. Another reason was that, as mentioned by AMGA (American medical

group association) that in today’s complex environment, there is high turnover of doctors (6.8%

turnover in 2012 and 5.8% in 2011) especially in private sectors where employers have

discretion in providing deserve able, satisfying & promised inducements so the perception of the

breach of their psychological contract is higher there. These were few inspiring reasons that we

select sample of Pakistani doctors.

Sample & Procedure

As it has been mentioned above that the targeted population for this study was doctors

working under different private health care hospitals in Pakistan. Hospitals were selected from

Karachi, Sukkur, Khairpur, Gambat, Thehri, Ghotki, Ranipur and Panoaqil. According to(North

& De Vos, 2002) “convenience sampling is the rational choice in cases where it is impossible to

identify all the members of population” (p.191). Hence, Convenience sampling technique used in

this study & those respondents were selected who were found to be the convenient & reliable

source of data for our research. Furthermore, there were two main reasons for choosing

convenience sampling technique. First, scarcity of resources such as time, secondly, easy access

to data because the survey method requires large amount of data in order to generalize the

findings.Cross-sectional study conducted & data for this study collected using questionnaire

which were distributed directly to doctors. Questionnaires were in English language so all the

items of it were communicated properly to participants for their easiness & convenience. It was

also ensure through direct involvement of researchers that data will be kept confidential &

anonymous. A total of 350 questionnaires dispersed from them 285 questionnaire got returned,

out of 285 questionnaires, 14 questionnaires were not accurately filled so not included in final

data file. Total response rate was 81.4 percent. 36.2 percent respondents were females

&63.8percent respondents were male. Ages of respondents were between 29 to 35 years. As for

as their qualification is concerned, 67.8 percent were having MBBS degree, 28 percentwere

having FCPS degree and 4.2 percent were having MS/PhD in Pakistan.

Measures

All four constructs involved in this study measured using five point Likert scale ranging

from “1” for “Not at all” to “5” for “up to great extent”. Reliability of all 4 scales was also

checked before using it in our study.

Psychological contract breach measured using 5 items scale developed by (Robinson &

Morrison, 2000). Cronbach Alpha of this scale is .92. Sample item is “I have not received

everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions”.

Trust was measured using 7 items scale which is the adopted form from the study of (Robinson,

1996). Cronbach Alpha of this scale is .88. Sample item is “I believe my supervisor has high

integrity”.

Distrust of employees after experiencing breach of their psychological contract measured using

5 item scale which was developed by (Ghulam Ali Arain, 2014) by considering the measure used

in recent studies (Conchie, Taylor, & Charlton, 2011). Cronbach Alpha of this scale is .89.

Sample item is “I feel insecure about how my employer will treat me in future”.

Disidentification was measured using 6 item scale developed by (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004).

Cronbach Alpha of this scale is .86. Sample item is “I am embarrassed to be part of this

organization”.

Control variables: Two demographics variables “Gender and age” used as control variables

because both were having significant effect on dependent variables.

Initial Data Screening Analysis Results

The process of data analysis and hypothesis testing was conducted through the statistical package

for social sciences (SPSS) and analysis of the moment (AMOS). Initially, it is important for every

researcher to screen the data file from any errors such as missing data, aberrant values and

multivariate outliers before conducting any statistical test for analyzing the results because these

errors, if not properly treated, can confuse the results (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010;

Hameed, Roques, & Arain, 2013; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Then, there is need

to check the normality of results after making data file free from above mentioned errors. In the

first step of data screening process, researcher detected those values that were out in the range of

the given response categories of the quantitative variables and such values are known as aberrant

values. So it is recommended by the researchers to treat such kind of errors before the

analysis(Hair, et al., 2010; Pallant, 2007). In this study all the items of the variables measured on

the five point Likert scale and the values that were out of range such as less than 1 and greater

than 5 treated as aberrant values. In this study only one aberrant value was found and therefore it

was deleted from the data set before starting the data analysis. In order to observe the normal

distribution of the data, all the 14 multivariate outliers were excluded and normality test was run

in order to check the normality of data.The descriptive statistics results indicate that most of the

items of data were normally distributed because the values of kurtosis and skewness were in the

range between +1 and -1 except few items whose kurtosis values lie to the range of -1.5.The

structural regression (SR) models were tested through AMOS. Multi mediation hypotheses were

tested through the phantom model technique developed for latent variables used instructural

equation modeling by Macho et al. (2011).The results of descriptive statistics and correlation are

given in Table 1.The correlation among study variables was moderate.

