Mentors, supervisors and role models: do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach?

Mentors, supervisors and role models: do

they reduce the effects of psychological

contract breach?

Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Clemson UniversityRay Gibney, Pennsylvania State University at HarrisburgChristian Kiewitz, University of DaytonSimon Lloyd D. Restubog, The University of New South WalesHuman Resource Management Journal, Vol 19, no 3, 2009, pages 237–259

Psychological contract breach has become a significant problem for manyorganisations in today’s business environment because it fosters a belief withinemployees that the organisation does not support them. Accordingly, we examinewhether organisations can diminish the negative impact of psychological contractbreach on perceived organisational support (POS) by providing employees withmentors, supportive supervisors and role models. In Study 1, we found that mentorrelationships moderated the relationship between psychological contract breach andPOS six months later. In Study 2, we showed that mentor relationships andsupervisor support reduced the negative impact of contract breach on POS.Contrary to expectations, employees who maintained relationships with role modelsreported lower levels of POS in response to psychological contract breach than thoseemployees who reported that they did not have role models in their organisations.Implications for research and practice are discussed.Contact: Thomas J. Zagenczyk, 101 Sirrine Hall, Clemson University,Clemson, SC 29634-1305, USA. Email: [email protected]_097 237..259

INTRODUCTION

At first glance, the employer–employee relationship (EER) seems to be a simpleone in which the employer offers compensation for performance of job duties.Yet employees often perceive that the employer makes promises related to

training, promotions or other factors not explicitly recognised in formal contracts,particularly during recruiting and socialisation periods. These perceived promisesform the basis of psychological contracts, defined as relatively stable mental models thatencapsulate the perceived promises employees believe the organisation has made tothem in exchange for their efforts on behalf of the organisation (Rousseau, 1995).Importantly, when organisations fulfil these psychological contracts, employees tendto have higher levels of organisational commitment and performance (Zhao et al.,2007). In contrast, failure to fulfil psychological contracts – termed psychologicalcontract breach (PCB; Morrison and Robinson, 1997) – usually results in reducedperformance, negative attitudes and withdrawal behaviours (Kiewitz, 2002; Zhaoet al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2008; Restubog et al., 2008). The negative ramifications of PCBhave rendered the topic important for scholars and practitioners alike, especially as

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00097.x

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 237

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

mailto:[email protected]_097

mailto:[email protected]_097

empirical studies show that the majority of UK and US employees report experiencesof breach (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000), with someestimates being as high as 89% (Rousseau, 1995).

The high percentage of perceived PCBs and the associated problems pose aparticular concern for organisations as downsizing, outsourcing and rapid changemake it increasingly difficult for them to fulfil the obligations of employees (e.g.Rousseau, 1995). Because these trends are likely to continue (Rousseau, 1995),avoiding PCB is a difficult and perhaps an impossible task for today’s organisations.Yet organisations need to address this important issue, which naturally raises thequestion of how to do so. We advocate taking a proactive approach to the issue, asthis promises a greater chance to diminish negative consequences in comparison toa passive or reactive approach. To this effect, we suggest that organisations activelyutilise some of the human resource (HR) initiatives that are employed to facilitatenewcomer socialisation and the creation of supportive work environments. Moreprecisely, we posit that employees’ relationships with other key individuals in theorganisation – including mentors, supervisors and role models – may substantiallyweaken the negative effects of PCB. Our rationale is that these third parties mayshape employees’ perceptions of psychological breach by offering explanations forwhy breach occurred or by helping employees cope with it. In order to empiricallytest this notion, we explore whether relationships with mentors, supervisors and rolemodels moderate the negative relationship between employees’ perceptions of PCBand perceived organisational support (POS; i.e. Eisenberger et al., 1986). We explorePOS because research indicates that it influences a host of work-related behaviours,including job performance and turnover (review in Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).In the following sections, we elaborate on these notions and delineate a theoreticalframework that accounts for the potential of mentors, supervisors and role modelsto moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. We then present results fromtwo empirical studies and close with a discussion of theoretical and practicalimplications.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

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

Mentors and contract breach

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009238


and Eisenberger, 2002). Thus, psychological contract theory draws on a specificaspect of the EER (contract fulfilment/breach), while organisational support theoryis concerned with employees’ overall assessment of the quality of the treatment theyreceive from the organisation, regardless of whether or not the organisation hasdelivered on its promises.

While psychological contract and organisational support theories differ in howthey approach the EER, both theories conceptualise the EER as a social exchangerelationship in which employers offer rewards and favourable job conditions inexchange for loyalty and work effort from employees (Aselage and Eisenberger,2003). Furthermore, both conceive of the EER as being governed by the norm ofreciprocity, which obligates individuals to repay others who help them (Gouldner,1960). Accordingly, an employee who is treated well will repay the organisation byhelping it to reach its goals, while negative treatment fosters negative attitudes,emotions and behaviours. Noteworthy in this context is that employeesanthropomorphise the organisation in order to discern its intentions, such thatactions of individuals who represent the organisation are believed to represent theintent of the organisation itself (Levinson, 1965). This phenomenon is relevant fororganisational support theory because benevolent actions by organisational agentsare posited to signal organisational support to employees (Eisenberger et al., 1986).It also has relevance for psychological contract theory because employees are positedto respond favourably when organisational agents fulfil promised obligations(Rousseau, 1995). While employees tend to aggregate treatment from organisationalagents when assessing psychological contract fulfilment and when formulatingperceptions of support, they do differentiate the actions of the organisation itselffrom the actions of supervisors. For instance, empirical research clearly shows thatindividuals distinguish between PCB stemming from the organisation andsupervisors (e.g. Hutchison, 1997; Restubog and Bordia, 2006; Chen et al., 2008) aswell as organisational and supervisor support (Eisenberger et al., 2002) and supportoriginating from supervisors, management and the organisation (Hutchison, 1997).Thus, employees may experience high levels of PCB and have low levels oforganisational support, yet still perceive their supervisors to be supportive.

