The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ve of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

Psychological
The impact of psychological contract
contract violation on employee violation

attitudes and behaviour 557

Judy Pate
University of Abertay Dundee, Dundee, UK Received June 2003
Revised July 2003
Graeme Martin Accepted July 2003
Edinburgh Business School, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, and
Jim McGoldrick
University of Abertay Dundee, Dundee, UK

Keywords Psychological contracts, Employees attitudes, Employees behaviour, Case studies

Abstract Psychological contract violation has gained the attention of both practitioners and
academics in recent years. Critical commentaries have questioned whether breaching such a
contract has implications for employee attitude and behaviour, and ultimately organisational
performance. This paper addresses the question “To what extent does psychological contract
breach impact on employee attitude and behaviour?”. The study is based on an industrial textiles
company and draws on quantitative and qualitative data. The findings suggested that triggers of
violation impinged on employee attitudes but not on behaviour, trends substantiated by analysis of
the organisation’s absenteeism records. The qualitative data helped explain this trend and have
highlighted two contextual issues. The first of these is labour market conditions and perceptions of
job insecurity and second of these is a sense of collegiality and pride in the job.

Introduction
With the current turbulent business environment, arguably the traditional
psychological contract, long-term job security in return for hard work and
loyalty, has come under pressure (Sims, 1994). The psychological contract has
been used to analyse the changing employment relationship and has been
defined as “an individuals’ beliefs regarding the terms and conditions of a
reciprocal exchange agreement . . . key issues here include the belief that a
promise is been made and a consideration offered in exchange for it” (Rousseau,
1989, p. 125). In an uncertain context, organisational changes often make it
unclear as to what both parties, the employee and employer, actually owe each
other, thus making fulfilling obligations more difficult (McLean Parks and
Kidder, 1994). As a result there is an increased likelihood of misinterpretation
and violation of the psychological contract (Robinson, 1996; Braun, 1997). Prior
research indicates that psychological contract breach is relatively common
(Robinson and Rousseau, 1994) and content analysis has shown that violation Employee Relations
Vol. 25 No. 6, 2003
frequently relates to training and development, compensation and promotion pp. 557-573
(Robinson and Rousseau, 1994) where employees feel that the organisation has q MCB UP Limited
0142-5455
reneged on its promises. DOI 10.1108/01425450310501306
ER The psychological contract literature is dominated by the process of contract
25,6 formation (Rousseau and Greller, 1994; McFarlane Shore and Tetrick, 1994) and
there is little attention given to the violation of such a contract (Morrison and
Robinson, 1997). Three themes have emerged in the psychological contract
violation that does exist:
558 (1) the frequency to which breach and violation occurs (Robinson and
Rousseau, 1994);
(2) the process by which violation occurs (Morrison and Robinson, 1997;
Andersson, 1996); and
(3) the effects of violation (Braun, 1997; Robinson and Morrison, 1995).
This paper contributes to the third category. The majority of this literature
provides evidence of changes to the employee and employer relationship at the
attitudinal level but there is little evidence of behavioural outcomes.
Furthermore, the field has been criticised for a lack of empirical work (Guest
et al., 1996, 1998; Arnold, 1996; Rousseau, 1995); this paper goes some way to
address this problem.
A strength of the psychological contract construct is that it has high face
validity with employers and employees (Anderson and Schalk, 1998); however,
there is a danger that the term becomes merely meaningless rhetoric rather
than an analytical construct (Arnold, 1996; Guest, 1998). Furthermore, critical
commentaries ask to what extent does psychological contract violation lead to
tangible changes in employee attitude and behaviour, and ultimately
organisational performance. The aim of the paper is to address the “So
what?” question by exploring “To what extent does psychological contract
violation impact on both attitude and behaviour?”