---------------TABLE 1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS---------------

We performed the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to check the model fit in the

context used inthis study. The fit indices included were CMIN/df, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI),

Comparative FitIndex (CFI), and Root-Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Hair,

Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). When CFA was performed for the first time to check the

model fit, the model fitindices were relatively poor (CMIN/df = 2.99, CFI = .91; TLI = .88,

RMSEA = .086). In order toimprove model fit, all the items with low factor loadings were

removed. A total of 06 items wasremoved. Out of these 06 items, 01 item was removed from

PCB measure, 01 item was removed from trust measure, 01 item was removed from distrust

measure and 03 items were removed from the measure of organizational disidentification, then

the model fitindices improved significantly to acceptable levels (CMIN/DF = 2.15, CFI = .92,

TLI = .91,RMSEA = .065).

Reliability & validity of all scales were also checked by considering the criteria

suggested by(Hair, et al., 2010), that the reliability can be better assessed when the value of

composite reliability is greater than 0.70, whereas convergent validity can be better assessed

when AVE (average variance extracted) is greater than 0.50 and discriminant validity can be

better assessed when MSV (maximum shared squared variance) & ASV (Average shared

squared variance) is less than AVE. After conducting the reliability analysis, results showed that

all constructs employed in this research had reliability, convergent validity and discriminant

validity as exhibited in the table 2.

---------------TABLE 2: RELIABILITY & VALIDITY----------------

Results

In hypothesis 1 we proposed that psychological contract breach has direct positive

association with organizational disidentification.The SR model 1 results showed that psychological

Contract breach has positive and significant association with organizational disidentification ( =

0.25; p = 0.00). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was fully supported by the results. The results are given

in table 3.

In hypothesis 2 we proposed that trust mediates the relationship between psychological

contract breach and organizational disidentification. The SR phantom model results showed that

the indirect effect of psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification via trust

was insignificant, as ( = 0.00, p = 0.39). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was not supported. In

hypothesis 3 we proposed that distrust mediates the relationship between psychological contract

breach and organizational disidentification. The SR phantom model results showed that the

indirect effect of Psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification via distrust

was significant as ( = 0.21, p = 0.00). Therefore, the hypothesis 3 was fully supported.The

results are given in table 3.

---------------TABLE 3 ----------------

Discussion

Psychological Contract Breach &Organizational Disidentification

Our results showed that psychological contract breach has significant positive association

with organizational disidentification of doctors. These results of breach shows that employees

such as doctors are not been considered as a valuable members of organization (Simon Lloyd D

Restubog, et al., 2008; Zagenczyk, et al., 2011) hence they are more likely to disidentify with

their working place. Our results are consistent with the results of(Zagenczyk, et al., 2013)

because they got full support of the relationship of psychological contract breach with

organizational disidentification and also with the results of(Epitropaki, 2003) because they also

found that employee’s psychological contract breach challenges & weaken the organizational

identification of bank employees. In short, whenever doctors will experience the breach of their

psychological contract by their hospitals than their willingness to disidentify with their hospital

increases.

Mediating Role of Trust

It has been recognized that today’s employer have more discretion towards providing

promised contents and this is one of the reason that doctors are not willing to trust on their

hospitals. Trust is a significant affect-based investigative variable that can offer further insights

on the dynamics of the employee–organization relationship and perceived organizational

membership, however research of (S. L. D. Restubog, et al., 2008) has shown it to be a mediator

between breach and organizational identification. On the contrary, results of this

studyexposedthat indirect effect of psychological contract breach on organizational

disidentification via trust was not significant. Therefore, trust did not play any mediating role

between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.(Robinson &

Morrison, 2000) have elaborated in detail the role of elements that help individuals in translating

one’s cognition of breach into emotional response. These scholars were in the view that after

experiencing the breach of the psychological contract, individual employees move towards

interpreting the degree of loss that they have faced because of that breach. The more the

magnitude of loss, the more severe the emotional response of employee will be. (Conway &

Briner, 2005) termed this assessment as an ‘importance’ of broken promise. They further argued

that if the broken promise has more worth, employee will be more emotional and will foster

negative attitude toward organization such as low involvement, organizational disidentification

and much more. But if that broken promise have low worth than it will not trigger the same

instrumental process. Other researchers (Morrison & Robinson, 1997) have argued that in the

process of interpretation& evaluation, employees not only weigh up the cost of loss that they

have faced because of breach but they also investigate the reasons at the back of that breach. In

short, they engage themselves in the process of ‘causal attribution’. If the experienced breach

will be because of incongruence, employee’s reaction will not be as much emotional and

negative towards organization.