Building on this literature, we advance the argument that PCB results in negativeoutcomes because it serves as a signal to employees that the organisation does notcare about them or value the contributions that they make. In other words, we arguethat breach diminishes employees’ POS. To support our argument, it is beneficial toelaborate on the interplay between these two constructs. According to Aselage andEisenberger (2003), employees’ initial levels of POS are driven by the perceivedfavourableness of the promises that the organisation has made to them during therecruitment and socialisation process. That is, employees who are offered attractiveemployment packages will likely have higher initial levels of POS. However, thedegree to which the organisation fulfils those promises leads to correspondingincreases or decreases in POS (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). For example, Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler (2000) found support for their argument that employees’ beliefsthat the organisation had fulfilled their psychological contracts would lead to higherlevels of POS (also see Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005; Kiewitz et al., in press).Based on these notions and findings, we contend that employees’ beliefs about the‘true’ intentions of the organisation, as exemplified by the attitudes and behaviours

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



of organisational agents, exert a crucial influence on the PCB–POS relationship,capable of either intensifying or alleviating this association.

While discussion of the relationship between PCB and POS helps us tounderstand why breach is damaging, the main objective of this research is to explorethe ways that organisations can buffer the effects of broken promises on negativeoutcomes. In order to better understand the roles of supervisors, mentors and rolemodels, we need to examine the interaction of individuals within a broader socialnetwork of actors (Emerson, 1976). Rousseau (2001) argues that when information ismissing or unavailable, employees’ co-workers provide information that facilitatesunderstanding of signals from the organisation. Accordingly, we argue that whenemployees perceive a PCB, they will turn to others in the organisation to betterunderstand what has occurred, for an explanation or for support. Ho and Levesque(2005) and Dabos and Rousseau (2004) suggest that social influence exerted byco-workers who are sources of friendship and advice influence employees’ beliefsabout what the organisation is obligated to provide to them and beliefs about theextent to which the organisation fulfils its obligations. In this article, we argue notfor social influence but rather for social support (Cohen and Willis, 1985): thatsupervisors, mentors and role models will help employees to deal with PCB. Theseindividuals will shape employees’ perceptions of PCB by offering explanations forwhy breach occurred or providing support to help them cope with breach.

Mentors may help employees deal with PCB by providing career-related supportand psychosocial support (Kram, 1985). Traditionally, mentoring relationships havebeen defined as relationships in which a senior person working in the protégé’sorganisation helps the protégé develop personally and professionally. Studies haveshown that employees who have mentors have higher salaries, are more likely to bepromoted, tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and are less likely to quit than thosewho do not have mentors (see reviews by Allen et al., 2004; Dougherty and Dreher,2007). Mentors usually help protégés by providing them with career-related andpsychosocial support (Kram, 1985). Career-related support includes the provision ofsponsorship, exposure, visibility, coaching, protection and challenging assignments.Senior employees use their experience and influence within the organisation to helpjunior employees acclimatise to the organisation, attract the attention of others andearn promotions. Psychosocial support includes friendship, acceptance, confirmationand counselling. Such support intends to ‘enhance an individual’s sense ofcompetence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role’ (Kram, 1985: 32).

We expect that both career-related and psychosocial support provided by mentorswill mitigate the negative effects of PCB. Specifically, mentors may be able tominimise the harmful effects of PCBs by serving as advocates for employees.Influential mentors may be able to persuade the organisation to fulfil its obligationsto their protégés. Mentors may also be able to teach employees how to respond toPCB in an organisationally appropriate way, particularly when breach angers butdoes not seriously affect employees. Mentors may also assuage employee responsesto breach through friendship and counselling. Specifically, when mentors serve asfriends or counsellors, they may allow employees to ‘let off steam’ and then offerexplanations to employees for why the organisation was unable to fulfil its promises.Attribution theory suggests that individuals tend to initially make dispositionalattributions for the actions of others, but are more likely to draw situational




attributions if they take the time to fully consider the circumstances (e.g. Fiske andTaylor, 1991). Discussions with mentors may help employees to more objectivelyunderstand the causes of PCB and make attributions that are less damaging whenappropriate.

Hypothesis 1: Mentor relationships will moderate the relationshipbetween PCB and POS. Specifically, the negative effects of breach on POSwill be stronger for respondents who report that they do not have a mentoringrelationship compared to those who report having a mentoring relationship.

Supervisors may ‘stand up for employees’ who have been wronged, and makethem feel supported, despite the fact that promises from the organisation itself maynot have been kept. One of the key assumptions of POS is that employees aggregatethe treatment that they receive from organisational agents who control valuedoutcomes into a general perception of support (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The greaterthe extent to which an employee believes that the actions of an organisational agentare representative of the actions of the organisation itself, the stronger the influencean organisational agent will have on that employee’s POS (Rhoades and Eisenberger,2002). Supervisors are considered to be particularly important because they areresponsible for directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance, as well asconveying these evaluations to higher level managers (Eisenberger et al., 2002). In alongitudinal study of the supervisor support–POS relationship among retail salesemployees, Eisenberger et al. (2002) determined that POS changed in response tochanges in perceived supervisor support (PSS). These results are evidence thatsupervisor support is an antecedent to POS.