Literature review
Defining psychological contract violation
Psychological contract violation has been defined as a failure of the
organisation to fulfil one or more obligations of an individual’s psychological
contract (Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Robinson and Rousseau, 1994).
Morrison and Robinson (1997), however, have argued that this definition
focuses on the rational, mental calculation of what individuals have or have not
received and downplays the emotional aspect of violation. As such they make
the distinction between psychological contract breach and violation. Morrison
and Robinson (1997, p. 230) have referred to perceived breach as “the cognition
that one’s organization has failed to meet one or more obligations within one’s
psychological contract”. Therefore breach is essentially the identification of
perceived unmet obligations; consequently it may be relatively short-term
phenomenon and may result in individuals returning to their relatively “stable”
psychological contract state, or alternatively it may develop into full violation.
 Violation however, is an “emotional and affective state that may follow from Psychological
the belief that one’s organization has failed to adequately maintain the contract
psychological contract” (Morrison and Robinson, 1997, p. 230). Contract violation
violation is more than the failure of the organisation to meet expectations;
responses are more intense because respect and codes of conduct are called into
question because essentially a “promise” has been broken and it is more
personalised (Rousseau, 1989).
559
Psychological contract violation has been described as multi-faceted
(Morrison and Robinson, 1997) because it incorporates a wide range of
responses. At one level, violation invokes responses of disappointment,
frustration and distress (Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Pate and Malone, 2000).
More extreme emotional responses include anger, resentment, bitterness and
indignation (Rousseau, 1989; Pate and Malone, 2000). Violation has also been
associated with behavioural outcomes such as lower organisational citizenship,
reduced commitment, satisfaction and trust while cynicism increases
(Robinson and Rousseau, 1994; Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Robinson,
1996; Herriot et al., 1998; Pate et al., 2000). As a result when an individual’s
psychological contract is violated the relationship becomes more calculated and
transactional, but how far it moves along the continuum is dependent on the
strength of the perceived violation (McLean Parks and Kidder, 1994; Pate and
Malone, 2000).

Psychological contract violation model

The literature suggests that psychological contract violation occurs where
there is “contract outcome discrepancy” (Rousseau, 1995) or “reneging on
promises” (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). However, the cognitive mechanism
by which this occurs is not explained in the literature. The organisational
justice literature provides a mechanism to explain different causes of
psychological contract violation, as outlined by Andersson (1996) in her study
of cynicism. Organisational justice concerns how perceptions of fairness impact
on behaviour in organisations” (Novelli et al., 1995, p. 22). Three aspects of
organisational justice have been presented in the literature (see Figure 1) and

Figure 1.
Psychological contract
violation model
ER are defined more fully in the next section. Thus the model, outlined below,
25,6 seeks to assess the extent to which organisational justice issues are a
“necessary and sufficient condition” for changes in attitudinal and behavioural
outcomes of the psychological contract.

560 Triggers of contract breach leading to psychological contract violation

Triggers of psychological breach may be rooted in an organisation’s inability
to meet obligations regarding distributive, procedural and interactional aspects
of justice (Andersson, 1996). Distributive violation occurs when outcomes are
perceived to be unfairly distributed for example, financial rewards. Procedural
violation refers to the perception of the unfair application of procedures, such
as promotion. Finally, interactional violation is linked to employees’ perception
of trust of superiors and the organisation as a whole and occurs if employees
feel they have been treated badly. Such notions of fairness trigger assessment
of the psychological contract.