Supporting the above mentioned assumptions of scholars, our results revealed that experienced

breach by doctors were not as much instrumental that hurt the emotions of doctorsand in turn

break their trust toward their hospitals. Therefore, results couldn’t support the mediating effect of

trust between psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification. Our results are

inconsistent from the results of (Lo & Aryee, 2003) and (Robinson, 1996) who explored that

trust fully mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and employee’s

willingness to further contribute in an organization.

Mediating Role of Distrust

As per organizational scholars, distrust is a confirm negative expectation that

employer/employing organization has been failed to upheld his own side of deal with employees

& it is expected by their attitudes & behaviors that they also will be fail in future to fulfill same

deals (Lewicki, et al., 1998). According to(Luhmann, Davis, Raffan, & Rooney, 1979), distrust is

a negative emotional element having no association with trust.(D. H. McKnight & Chervany,

2000) supported this view by claiming distrust as a “hot and emotion-laded construct” (D. H.

McKnight & Chervany, 2000), which helps “buffer oneself from the effects of another’s

conduct” (Lewicki et al. 1998, p. 439).With the experience of psychological contract breach,

feelings of distrust will start building blocks in the mind of employees such as doctors and they

will be more prone towards negative state of identification such as organizational

disidentification with their working place. Our results also supported this view as our hypothesis

3, which stated that distrust mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and

organizational disidentification got full support. Hence, our results are consistent with the results

of(Arain, et al., 2011) who found the significant effect of psychological contract breach on

organizational identification via distrust. Scholars are also in the view that although breach is

cognition but unless it is not convertedinto effect it will not be as much instrumental (Lindzey,

Gilbert, & Fiske, 1998). Furthermore, Affective event theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) also

claimed that experience of negative event such as (PCB) at work place pushes employees

towards affect (such as distrust) which in turn pushes them towards adopting negative attitude

and behaviors. Thereby, confirming the proposition of (HAO Zhao, et al., 2007) that when job

attitudes produce distal results than definitely affects will be the proximal outcome of breach.

(Young & Daniel, 2003)also argued that affective components rather than cognitive components

are more dominant in situations where a negative event (e.g., PCB) has already been take place.

Hence further confirm the caution of(H. McKnight, Kacmar, & Choudhury, 2003)that avoidance

of affect (distrust) leads you towards loose prophecies because of the problem of missing and

omitted variable.

To summarize the findings & hypothesis which we have examined, many researchers

have identified various factors that come between employee’s contract breach & their

identification in their working place. I have just given empirical evidences that psychological

contract breach notonly increases your willingness to disidentify but also pushes you towards

confusing state which in turn negatively affects your attitudes and behavior towards your

organization such as reducing your inspiration to contribute further in organization & forces you

to quit from job.

Limitations & Future Research Directions

At the side of many contributions, this study has few limitations that can be covered by

future scholars in order to further expand the literature of psychological contract breach &

organizational identification. First, because of shortage of time this study uses cross sectional

design but as this study uses trust & distrust as mediators, which are most necessary & emotional

elements for maintaining & destroying any stable relationship, so other researchers should use

longitudinal design with 2 or 3 time lags to measure trust & distrust level before & after

experiencing breach so that they can better identify how employee’s trust shatters when their

promised contents are not delivered & what happens with employee’s identification when their

trust level broken because of breach by employer. Second, this study uses sample of doctors

from different cities of Pakistan as this is a global era so results cannot be generalized, this opens

the future avenue for other scholars to select broad sample from multiple organizations like

businesses & NGO’s from different countries or to use it in different context. In this way

findings of their studies will be more reliable, valid & generalize able. Third, we have used

single source (questionnaires) & quantitative method to collect data for this study so there is the

probability of self-report bias. As future is of mixed method, so future researchers should use

mixed method for deep & thorough understanding of different selected phenomena. Forth , future

researchers can take “the role of attributions” as a moderator in this relationship. For example,

reaction of employees can be different or change if the reason for perceived breach is beyond the

employer’s control.Finally, as per the best of my knowledge, this is the first study to empirically

check the mediating role of trust & distrust simultaneously between psychological contract

breach and organizational disidentification, so future researchers must conduct more study in this

phenomenon in order to have clear understanding & more generalization of these findings.