While supervisor support is an important driver of POS, employees dodistinguish between relationships with supervisors and relationships with theorganisation itself. Kottke and Sharafinski’s (1988) factor analytic resultsdemonstrated that employees distinguish between POS and PSS. Thus, employeesmay experience PCB from the organisation and not respond negatively to the sameextent if they believe that they are supported by supervisors. Consistent with thestress-buffering hypothesis (Cohen and Willis, 1985), which contends that socialsupport reduces the adverse effects of stress, we argue that a supportive relationshipwith a supervisor may ameliorate the negative effects of PCB experienced byan employee. Supervisors may offer explanations that may change employeeattributions for breach or even attempt to rectify PCB that negatively affectssubordinates. As a result, employees may maintain positive perceptions of theirrelationship with their organisations, despite broken promises.

Hypothesis 2: Supervisor support will moderate the relationship betweenPCB and POS. The negative effects of breach on POS will be stronger forthose respondents with low levels of supervisor support compared to those withhigh levels of supervisor support.

Finally, admired peers, such as role models, may exhibit behaviours and attitudesthat influence the way that employees respond to breach. Gibson defined role modelsas ‘person(s) an individual perceives to be similar to some extent, and because of thatsimilarity, the individual desires to emulate (or specifically avoid) aspects of thatperson’s attributes or behaviours’ (Gibson 2003: 592). Individuals utilise informal




developmental relationships, such as role model relationships, to acquire informationregarding what behaviours and attitudes will help them to succeed in theorganisation (Gibson, 2003). We suggest that there are two mechanisms throughwhich role models may influence employee responses to PCB.

First, role models may ‘buffer’ the effects of breach in the same manner asmentors or supervisors by offering employees social support to deal with breach. Inthis case, employees would necessarily have to have interaction with their rolemodels rather than just observing them. Gibson (2003) refers to role models withwhom an individual interacts as ‘close’ role models. However, we should also notethat individuals who serve as role models do not represent formal agents of theorganisation in that capacity, and thus would not be required to provide this kindof support. We suspect that this would only occur when the role model had someother motivation to help the employee. Such motivation may stem from liking theemployee or the satisfaction derived from helping another.

The second mechanism through which role models would influence employeeresponses to breach is indirect and would occur through a different type of rolemodel. This type of role model – termed a ‘distant’ role model (Gibson, 2003) –influences others through more indirect channels. According to Gibson (2003),employees learn from observation of distant role models through processesdescribed in social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). Bandura’s (1986) theoryemphasises the importance of observing and modelling the behaviours, attitudes andemotional reactions of others in learning the behaviours and attitudes of thoseindividuals. In support of this view, Ibarra (1999) found that investment bank andmanagement firm employees making the transition from junior to senior positionsadapted to new professional roles by temporarily holding images of ‘provisionalselves’ (p. 765), or ‘trying on’ the identities of individuals they identify as rolemodels. In other words, through interaction and observation, employees acquiredthe tacit knowledge, attitudes, routines and impression management techniques thatare useful in making role transitions (Ibarra, 1999). Consistent with social learningtheory and research on role models, we argue that employees will observe themanner in which distant role models respond to PCB and respond in a similarmanner themselves. Thus, if employees see that their distant role models react tobroken promises in a calm fashion, they are likely to do the same themselves. On theother hand, if an employee’s role models are upset about breach, they may respondin a similar fashion themselves when they experience breach.

Hypothesis 3: Role model relationships will moderate the relationshipbetween PCB and POS. Specifically, the relationship between breach andPOS will be stronger for respondents who report that they do not have rolemodels in their organisation than respondents who have role models availablein their organisation.

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




STUDY 1

Sample and procedure

We used an online survey to collect data from full-time employees for Study 1.Research comparing online and traditional paper-and-pencil surveys reveals thatthere are no significant biases that exist between the two methodologies (e.g. Mehtaand Sivadas, 1995). In line with previous research (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006;Gettman and Gelfand, 2007; Gibney et al., in press), respondents were recruitedthrough MarketTools.com, an organisation that maintains a large opt-in database ofindividuals willing to participate in online surveys. Through MarketTools.com, wesent the link to our survey (i.e. URL) via e-mail to 1,000 full-time, white-collaremployees who volunteered to participate in the study. We chose to sampleemployees from a wide array of organisations and jobs because psychologicalcontracts researchers suggest that researchers collect data from populations otherthan MBA students (Guest, 1998; Turnley and Feldman, 1999). Employees whovolunteered to participate were given access to a secure website where theycompleted a survey. In exchange for their participation, participants received a smallcredit for merchandise purchased online. Responses to the survey were submitted toa secured database. The survey presented to employees at Time 1 assessed theindependent variables in Study 1 – demographic variables, PCB, and questionsrelated to mentors. We received completed surveys from 497 employees for aresponse rate of 49.7%.

Podsakoff and Organ (1986) suggest collecting independent and dependentvariables at different points in time to ameliorate the effects of common methodvariance. Consistent with this recommendation, we administered a second onlinesurvey six months after the first survey. We collected demographic variables and ourdependent variable, POS, at Time 2 to minimise the possibility that common methodvariance would influence our results. The second survey was administered to the 497participants who completed the initial survey at Time 1. A total of 220 respondentscompleted the Time 2 surveys for a response rate of 44%. Participants were 66%female and 91% Caucasian. Age ranged between 26 and 72 years with a mean of 46.8years. Mean organisation tenure was 8.8 years. Respondents were employed in awide variety of occupations, such as administrative assistant, clinical researchassociate, communications specialist, computer applications specialist, consultant,customer service representative, legal secretary, materials specialist, programmer,school psychologist, senior engineer, shift supervisor and teacher. With respect toeducation, 19% of employees had completed high school, 20% held associate’sdegrees, 33% had completed undergraduate degrees and 28% held graduate degrees.

To ensure that sampling bias did not influence our results, we comparedparticipants who responded to both Time 1 and Time 2 surveys (n = 220) andindividuals who responded only to the Time 1 survey (n = 497) with respect todemographic variables. Analysis of variance results showed no significantdifferences between the two groups.