Outcomes of psychological contract violation

Psychological contract violation may result in a number of attitudinal or
behavioural responses (Guest et al., 1996). Attitudinal responses include
reduced organisational commitment, job satisfaction and increased cynicism
(Robinson and Morrison, 1995). In addition, individuals may become more
cynical. Employee cynicism has been defined as a negative attitude and
involves a belief that their organisation lacks integrity, negative emotions
towards the organisation and a tendency for employees towards critical
behaviour of their organisation (Dean et al., 1998; Pate et al., 2000). The targets
of such cynicism are usually senior executives, the organisation in general and
corporate policies. Relationship rupture may also engender behavioural
changes, in reduced effort and citizenship. Therefore breaking the
psychological contract may have implications for employee and
organisational performance.
The connection between attitude and behaviour has long since been
recognised by the planned behaviour school of thought (Conner and Armitage,
1978; Conner and Sparks, 1996) and is epitomised by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
theory. The planned approach ascertains that attitude to a significant extent
can predict behaviour. Therefore it follows that violation of an individual’s
psychological contract will result in a number of behaviour changes such as
absenteeism and withdrawal of citizenship, as outlined by Guest et al. (1996)
and Guest and Conway (1997, 1998). Additionally, Nicholson and Johns’ (1985)
study applied the psychological contract to absenteeism at work. They
suggested, “the psychological contract emerges from interaction and
communication, effectively dictating how culture is acted out” (Nicholson
and Johns, 1985, p. 398). Therefore it is “the psychological mechanism by which
collective influence is translated into individual behaviour” (Nicholson and
Johns, 1985, p. 398) and thereby stresses the impact of attitude on behaviour Psychological
although this was not empirically tested. contract
This brief review of the literature has led the writer to three hypotheses: violation
H1. Triggers of psychological contract violation will result in a change in
employee attitude, such as lower job satisfaction and organisational
commitment. 561
H2. Triggers of psychological contract violation will result in a change in
employee behaviour, for example reduced effort and withdrawal of
citizenship.
H3. Psychological contract violation will result in increased absenteeism.

Methodology
The case study
The research on which this article is based derives from a single case study,
and relates to a medium-sized industrial textile company employing
approximately 600 people in 2000. The company was located in a small rural
town in Britain, where it has four separate sites in the locality specialising in
various aspects of the product range. The company has been in operation for
over 200 years, with the product line changing over the years, current
commodities include industrial yarns, floor-coverings, industrial textiles and
geo-textiles. For many of their products the company had gained a good
reputation, and were market leaders in telecommunication cable identification
tapes, across Europe, the Middle East and Australasia.
Between 1986 and 1999 the company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of a
multinational oil industry organisation producing polypropylene products
which enabled it to take advantage of the technical resources within the
holding company to promote further product development. The organisation
has been seen as a good employer with some progressive human resource (HR)
policies, and has enjoyed a relatively high degree of organisational
commitment from its employees. However the period 1996-2000 was
characterised by ongoing change due to both shareholder and market
pressures. As a result the company reduced the workforce from 660 in 1996 to
600 in 1999 with further redundancies expected in 2001. This action had a
predictable “knock on” effect on employee perceptions of job security. At the
same time the company’s directors had attempted to create a new
organisational culture based on customer service, flexibility and good HR
management. These changes were accompanied by an increased effort and
expenditure in specific areas of training such as safety, continuous
improvement, healthcare and team working.
In November 1996, just prior to the research beginning, employees were told
of new plans to reorganise its production facilities by locating two of the older
sites close by the two newer sites. This relocation would create one large
ER “greenfield” site that was to allow the company to rationalise it organisational
25,6 structure and to “downsize” employment levels to about 500 people. The
downsizing had been expected to take two years and to involve mainly
voluntary redundancies and early retirements, as envisioned by the company.
From the company’s perspective this reduction would not have been
particularly traumatic; nor would it have been a costly exercise, given the
562 ageing profile of the manual workforce in three out of the four sites. The
workforces’ general response to these announcements was mistrust and job
insecurity was heightened.
The period 1997-1999 witnessed a difficult time for the company. Over
50 per cent of production was exported and profits were significantly
down, the consequence of the stronger pound and market maturity.
Difficulties were compounded by quality problems and the loss of major
customers. The company responded to this problem in two ways. First,
consultants were employed to address cost, productivity, development and
margin issues. Such aims were achieved through a number of small
projects each with specific aims, targets and deadlines. The second
approach to improve employee training. In the past employees had gone
through the same basic training programme, but it was considered that a
more focused approach to training was required, again highlighting the
importance of the HR development function.
In 1998 the oil industry experienced difficult circumstances and the holding
company adapted a strategy of selling off downstream companies, the
company under discussion being placed on the market. At first a potential
management buyout was envisaged, but this option became unviable. In
October 1999, 80 per cent of the company’s shares were bought by a Greek
family-owned company, the remaining 20 per cent retained by the holding
company for the short term. The uncertainty associated with the sale of the
company had implications for perceptions of job security and morale.
The new millennium brought significant change. As the year 2000
progressed there was direct intervention from the new majority owners, with
increased emphasis on growth and profitability and a decision to relocate
operations to the single greenfield site. Strains were anticipated by managers,
and many employees were anxious about moving to a new site and the tensions
relating to pay levels, these feelings were heightened given the delay in
completion of the building. The questionnaires for the authors’ survey
conducted in 2000 were distributed to employees two months before the
relocation.