Practical Implications

Practically, our findings will help employers & hospital authorities to understand that

doctors are most important strategic element of every hospital. Having sound financial, physical

& informational capital is incomplete & worthless if there is no “doctor”. Because they have to

deal directly with patients so in this case they are most important and crucial. Doctor’s

performance, satisfaction, good words of mouth, identification & their loyalty with high level of

trust directly on employer & indirectly on hospital all contributes towards organization’s long

term success.

Organizational identification make doctors and other employees realize that because of their

efforts & interest, they are valued in their workplace & in return of that identification, they will

always try to repay it by increasing their positive attitudes, commitment, organization citizenship

behavior, proper treatment & much more as per social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Because,

(Ashforth & Mael, 1989)have already well highlighted in literature that employees feel loyal

towards organizational values, goals & culture if they possess strong organizational

identification. But in any case if they experience breach of their psychological contract, their

member identification in an organization will lose its value, their contribution towards best

interest of hospital decreases & their willingness to identify with their working place declines. In

return they can use negative attitudes & behavior such as bad words of mouth outside the

organization, reduced job satisfaction, turnover intention, and low level of performance and

organizational disidentification. As these things can harm the hospital, so employers should

avoid violating the employee’s/doctor’s psychological contract because this thing can changes

the employee’s “trust” in “distrust” and that distrust, because of having negative nature, may lead

employee’s towards misunderstandings & betrayal feelings. And in the result, employees will be

no more willing to believe on their higher authority.Many times it happens that employees don’t

understand obviously that what that particular promise made by employer at the hiring time

actually mean. There may be some other reasons behind this misunderstanding like cultural

differences, divergent schema & elapsed time. One best way for all employers to avoid the

occurrence of employee’s psychological contract breach is that they must ensure all the promises

(implicit as well as explicit) clearly at the time of recruitment. In this way they can reduce the

probability of psychological contract breach which encompass negative attitudes & behaviors.

REFERENCES

Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness

and turnover? Journal of Management, 32(2), 237-256.

Arain, G. A., Hameed, I., Lacaze, D., & Peretti, J. M. (2011). Integrating Affect With

Psychological Contract Breach (PCB) and Work Attitudes: A Case of Pakistani

University Teachers. Paper presented at the The Proceedings of the 10th European

Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

management review, 14(1), 20-39.

Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust (Vol. 96): Rutgers University Press New

Brunswick, NJ.

Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee job

change and job satisfaction: the honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of applied

psychology, 90(5), 882.

Carr, J. C., Pearson, A. W., Vest, M. J., & Boyar, S. L. (2006). Prior occupational experience,

anticipatory socialization, and employee retention. Journal of Management, 32(3), 343-

359.

Cassar, V., & Briner, R. B. (2011). The relationship between psychological contract breach and

organizational commitment: Exchange imbalance as a moderator of the mediating role of

violation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 283-289.

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psychological contract breach: a dual

perspective. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29, 527-548.

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psychological contract breach: A dual

perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 527-548.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining the

justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty

reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1.

Conchie, S. M., Taylor, P. J., & Charlton, A. (2011). Trust and distrust in safety leadership:

mirror reflections? Safety science, 49(8), 1208-1214.

Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical

evaluation of theory and research: Oxford University Press.

Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept

orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 516-538.

Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2006). Toward a better understanding of

psychological contract breach: a study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91(1), 166.

Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2006). Toward a better understanding of

psychological contract breach: a study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 166–175.

Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of conflict resolution, 265-279.

Dimoka, A. (2010). What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a

functional neuroimaging study. Mis Quarterly, 34(2), 373-396.

Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Henderson, D. J., & Wayne, S. J. (2008). Not all responses to

breach are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract

processes in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1079-1098.

Elsbach, K. D., Stigliani, I., & Stroud, A. (2012). The building of employee distrust: A case

study of Hewlett-Packard from 1995 to 2010. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 254-263.

Epitropaki, O. (2003). TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT

BREACH AND ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION. Paper presented at the Academy

of Management Proceedings.

Epitropaki, O. (2013). A multi‐level investigation of psychological contract breach and

organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership:

Testing a moderated–mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 65-86.

Frost, T., Stimpson, D. V., & Maughan, M. R. (1978). Some correlates of trust. The Journal of

Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied.

Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations.

Ghulam Ali Arain, P. D. D. L., Ph.D Imran Hameed, Ph.D Abdul Karim Khan, Ph.D (2014).

Violation versus Distrust: Assessing Competing Perspectives for Employees'Reactions to

Psychological Contract Breach using Multiple Studies [Manuscript draft]. Review of

managerial science, 32.

Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T. J., Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., & Caner, T. (2011). Exploring

organizational obstruction and the expanded model of organizational identification.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5), 1083-1109.

Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust and the construction of social reality.

Dialogue, 33(02), 237-252.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and

correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for

the next millennium. Journal of management, 26(3), 463-488.

Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2004). Employee well-being and the psychological contract: A report

for the CIPD: CIPD Publishing.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: a global

perspective: Pearson Education.

Hameed, I., Roques, O., & Arain, G. A. (2013). Nonlinear moderating effect of tenure on

organizational identification (OID) and the subsequent role of OID in fostering readiness

for change. Group & Organization Management, 1059601112472727.

Humphrey, A. (2012). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors:

The Role of Organizational Identification. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15(4),

247-268.

Jensen, J. M., Opland, R. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2010). Psychological Contracts and

Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Employee Responses to Transactional and

Relational Breach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 555–568.

Kissler, G. D. (1994). The new employment contract. Human resource management, 33(3), 335-

352.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring

questions. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 569-598.

Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational

identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1-27.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and

realities. Academy of management Review, 23(3), 438-458.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985.

Li, Y., Ahlstrom, D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). A multilevel model of affect and

organizational commitment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2), 193-213.

Lindzey, G., Gilbert, D., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2):

Oxford University Press.

Lo, S., & Aryee, S. (2003). Psychological contract breach in a Chinese context: An integrative

approach. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 1005-1020.

Luhmann, N., Davis, H., Raffan, J., & Rooney, K. (1979). Trust; and, Power: two works by

Niklas Luhmann: Wiley Chichester.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the

reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational Behavior,

13(2), 103-123.

Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate

framework representing the employee–organization relationship. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 473-490.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-59.

McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2000). What is trust? A conceptual analysis and an

interdisciplinary model.

McKnight, D. H., & Choudhury, V. (2006). Distrust and trust in B2C e-commerce: Do they

differ? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th international conference on

Electronic commerce: The new e-commerce: innovations for conquering current barriers,

obstacles and limitations to conducting successful business on the internet.

McKnight, H., Kacmar, C., & Choudhury, V. (2003). Whoops... did I use the wrong concept to

predict e-commerce trust? modeling the risk-related effects of trust versus distrust

concepts. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Annual

Hawaii International Conference on.

Mignonac, K., & Herrbach, O. (2004). Linking work events, affective states, and attitudes: An

empirical study of managers' emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(2), 221-

240.

Montes, S. D., & Irving, P. G. (2008). Disentangling the effects of promised and delivered

inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the mediating role of

trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1367.

Montes, S. D., & Zweig, D. (2009). Do promises matter? An exploration of the role of promises

in psychological contract breach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1243-1260.

Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how

psychological contract violation develops. Academy of management Review, 22(1), 226-

256.

North, E., & De Vos, R. (2002). The use of conjoint analysis to determine consumer buying

preferences: a literature review. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences=

Tydskrif vir Gesinsekologie en Verbruikerswetenskappe, 30, p. 32-39.

Omodei, M. M., & McLennan, J. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring global interpersonal

mistrust-trust. The journal of social psychology, 140(3), 279-294.

Pallant, J. (2007). A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 15. Open University

Press, Maidenhead.

Parzefall, M.-R., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. (2011). Making sense of psychological contract breach.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(1), 12-27.

Pennings, J. M., & Woiceshyn, J. (1987). A typology of organizational control and its metaphors.

Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 75-104.

Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Raja, U., & Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role

performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. human relations.

Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts.

Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 350-367.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 49(1), 95.

Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., Tang, R. L., & Krebs, S. A. (2010). Investigating the Moderating

Effects of Leader–Member Exchange in the Psychological Contract Breach–Employee

Performance Relationship. A Test of Two Competing Perspectives. British Journal of

Management, 21, 422–437.

Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of Psychological

Contract Breach on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Insights from the Group Value

Model. Journal of Management Studies, 1377–1400.

Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of psychological

contract breach on organizational citizenship behaviour: Insights from the group value

model. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1377-1400.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative science

quarterly, 574-599.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of

unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of organizational behavior,

16(3), 289-298.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach

and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 525-546.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the

exception but the norm. Journal of organizational behavior, 15(3), 245-259.

Rosen, C. C., Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R. E., & Levy, P. E. (2009). Perceptions of the

organizational context and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing

perspectives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 202-217.

Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American psychologist,

35(1), 1.

Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements: Sage Publications.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A

cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational

trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management review, 32(2), 344-354.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework

in the employment relationship. Trends in organizational behavior, 1(91), 91-109.

Suazo, M. M. (2009). The mediating role of psychological contract violation on the relations

between psychological contract breach and work-related attitudes and behaviors. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 24(2), 136-160.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. Using

multivariate statistics, 3, 402-407.

Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships

among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of

contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 146-157.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re‐examining the effects of psychological contract

violations: unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of

organizational behavior, 21(1), 25-42.

Wei, F., & Si, S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors:

The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal

of Management, 30(1), 281-296.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the

structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work.

Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. (2009). Supervisory procedural justice effects: The

mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 143-

154.

Young, L. (2006). Trust: looking forward and back. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,

21(7), 439-445.

Young, L., & Daniel, K. (2003). Affectual trust in the workplace. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 14(1), 139-155.

Zagenczyk, T. J., Cruz, K. S., Woodard, A. M., Walker, J. C., Few, W. T., Kiazad, K., & Raja,

M. (2013). The Moderating Effect of Machiavellianism on the Psychological Contract

Breach–Organizational Identification/Disidentification Relationships. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 28(3), 287-299.

Zagenczyk, T. J., Gibney, R., Few, W. T., & Scott, K. L. (2011). Psychological contracts and

organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support.

Journal of Labor Research, 32(3), 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,

64–70.

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(3),

647-680.

Figure 1: Proposed research model

Tables

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

MEA

N

SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. gender

2. age

3. qualificatio

n

1.34 0.47

3.75 0.78 -.04

2.36 0.56 -.18* .10

1.81 0.38 -.13* .32** -.02

ORGANIZATION DISIDENTIFICATI

ON

TRUST

DISTRUS

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT

BREACH

4. status

5. Hospital

6. DT

7. PCB

8. TR

9. ODID

1.55 0.49 .05 .07 .02 .07

2.43 1.75 .05 -.08 -.11 -.01 .08

2.54 1.16 -.00 -.06 .02 -.08 -.01 .30**

3.58 0.99 -.16* .06 .14* .07 .05 -.38** -.03

2.30 1.18 -.05 -.18** -.08 .07 .06 .50** .21** -.21**

** = p<0.01 level, * = p<0.05 level, PCB = Psychological Contract Breach, TR = Trust, DT = Distrust, ODID = Organizational

Disidentification

Table 2Reliability and Validity

Variable CR AVE MSV ASV

PCB .82 .53 .12 .06

TR .85 .50 .23 .10

DT .79 .50 .43 .26

ODID .80 .57 .43 .19

CR= Composite Reliability, AVE= Average Variance Extracted, MSV= Maximum Shared Squared Variance, ASV= Average Shared Squared Variance, PCB = Psychological Contract Breach, TR = Trust, DT = Distrust, ODID = Organizational Disidentification

Table 3

Results for Testing Main Effect of Psychological Contract Breach onOrganizational

Disidentification and Multiple Mediation Analysis (with 5000 bootstrap sample)

Organizational DisidentificationBC 95% CI

P.E S.E Lower Upper p R2

Controls

Age -.35 .09 -.54 -.16 .00 .16

Status .50 .19 .11 .85 .00

PCB

Total effects .253 .087 .089 .429 .004 .41

Direct Effects .038 .073 -.103 .187 .540

Indirect Effects .215 .061 .105 .346 .000

Via Trust .003 .009 -.007 .033 .390

Via Distrust .212 .061 .105 .347 .000

BC = Biased Corrected; CI = Confidence Intervals (for 5000 bootstrap samples); P.E = Point of Estimate; S.E = Standard Error;

PCB = Psychological Contract Breach

iobm.eventsiobm.events/icobm/researchpapers/5-ICoBM-061.docx · Web viewiobm.events

Documents

Transcript of iobm.eventsiobm.events/icobm/researchpapers/5-ICoBM-061.docx · Web viewiobm.events