Measures

Psychological contract breach. Employees completed Robinson and Morrison’s(1995) PCB measure at Time 1. Unlike global measures of PCB, which assess




employees’ overall perceptions of PCB, the measure created by Robinson andMorrison assesses specific psychological contract terms. Participants assessed theextent to which they believed the organisation provided relative to what they werepromised for each of 19 items using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1(I am receiving much less than I expect) to 5 (I am receiving much more than I expect).All items were reverse-scored to serve as a measure of PCB. Cronbach’s alpha forthe scale was 0.84.

Mentor relationships. We determined whether employees maintained relationshipswith mentors using a single item developed for this study: ‘I have a mentor in mycurrent organisation who supports my development (yes/no).’ Our questionregarding mentoring is similar to questions used in previous research to determinewhether or not employees had mentoring relationships (e.g. Allen and Poteet, 1999;Ragins et al., 2000). Overall, 110 of the 220 respondents (50%) reported that they hada mentor. Moreover, we conducted a construct validation by comparing employeeswith and without a mentor in a number of important work attitudes using anindependent sample of 240 full-time employees. Univariate analysis (controlling forgender, age and tenure) showed that participants who reported having a mentor hadsignificantly higher levels of POS (M = 4.99; p < 0.01) and organisational identification(M = 5.01, p < 0.01) and lower levels of organisational cynicism (M = 4.08, p < 0.05),turnover intentions (M = 2.90; p < 0.01) and organisational disidentification(M = 2.53; p < 0.01) relative to their comparison group (Morganisational support = 4.22,Morganisational identification = 4.18, Morganisational cynicism = 4.26, Mturnover intentions = 3.52 andMorganisational disidentification = 3.15).

Perceived organisational support. POS was measured using a six-item version ofthe Survey of Perceived Organisational Support (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Employeesanswered all POS questions using a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = stronglydisagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item from the scale is, ‘My organisation valuesmy contributions to its well-being’. The reliability of the scale was 0.91.

Control variables. We controlled for gender (0 = male and 1 = female), age (years),tenure (years) and POS at Time 1. We controlled for tenure because employees withgreater tenure tend to have higher levels of POS, as employees with low POS aremore likely to quit (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002)also note that studies control for gender to account for the possibility that itinfluences POS. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found a significant correlationbetween age and POS, so we included it as a control variable. As the design of thisstudy was longitudinal, we also controlled for POS at Time 1 in order to ascertaina baseline measure of POS using the same scale that was previously described forTime 2 POS above. At Time 1, the reliability of the POS scale was 0.88.

Analysis and results

Before testing our predictions, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to testthe construct independence between PCB and POS. A two-factor solution wassupported: c2 (41, n = 220) = 82.17, p < 0.01, c2/degrees of freedom (df ) = 2.00. All theitems also loaded significantly onto their specified factors. The key fit indices were




as follows: goodness of fit (GFI) = 0.94, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.97, comparativefit index (CFI) = 0.98 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07.Furthermore, this two-factor model fit the data significantly better than a one-factormodel: c2 (42, n = 220) = 312.89, p < 0.01, c2/df = 7.45, GFI = 0.67, TLI = 0.82, CFI = 0.86and RMSEA = 0.17, Dc2 (1) = 230.72, p < 0.01. This analysis provided support forviewing PCB and POS as separate constructs (Table 1).

Results of moderated regression analysis used to test Hypothesis 1 are presentedin Table 2. The independent variable was centred at its mean prior to the creation ofthe interaction terms (Aiken and West, 1991). Control variables were entered instep 1, followed by the independent and moderator variables in step 2, andthe interaction term in step 3. Hypothesis 1 predicted that mentor relationshipswould moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. The interaction term(PCB ¥ mentor relationship) was significantly associated with POS (b = 0.15,p � 0.01), after accounting for control variables and main effects. Entry of theinteraction term explained a significant amount of variance in predicting POS atTime 2 (DR2 = 0.02, F[1, 209] = 8.01, p < 0.01) after controlling for control and mainvariables. To fully test for the moderating effects, we examined the sign and thesignificance of the slope of the relationship between PCB and POS at dichotomouslevels (1 representing that the employee had a relationship with a mentor and0 indicating that the employee did not have a relationship with a mentor).This interaction was plotted in accordance with Aiken and West’s (1991)recommendations for illustrating significant interactions (see Figure 1). The slopeswere significant for both mentor relationship and no mentor relationship. Thissuggests that the negative effects of PCB at Time 1 on POS at Time 2 were strongerfor those employees without a mentor (t[209] = -9.52, p < 0.01), in comparison tothose employees with a mentor, (t[209] = -6.49, p < 0.01). In other words, incomparison with those employees with a mentor, there was a sharp decrease in thelevels of POS for those without a mentor as contract breach increased. Overall,Hypothesis 1 was supported in Study 1.