Data collection
An important contribution of this study to the literature is its longitudinality
(over three years) and this offers a unique insight into changes to the
psychological contract. The research design has adopted a mixed methodology
approach (Creswell, 1994) involving both quantitative and qualitative Psychological
methodologies. There were three parts to data collection: quantitative contract
attitude survey; the analysis of absenteeism data; and interviews. The violation
purpose of the attitude survey was to test statistically the relationship between
organisational justice and psychological contract violation outcomes, as
discussed in the review above. It was conducted in 2000 using a stratified
random sample (structured to reflect the proportion of employees within each
563
site). The survey questionnaires were posted to employees’ home addresses
along with a pre-paid return envelope, and the response rate was high at 52 per
cent (Miller, 1991). To “test” the model a number of statistical techniques were
used: factor analysis, stepwise regression and correlation, thereby assessing
the extent to which the “causes” triggered the “outcomes”.
The absenteeism trends of individual sites were analysed to ascertain if
psychological contract violation had impinged on employee behaviour. In order
to achieve this objective, absenteeism trends were plotted and potential
psychological contract violation events (as defined through qualitative data)
were superimposed on these graphs. The software package Change Point was
then used to ascertain if there had been statistically significant changes in the
rate of absentee levels, and compared to the psychological contract violation
events.
The aim of the qualitative phase was to explore the association between
psychological contract violation and changes in employee attitude and
behaviour further and examine the role of context (Baszanger and Dodier,
1997). Throughout 1999 and 2000 50 interviews were held with a stratified
random sample, again stratified by site, each lasting between three-quarters of
an hour and an hour and a half.

Measures
The focus of this paper as stated already, is to examine the implications of
breaching and violating the psychological contract. Key organisational justice
triggers of psychological contract breach and violation, as outlined by
Andersson (1996) were selected, namely, distributive, procedural and
interactional justice. Further, key attitudinal outcomes and behavioural
outcomes – organisational commitment and job satisfaction, increased
cynicism, organisational citizenship, effort (Guest and Conway, 1998) were
selected to indicate the impact of contextual changes.
Quantitative measures. Three quantitative measures for organisational
justice were adopted. Distributive justice was measured with the Distributive
Justice Index, developed by Price and Mueller (1986). This scale measured the
degree to which employees perceived the extent to which rewards were
equitably distributed amongst them. Procedural justice refers to the degree to
which employees perceive rules and procedures to be fair, and was measured
using a scale developed by Moorman (1991). Interactional justice was measured
ER using an index created by Moorman (1991), and refers to the extent to which
25,6 employees felt they were fairly treated by others in the organisation.
Quantitative measures of attitudinal and behavioural outcomes. Three
measures were also used for attitudinal and behavioural outcomes.
Organisational commitment was measured using an index developed by
Price and Mueller (1986). Respondents were asked the extent to which they
564 agreed with evaluative statements in order to provide a measure of job
satisfaction drawing on a scale developed by Cammann et al. (1983).
Organisational citizenship was measured by adopting Reichers et al.’s (1997)
scale. Behavioural outcomes of psychological contract violation was
determined by make use of Guest and Conway (1997) measures.

Results
The Results section is divided into three parts: the first outlines the statistical
results of the psychological contract model, delineated in the literature review.
The second draws on the organisation’s absentee data to ascertain the extent to
which psychological contract violation impacts on absenteeism. Part three
presents qualitative data, aiming to explore the connection between
psychological contract violation and employee behaviour further.

Quantitative results
The psychological contract, as shown in Figure 1 is divided into triggers and
outcomes: triggers relate to organisational justice issues, and outcomes include
both attitudinal and behavioural categories. Statistical analysis was
undertaken to “predict” the relationship between causes and outcomes;
however, “prediction” is used in a loose sense as statistically significant
associations are reported.
The model illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, shows the results from the
calculations; the arrows indicate the significant associations. The figure refers
to the correlation between the two variables and whether the relationship is
positive or negative. The asterisks indicate the degree of statistical significance
(* p ,0.05, ** p , 0.01, *** p , 0.001).

Attitudinal outcomes
Figure 2 presents the statistically significant associations between triggers and
attitudinal outcomes of psychological contract violation. The diagram
illustrates that job satisfaction is strongly associated with distributive and
procedural justice suggesting that enjoyment of work is in part caused by
equitable outcomes and fair procedures. Of the five factors identified by factor
analysis of organisational commitment, only two of the factors were explained
by any of the justice issues; affective commitment was explained by
distributive justice and employees relationship with management, whereas
loyalty was explained by procedural justice. Therefore an employee’s loyalty
and emotional association with the organisation is dependent both on fair
 Psychological
contract
violation

565

Figure 2.
A diagram illustrating
the relationship between
organisational justice
and attitudinal
psychological contract
violation outcomes

procedures and tangible outcomes and also the nature of the relationship with
senior members of staff. Cynicism was explained by procedural justice and
relationship with co-workers.

Behavioural outcomes
Figure 3 presents statistical associations between organisational justice and
behavioural outcomes. The results indicated that citizenship was explained by
the level of employee autonomy. Surprisingly effort was not triggered by any of
the justice issues.
The results relating to attitudinal and behavioural outcomes were calculated
at a 5 per cent significance level. Due to the lack of links between triggers and
outcomes, particularly in the case of commitment and effort, the results were
also recalculated to a 10 per cent significance level. However, the results did not
change. There were no factors that were significant at the 10 per cent level.

Absenteeism data
The aim of this section is to examine the link between key events in the
organisation and absenteeism levels within each site. The absenteeism trends
ER
25,6

566

Figure 3.
A diagram illustrating
the relationship between
organisational justice
and behavioural
psychological contract
violation outcomes

of individual sites were analysed to ascertain if psychological contract violation

had impinged on absenteeism. In order to achieve this objective, absenteeism
trends were plotted and potential psychological contract violation events (as
defined through qualitative data) were superimposed on these graphs. The
software package Change Point was then used to ascertain if there had been
statistically significant changes in the rate of absentee levels and compared to
the psychological contract violation events.
The aim of the following part is to examine the link between key events in
the organisation and absenteeism levels within each site. Table I outlines key
events in the organisation between 1997-1999.
Figures 4 and 5 present absenteeism trends for each site. The letter
associated with each event is plotted on the absenteeism graphs shown in
Figures 4 and 5.
It is evident from Figure 4 that absenteeism at Claypotts rates fluctuate over
time. However, there appears to be no real correlation between psychological
contract violation events and changes in absenteeism. This was confirmed
through the control charts, which found that there were no statistically
 Psychological
Letter Date Event
contract
A January 1997 Re-organisation of the two weaving factories and new manager violation
in Claypotts
B February 1997 New senior management (Newark)
C May 1997 Redundancies (compulsory and voluntary)
D November 1997 New senior management (Newark) 567
E June 1998 Start of the Dallas project (new computer system)
F July 1998 Announcement that the two weaving factories have been sold,
the building of the greenfield site continues
G September 1998 New management (Newark)
H November 1998 Company was put on the market Table I.
I August 1999 Offer was made for the company Key events in the case
J November 1999 Confirmation of purchase of the company study organisation
K November 1999 Dallas project goes “live” (new computer system) between 1997 and 2000