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

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Gender – –2. Age 46.7 9.60 -0.183. Tenure 8.81 8.01 -0.16 0.294. POS (T1) 4.58 1.55 0.09 -0.09 0.025. PCB 5.12 0.61 -0.01 0.15 0.03 -0.706. MR – – 0.12 -0.15 -0.07 0.51 -0.477. POS (T2) 4.81 1.64 0.11 -0.07 0.01 0.70 -0.61 0.71

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




Discussion

Results of Study 1 provide support for Hypothesis 1, which predicted that mentorrelationships would moderate the relationship between PCB at Time 1 and POS atTime 2. Specifically, having a mentor reduced the negative effect of PCB at Time 1on POS at Time 2 six months later. A particular strength of this study is the time lag

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

Variable and step b R2 DR2

Step 1 Step 2 Final

Step 1: Controls 0.48** 0.48**Gender 0.04 0.04 0.03Age 0.00 0.06 0.05Tenure -0.02 0.02 0.01POS (T1) 0.69** 0.35** 0.33**

Step 2: Main effects 0.66** 0.18**T1 Psychological contract breach (PCB) -15* -0.24**Mentor relationship (MR) 0.47** 0.49**

Final step: interaction terms (centred) 0.68** 0.02*PCB ¥ MR 0.15*

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

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

–1

–0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

–3 –2 –1 0 1 2

Standardised Values of Psychological Contract Breach(Time 1)

Stan

dar

dis

ed V

alu

eso

f PO

S (T

ime

2)

Mentor

No Mentor




between collection of our independent and dependent variables, as well as theestablishment of baseline POS at Time 1. The fact that mentor availability bufferedthe effect of PCB (Time 1) on POS (Time 2) over and above the effects of POS at Time1 allow us to suggest that (1) PCB results in changes in employees’ POS, and (2) thathaving a mentor reduces this effect. In the next study, we replicate the findings ofStudy 1 and examine the roles of supervisors and role models in minimising theadverse impact of PCB.

STUDY 2

In Study 2, we extended the previous study in two important ways. First, with thegoal of establishing constructive replication (Lykken, 1968), we operationalisedbreach using a global-based measure as opposed to the facet-based measurementmethod employed in the first study. In Study 2, we asked participants to provide anoverall evaluation of the extent to which their organisation has adequately met itscommitments. Second, we explored the role that supervisors and role models play inameliorating the negative impact of breach.

Sample and procedure

The opportunity to complete an online survey was presented to 274 college/university faculty members and staff who were members of a professionalassociation that was concerned with student advising. All members of the associationwere provided a link to the survey through an email distributed through theassociation’s listserv. Completed responses were provided by 177 individuals (69%female) for a response rate of 65%. Respondents’ mean age was 48.7 years and theirorganisational tenure was 11.11 years (standard deviation = 9.76). In terms ofeducation level, 5% of respondents held bachelor’s degrees, 34% held master’sdegrees, 56% held PhDs and 5% held other degrees, including JDs, MDs and EdDs.

Measures

The response format for all items except gender and tenure was a seven-pointLikert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree), with items coded such thata higher score indicated a greater amount of the focal construct except whenreverse-coded items were considered.

Psychological contract breach. PCB was measured using the three items fromRobinson and Morrison’s (2000) five-item PCB scale with path loadings thatexceeded 0.71. We selected these items because the 0.71 criterion indicates thatapproximately half of the variance in responses is due to the underlying construct(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In order to examine whether the shortened measure ofPCB used in the present study was equivalent with the complete measure, weadministered the complete five-item scale to an independent sample of 307 bankemployees. Bivariate correlation analysis suggests that the shortened and completeversions were highly correlated (r = 0.93, p < 0.001). For this study, the reported scalereliability was 0.96, which was slightly greater than the scale reliability (0.84)reported by Robinson and Morrison (2000) for the five-item scale. A sample item is,‘I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions to




the organisation.’ Employees answered all PCB questions using a seven-pointLikert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Mentor relationship. We determined whether or not employees had mentorrelationships in the same manner as in Study 1, except that the term ‘organisation’was changed to ‘college/university’. The new item read, ‘I have a mentor at mycollege/university who supports my development (yes/no).’ Overall, 113respondents (64%) reported having mentors.

Perceived supervisor support. PSS was measured using three items from Kottkeand Sharafinski’s (1988) PSS scale. An example item from this scale is, ‘Mysupervisor is willing to extend him/herself in order to help me perform my job tothe best of my ability’. Employees answered all PSS questions using a seven-pointLikert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The alpha coefficientfor this scale was 0.90.

Role model relationships. Role model relationships were measured using tworeported items from Gibson and Barron’s (2003) role model availability scale. Anexample item is, ‘I have enough role models available to demonstrate for me how tosucceed in my college/university’. Employees answered all questions related to rolemodels using a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = stronglyagree). The reliability coefficient for this scale was 0.86.

Perceived organisational support. POS was measured using the same six itemsreported in Study 1. Again, employees answered all POS questions using a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The reliabilityof the scale in Study 2 was 0.91.

Control variables. As in Study 1, we controlled for gender (0 = male and1 = female), age (in years) and tenure (in years).

Analysis and results

Before analysing the data, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test theconstruct independence of the study variables. The model fit statistics were good:c2 (51) = 110.48, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.92; and RMSEA = 0.07. The one-factormodel had significantly worse fit to the data: Dc2 (54) = 788.36, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.64;TLI = 0.56; and RMSEA = 0.28, Dc2(3) = 677.88, p < 0.01. These analyses providedsupport for viewing PCB, POS and supervisor support as distinct constructs.Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study variables are presented inTable 3. Zero-order correlations were in the expected direction with theexception of the relationship between role model relationships and PCB (r = 0.47,p < 0.01).