Figure 4.
A graph illustrating the
absenteeism trends in
Claypotts

significant changes in the percentage of lost hours at a 90 per cent confidence

level.
Figure 5 shows that in spite of fluctuations in absenteeism changing over
time, there appears as for the Claypotts site, to be no correlation between
psychological contract violation events and changes in absenteeism. However,
with analysis of the control chart there appears to be high absenteeism rates in
November 1998, as shown in Figure 6.
In November 1998, the point at which the company was put up for sale. One
possible explanation is that this development was seen as a breach of the
psychological contract.
ER
25,6

568

Figure 5.
A graph illustrating the
absenteeism trends in
Newark

Figure 6.
Absenteeism rates for
Newark

The quantitative results suggested that psychological contract violation

invokes adjust in employee’s attitude towards the organisation but it does not
necessarily follow that behaviour will change. Qualitative data were used to
examine this trend further.

Qualitative data
The quantitative results have suggested that psychological contract violation
invokes adjustment in employee attitudes towards the organisation, but not
necessarily behavioural change. As stated above, the question of links between
psychological contract violation and employee behaviour was examined
through qualitative data, derived from interviews conducted with all levels of
the organisation. Two key contextual issues would appear to be of relevance. Psychological
The first concerned job security and labour market conditions; the second, an contract
individual’s pride in their job and collegiate culture. violation
Macro contextual factors such as a tight labour market combined with micro
contextual factors, for example the sale of the company, heightened perceptions
of job insecurity. One employee summed up the feeling of many:
569
Thirty years ago you wouldn’t have dreamt of loosing your job, it’s a thing you very rarely
heard about but now it’s a daily thing; if it gets past 10.30 in the morning you know you’ve
got a job tomorrow.
These feelings of insecurity were exacerbated by perceptions of procedural
injustice and low trust derived from redundancy episodes. One employee
commented:
The last maintenance manager had been here 25 years and was a company man, loyal to the
company; he got paid off just there and then . . . that has enlightened me to the company and
opened my eyes to the company.
These comments highlight changes in employee attitude to the organisation
with heightened job insecurity and questioning of managers’ actions, all
resulting in the erosion of trust. However, given the state of the local labour
market and the lack of alternative job prospects these feelings did not impinge
on their performance.
The relationship between psychological contract and changes in behaviour
was further blurred by employee’s sense of pride in their job. A typical view
was:
There are parts (or tasks) I like to fulfil in the week, sometimes you’ve got to go that bitty
harder to get them done. I want to get them done, it’s pride in your job.
These feelings of job satisfaction were accompanied by a collegiate culture and
“not letting others down”. One employee summed up the feelings of his
colleagues:
If we leave work for the next shift it means the next shift not only have their own work but
they’ve got to do what ever you have left them for them as well. So in order not to leave things
for the next shift you go harder and push it.
Therefore employee effort or performance was also maintained due to strong
team and collegiate bonds. The qualitative data provided further insight into
the complex connection between psychological contract violation and
adjustment in employee behaviour. The data suggested that the link is
complex due to the interplay of macro and micro context.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which psychological
contract violation invoked changes to employee attitude and behaviour. The
model outlined causes of violation, which were distributive, procedural and
ER interactional justice issues, while outcomes were divided into attitudinal and
25,6 behavioural issues, and was illustrated in Figure 1. In terms of organisational
justice’s impact on attitudinal outcomes, the statistical results indicated, first,
that distributive justice triggered job satisfaction and affective commitment;
second, that procedural justice was linked with job satisfaction, loyalty and
cynicism; and third, that interactional justice was associated with cynicism and
570 affective commitment. Organisational justice issues triggered fewer
behavioural outcomes; autonomy (an interactional feature) was connected to
citizenship.