Results of moderated regression analysis used to test Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 arepresented in Table 4. Hypothesis 1, which predicted that mentor relationships wouldmoderate the relationship between PCB and POS, was again supported, as theinteraction term (PCB ¥ mentor relationship) was significantly associated with POS(b = 0.14, p � 0.05), after accounting for control variables and main effects (see




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

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender 0.30 0.462. Age 48.7 19.8 0.033. Tenure 11.11 9.76 0.13 0.674. PCB 2.02 1.48 -0.07 -0.05 0.005. PSS 5.55 1.26 0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.586. MR – – 0.06 -0.03 -0.02 -0.41 0.477. RMR 5.10 1.45 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.47 0.52 0.598. POS 5.05 5.05 0.16 0.06 0.09 -0.66 0.55 0.31 0.47

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

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

Variable and step b R2 DR2

Step 1 Step 2 Final

Step 1: Controls 0.03Gender 0.16* 0.10 0.10Age 0.10 0.06 0.05Tenure -0.04 -0.02 -0.03

Step 2: Main effects 0.51 0.49**Psychological contract breach (PCB) -0.51** -0.51**Perceived supervisor support (PSS) 0.17* 0.12Mentor relationship (MR) -0.10 -0.10Role model relationship (RMR) 0.20** 0.22**

Final step: Interaction Terms (centred) 0.53 0.02*PCB ¥ SS 0.15*PCB ¥ MR 0.14*PCB ¥ RMR -0.18*

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




Figure 2). Among employees without mentors, the negative impact of breach on POSis magnified (t[158] = -6.77, p � 0.001) in comparison to those respondents withmentor relationships (t[158] = -3.34, p � 0.001). Thus, mentors tend to reduce thenegative effects of PCB on POS.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that PSS would moderate the relationship between PCBand POS. The interaction term (PCB ¥ supervisor support) was significantlyassociated with POS (b = 0.15, p � 0.05), after accounting for control variables andmain effects (see Figure 3). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. The PCB–supervisorsupport interaction suggests that breach had a stronger negative relationship withPOS for respondents with low levels of supervisor support (t[158] = -7.46, p � 0.001)compared to respondents with high levels of supervisor support (t[158] = -3.50,p � 0.001). Thus, higher levels of supervisor support reduce the negative effects ofPCB on POS as greater levels of breach are perceived, while supervisors who are notperceived as supportive strengthen the negative relationship between PCB asperceptions of breach increase.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that role model relationships would moderate therelationship between PCB and POS. Although the interaction term (PCB ¥ role modelrelationship) was significantly associated with POS (b = -0.18, p � 0.05), the directionof the simple slopes is contrary to what we have predicted (see Figure 4). The betacoefficient for this relationship was negative, suggesting that having role modelsavailable actually worsened the effects of PCB on POS. Thus, when role models werelargely unavailable, there was a weaker relationship between breach and POS(t[158] = -4.09, p � 0.001). However, when employees reported that role models wereprevalent, the effect of PCB is magnified (t[158] = -7.35, p � 0.001). This interaction

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

–2

–1.5

–1

–0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

–2 –1 0 1 2 3

Standardised Values of Psychological Contract Breach

Stan

dar

dis

ed V

alu

es o

f PO

S

Mentor

No Mentor




effect is such that increased breach results in lower levels of POS when role modelrelationships are high.

Discussion

We found support for two of our three hypotheses in Study 2. In Hypothesis 1, wespeculated that the presence of mentoring relationships would lessen the negativeassociation between PCB and POS. We found that employees with mentors tended

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

–2.5

–2

–1.5

–1

–0.5

0

0.5

1

–2 –1 0 1 2 3


Sta

nd

ard

ised

Val

ues

of

PO

S

SS z = 1

SS z = –1

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

–2

–1.5

–1

–0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

–2 –1 0 1 2 3


Sta

nd

ard

ised

Val

ues

of

PO

S

RMR z = 1

RMR z = –1




to have higher levels of POS when breach was high, while employees withoutmentors tended to have lower POS under high breach conditions. We also foundsupport for Hypothesis 2, as employees who had high levels of supervisor supporttended to have higher levels of POS when PCB was high, while employees with lowsupervisor support tended to have lower levels of POS when PCB was high. Theresults we found for Hypotheses 1 and 2 were consistent with social support theory(Cohen and Willis, 1985). During tough times, supportive relationships helped bufferthe negative effects of stressful situations.

Our results for Hypothesis 3, which predicted that role model relationships wouldlessen the effects of PCB on POS, were somewhat but not completely surprising.While we found a significant interaction effect, the simple slopes were not in theexpected direction. Specifically, employees with role models tended to have lowerlevels of POS when PCB was high, while employees without role models tended tohave higher levels of POS when they perceived higher levels of breach. Oneexplanation for this pattern of results stems from the different types of relationships(‘close’ vs. ‘distant’; Gibson, 2003) that employees maintain with role models. Whileindividuals interact with role models in ‘close’ relationships, ‘distant’ role models areobserved from afar, and in fact no interaction between employee and role model isnecessary. In such cases, a role model would not provide social support or help anemployee to deal with the fallout of PCB.

Another explanation here is that a role model may not necessarily be a ‘rolemodel’ in the classic sense. For example, it is possible that some employees maymodel the behaviours of ‘rogue’ or ‘trouble-maker’ employees who are likely to‘settle the score’ with the organisation if promised obligations are not adequatelyfulfilled. Thus, employees may have selected role models who responded to PCB ina counterproductive manner, and as a result learned to respond in the same mannerthemselves. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) suggests that individuals learnfrom observing the behaviours of others – so if role models construed PCB as a signalthat they were not valued by the organisation, it is quite possible that those whoemulated them did so as well. Future research is needed to more fully understandthe interplay between role models and employee responses to PCB.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The experience of PCB is not a question of ‘if’ but of ‘when’. The organisation ofwork is a human endeavour and thus prone to errors, intentional or unintentional.Even the best-managed organisations have to face the fact that eventually they, too,will (perhaps unwillingly) breach the psychological contracts of their employees,potentially triggering unwanted consequences. In our view, the potentially severenegative consequences of PCB (e.g. deviance; Restubog et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2008)challenge organisations not to ignore the situation but to proactively approach it.Organisations can do so – according to our study’s findings – by utilising mentorsand supportive supervisors.

The results of this study inform scholars and practitioners interested in betterunderstanding the factors that influence the employee–employer relationship. Weextend the literature on the EER by examining the role that the social context,




specifically relationships with other individuals with whom employees maintainrelationships, has on their perceptions of their exchange relationship with theorganisation. This addresses Emerson’s (1976) long-standing criticism that socialexchange theory fails to consider contextual factors that influence the behaviour ofindividuals in social exchange relationships. Our results also offer some initialempirical evidence for the effects that supervisors, mentors and role models have onthe EER. Previous conceptual research by Scandura and Williams (2002) also arguesthat mentors may play an important role in determining how employees willrespond to breaches of the psychological contract.

Our research also contributes to the mentoring literature. Previous meta-analysesof this literature have found correlations between mentoring and outcomes such asjob satisfaction, organisational commitment, etc. to be somewhat weaker thanexpected (e.g. Allen et al., 2004). Our results suggest that perhaps mentoring isimportant contextually – that is, in certain situations, having a mentor is particularlyvaluable to employees. Our results indicate that the experience of PCB is one suchoccasion. Mentors may also be critical during other stressful times, such as duringlayoffs, job changes, mergers, etc. While having a mentor is usually a good thing, itmay be of greater importance depending on the situational context.

Interestingly, our notions and recommendations parallel those emerging fromorganisational research in other areas. Advice by scholars and practitioners on howto build high-performance organisations inevitably points to the role of talent (humancapital) as a crucial source of competitive advantage (e.g. Sherer, 1995). In fact, recentmanagement writings describe the future of organisational success in terms of aglobal battle for talent, where the pool of talent an organisation can attract and retainbecomes a key factor for not only market success but also for survival of the venture.Serendipitously, two of the three support mechanisms described in this article notonly help organisations to potentially lessen the fallout from PCB but also to developand nurture valuable employees. This might be even more important in view ofresults of studies examining the expectations of the next generation of employees toarrive in the workplace. This generation, often called Generation Y or Gen Y, appearsto be extremely receptive to positive, encouraging supervision, mentoring and rolemodelling (Martin and Tiulgan, 2006), treatment they are probably accustomed toreceiving from parents (Hira, 2007). Organisations that can effectively employ suchpractices may gain a competitive advantage over competitors, as they will be betterable to attract and retain talented employees.

LIMITATIONS

Like most research, our study has limitations and results should be viewed withthese in mind. First, common method variance is a concern, as all measures used inthis study were the result of employee self-reports. However, the moderating effectsof supervisor support and mentor relationships were complex interactions that couldnot easily be explained by common method variance (Brown et al., 2001). In addition,we collected data at different points in time in our first study, a practice suggestedto reduce the effects of common method bias (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Weshould note, however, that our approach differed from the approach recommendedby Podsakoff and Organ (1986) because we collected measures of our dependent




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

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Our study offers a number of avenues for future research. First, research thataddresses the methodological shortcomings of our study is desirable. That is,longitudinal research designs that incorporate not only perceptual and attitudinalvariables but also objective outcomes such as turnover or supervisor ratings ofperformance would help to determine the causal direction of relationships and makethe results more useful to practitioners.

Second, while our results demonstrate that mentoring and supervisoryrelationships help employees to maintain their beliefs about the quality of theirexchange relationship with the organisation, more information concerning the natureof these relationships will help to better inform scholars and practitioners. While wehave shown that the extent to which supervisors are supportive/not supportiveweakens/strengthens the negative relationship between breach and POS, other




aspects of the supervisory relationships may be important as well. For instance,employees with high levels of leader–member exchange, or the degree of emotionalsupport and exchange of valued resources between employee and leader (Graen andCashman, 1975), may also buffer the negative effects of PCB. More information aboutthe nature of mentoring relationships would also be useful. For instance, the qualityof the mentoring relationship from the perspective of the protégé (Ragins et al., 2000)may play an important role in buffering the effects of broken promises. While wewould expect that high-quality mentoring relationships would reduce the negativefallout from PCB, low-quality or dysfunctional mentoring relationships may actuallycreate scenarios where employees respond to PCB in a more negative manner. Alsoof interest may be the role that the organisation plays in facilitating mentoringrelationships for protégés. It is possible that organisationally sponsored mentoringprogrammes, to the extent that they are regarded as discretionary treatmentprovided by the organisation, would have a stronger effect on employee POS thanwould mentoring relationships employees develop without the assistance of theorganisation.

Finally, future research might explore the buffering effects of other developmentalrelationships on the relationship between PCB and outcomes. For instance, it ispossible that friends and advice ties may determine how employees respond to PCB.Indeed, a social networks study of employees in a recruiting organisation byZagenczyk et al. (2006) demonstrated that employees tend to form perceptions ofsupport that are similar to those of other employees from whom they receive advice,as well as to those of other employees who are located in similar structural positionsin organisational friendship and advice networks (structurally equivalentemployees). Taken in conjunction with social networks research examining the roleof friendship and advice ties on employee perceptions of and responses to PCB (e.g.Dabos and Rousseau, 2004), we speculate that other relationships in organisationsmay influence how employees’ responses to PCB influence their POS. Socialinfluence exerted by mentors who are not members of the organisation may alsoinfluence employee responses to PCB. For instance, Baugh and Fagenson-Eland(2005) have examined the different functions provided by mentors within andoutside organisations. Mentors from outside the organisation may have agenda thatdiffer from mentors who are organisation members: they may attempt to motivatetheir protégés to leave the organisations for which they work. Under suchcircumstances, mentors may actually exacerbate the effects of PCB. Family membersmay also attempt to influence an employee. For instance, one could imagine how anespecially overprotective parent could positively influence a young employee’sturnover intentions following the failure of an organisation to provide that employeewith a promotion or other rewards that are perceived to be deserved. In fact, thismay be quite relevant when the characteristics of recent college graduates enteringthe workforce are considered.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our research has a number of important implications for organisations andmanagers. For one, organisations can create scenarios in which potential mentors andprotégés can meet informally to increase the likelihood that such developmental