Attitudinal outcomes
The statistical results established that distributive justice was linked with job
satisfaction and may be explained by equity theory (Adams, 1965), which can
be summarised by the term a “fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work”. Essentially
if an organisation gives tangible recognition to employee achievement through
earnings, it follows that the individual would be more satisfied with their job.
Distributive justice was also connected with affective commitment, indicating
that a fair distribution of resources results in increased affinity with the
organisation. To a degree this concurs with Millward and Brewerton’s (1999)
thesis, which suggested that transactional aspects of the psychological contract
must be fulfilled before relational issues can be addressed. The results of this
study perhaps take this concept a stage further arguing that a fair distribution
of transactional aspects actually drives relational characteristics due to the
cause and effect association.
It was evident from the year 2000 questionnaire results that procedural
justice was statistically linked to job satisfaction. It follows that if there is
perceived equity in the decision making process, frustration is minimised
thereby job satisfaction is enhanced. Procedural justice was also associated
with loyalty; it can be argued that the predictability of procedures enhances the
sense of even-handedness and to an extent trust and loyalty. Equally,
procedural justice was also connected with cynicism, and as a result when there
is a lack of fairness and equity then employees were prone to become more
sceptical.
In terms of interactional justice, the relationship with co-workers was linked
with cynicism. An explanation is that interactional justice stresses the idea of
culture and sub culture indicating that interaction with others and the influence
of group norms invokes cynicism. The relationship with management was
linked with affective commitment, underlining that the notion of personal trust
and the importance of management visibility may inspire increased
organisational commitment.

Behavioural outcomes
The statistical results indicated that there was only one significant association
between organisational justice and psychological behavioural outcomes, this
being that the level of employee’s autonomy (a dimension of interactional Psychological
justice) was linked with organisational citizenship. It follows that the greater contract
the level of responsibility the more inclined employees are to work beyond the violation
written contract, a trend which is congruent with HR literature on
empowerment (Beardwell and Holden, 1999).
The findings did not point to any other statistically significant correlations
that linked aspects of justice to behavioural outcomes. Furthermore, the
571
absentee figures suggested that levels of absenteeism vary both through time
and between sites. However, there does not appear to be a clear trend between
absentee levels and potential psychological contract events, which is
incongruent with Nicolson and John (1985) thesis. The tenuous link may be a
result of methodological issues such as the time lag between cause and effect.
Another methodological issue is that there are many causes of absenteeism;
consequently it is difficult to isolate one factor.
The interview data shed some light on the poor correlation between
psychological contract violation and changes in behaviour. It was evident from
the qualitative findings that contextual factors are key to understanding the
psychological contract. First, a possible reason for the lack of correlation is the
power disparity between the employer and employee. In times of high job
insecurity, employees may be less inclined to display negative behavioural
outcomes of psychological contract violation due to fear of redundancy. Second,
the findings would suggest that the association between attitude and behaviour
is more complicated than the planned behaviour school would suggest.
Employees indicated that the level of effort put into their job was based on
pride in their job and a sense of “not letting your colleagues down”. Thus
although employee’s at times had negative feelings towards the employer, this
did not impinge on the job. It follows that employees view the “job” and the
“organisation” as distinct entities and therefore psychological contract
violation need not necessarily result in “organisational misbehaviour”. The
importance of context was evidence from the findings of this study, a factor
that has been downplayed in psychological contract studies to date.

References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Injustice in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimential Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Tavistock, New York, NY, pp. 267-99.
Anderson, N. and Schalk, R. (1998), “The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 637-48.
Andersson, L.M. (1996), “Employee cynicism: an examination using a contract violation
framework”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 11, pp. 1395-418.
Arnold, J. (1996), “The psychological contract: a concept in need of closer scrutiny?”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 511-20.
Beardwell, I. and Holden, C. (1999), Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Perspective,
3rd ed., Pitman, London.
ER Baszanger, I. and Dodier, N. (1997), “Ethnography: relating the part to the whole”, in Silverman, D.
(Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, Sage, London.
25,6
Braun, C. (1997), “Organizational infidelity: how violations of trust affect the employee-employer
relationship”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 94-6.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1983), “Assessing the attitudes and
perception of organizational members”, in Seashore, S., Lawler, E., Mirvis, P. and
572 Cammann, C. (Eds), Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures and
Practices, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Conner, M. and Armitage, C.J. (1978), “Extending the theory of planned behaviour: a review and
avenues for further research”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 6,
pp. 1430-64.
Conner, M. and Sparks, P. (1996), “The theory of planned behaviours”, in Conner, M. and
Norman, P. (Eds), Predicting Health Behaviour, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Creswell, J.W. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Dean, J.W., Brandes, P. and Dharwadkar, R. (1998), “Organizational cynicism”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 341-53.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Guest, D. (1998), “Is the ‘psychological contract’ worth taking seriously?”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 649-64.
Guest, D. and Conway, N. (1997), Employee Motivation and the Psychological Contract, Issues in
People, No. 21, Sage, Wimbledon.
Guest, D. and Conway, N. (1997), Fairness at Work and the Psychological Contact, Issues in
People, IPD, Wimbledon.
Guest, D. et al. (1996), The State of the Psychological Contract in Employment, Issues in People,
No. 16, IPD, Wimbledon.
Herriot, P., Hirsh, W. and Reilly, P. (1998), Trust and Transition. Managing Today’s Employment
Relationship, Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
McFarlane Shore, L. and Tetrick, L.E. (1994), “The psychological contract as an explanatory
framework in the employment relationship”, in Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds),
Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, Wiley & Sons, Chicester, pp. 91-110.
McLean Parks, J. and Kidder, D.L. (1994), “Till death do part . . . changing work relationships in
the 1990s”, in Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 1, Wiley & Sons, Chicester, pp. 111-36.
Miller, D.C. (1991), Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 5th ed., Sage, London.
Millward, L.J. and Brewerton, P.M. (1999), “Contractors and their psychological contracts”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 10, pp. 253-74.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 846-55.
Morrison, E. and Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When employees feel betrayed: a model of how
psychological contract violation develops”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 226-56.
Nicholson, N. and Johns, G. (1985), “The absence culture and the psychological contract – who’s
in control of absence”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 397-407.
Novelli, L., Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (1995), “Effective implementation of organizational Psychological
change: an organizational justice perspective”, in Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds),
Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, Wiley & Sons, Chicester, pp. 15-36. contract
Pate, J. and Malone, C. (2000), “Post ‘psychological contract’ violation: the durability and violation
transferability of employee perceptions”, European Journal of Industrial Training, Vol. 24
No. 2/3/4, pp. 158-66.
Pate, J., Martin, G. and Staines, H. (2000), “Mapping the relationship between psychological 573
contracts and organizational change: a process model and some case study evidence”,
Journal of Strategic Change, Vol. 9, pp. 481-93.
Price, J.L. and Mueller, C.W. (1986), Handbook of Organizational Measurement, Pitman,
Marshfield, MA.
Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P. and Austin, J.T. (1997), “Understanding and managing cynicism
about organizational change”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 48-60.
Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 574-99.
Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E. (1995), “Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect of unfilfilled
obligations on civic virtue behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 289-98.
Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Violating the psychological contract: not the
exception but the norm”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 245-59.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 121-39.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations Understanding the Written and
Unwritten Agreements, Sage, London.
Rousseau, D.M. and Greller, M.M. (1994), “Human resource practices: administrative contract
makers”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 385-402.
Sims, R.R. (1994), “Human resource management’s role in clarifying the new psychological
contract”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 373-82.