relationships will materialise informally. Indeed, in Study 1, nearly 86% of theemployees who maintained relationships with mentors described the relationships asbeing informal in nature as opposed to being created formally by the organisation.Second, organisations could create experiential settings where supervisors couldpractice or learn to better utilise supportive behaviours. For example, organisationsthat already have assessment centres in place could use these to create programmesthat would help supervisors help employees deal with the disappointment thatstems from unfulfilled promises at work. Finally, organisations can strive to developcultures in which employees actively support one another.1 For example, enhancingcommunication between supervisors and employees, team building and companyoutings may create a family-oriented organisation that can help to reduce employees’tendency to act out in response to PCB (Restubog and Bordia, 2007).

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, we explored support mechanisms that organisations can put in placeto lessen the impact that breach has on employee perceptions of their social exchangerelationships with the organisation. We hypothesised that supervisory relationships,mentoring relationships and role model relationships would moderate therelationship between PCB and POS. Our findings indicate that mentoringrelationships and supportive supervisory relationships reduce the negativerelationship between PCB and employee beliefs that the organisation values theircontributions and cares about their well-being. However, employees who maintainedrelationships with role models actually had lower POS in response to PCB. Ourresults inform scholars examining the effects of context on exchange relationshipsbetween employer and employee as well as practitioners seeking to find methods tolessen the negative fallout of PCB.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of the manuscript was included in the Best Paper Proceedings ofthe 68th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, California,August 2008. We gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments of Dana Haggardand Dean McFarlin.

Note

1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions related to practicalimplications.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen, T.D. and Poteet, M.L. (1999). ‘Developing effective mentoring relationships:strategies from the mentor’s viewpoint’. Career Development Quarterly, 48: 59–73.

Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E. and Lima, L. (2004). ‘Career benefitsassociated with mentoring for protégés: a meta-analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology,89: 127–136.




Aselage, J. and Eisenberger, R. (2003). ‘Perceived organisational support andpsychological contracts: a theoretical integration’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 24:491–509.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Baugh, S.G. and Fagenson-Eland, E.A. (2005). ‘Boundaryless mentoring: an exploratorystudy of the functions provided by internal vs. external mentors’. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 35: 939–955.

Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D. and Tang, R.L. (2008). ‘When employees strike back:investigating the mediating mechanism between psychological contract breach andworkplace deviance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1105–1117.

Brown, S.P., Ganesan, S. and Challagalla, G. (2001). ‘Self-efficacy as a moderator ofinformation-seeking effectiveness’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1043–1051.

Chen, Z.X., Tsui, A.S. and Zhong, L.F. (2008). ‘Reactions to psychological contract breach:a dual perspective’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 29: 527–548.

Cohen, S. and Willis, T.A. (1985). ‘Stress, social support, and the buffering hypotheses’.Psychological Bulletin, 98: 310–357.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Conway, N. (2005). ‘Exchange relationships: examiningpsychological contracts and perceived organisational support’. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 90: 774–781.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Kessler, I. (2000). ‘Consequences of the psychological contractfor employment relationship: a large-scale survey’. Journal of Management Studies, 37:903–930.

Dabos, G.E. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004). ‘Social interaction patterns shaping employeepsychological contracts’, in K.M. Weaver (ed.), Academy of Management Proceedings: BestPapers. [CD-ROM]. New Orleans, LA: Academy of Management, pp. N1–N6.

Dougherty, T.W. and Dreher, G.F. (2007). ‘Mentoring and career outcomes: conceptual andmethodological issues in an emerging literature’, in B.R. Ragins and K.E. Kram (eds),Handbook of Mentoring at Work, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986). ‘Perceivedorganisational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500–507.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001).‘Reciprocation of perceived organisational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86:42–51.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglehaumber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L.(2002). ‘Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organisationalsupport and employee retention’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 565–603.

Emerson, R. (1976). ‘Social exchange theory’. Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 335–362.

Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social Cognition, 2nd edn, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). ‘Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error’. Journal of Marketing Research, 18:39–50.

Gettman, H.J. and Gelfand, M.J. (2007). ‘When customers shouldn’t be king: antecedentsand consequences of sexual harassment by clients and customers’. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92: 757–770.

Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T.J. and Masters, M.F. (in press). ‘Perceived organizationalobstruction: an initial study’. Group & Organization Management.

Gibson, D.E. (2003). ‘Developing the professional self-concept: role model construals inearly, middle, and late career stages’. Organisation Science, 15: 591–610.




Gibson, D.E. and Barron, L.A. (2003). ‘Exploring the impact of role models on olderemployees’. Career Development International, 8: 198–209.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960). ‘The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement’. AmericanSociological Review, 25: 161–178.

Graen, G. and Cashman, J. (1975). ‘A role-making model of leadership in formalorganisation: a development approach’, in J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (eds), LeadershipFrontiers, Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Guest, D.E. (1998). ‘On meaning, metaphor, and the psychological contact: a response toRousseau’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 19: 673–677.

Guest, D.E. and Conway, N. (2002). ‘Communicating the psychological contract: anemployer perspective’. Human Resource Management Journal, 12: 22–38.

Hira, N.A. (2007). ‘You raised them, now manage them’. Fortune, 155: 10, 38+.Ho, V.T. and Levesque, L. (2005). ‘With a little help from my friends (and substitutes):

social referents and influence in psychological contract fulfilment’. Organisation Science,16: 275–289.

Hutchison, S. (1997). ‘A path model of perceived organisational support’. Journal of SocialBehaviour and Personality, 12: 159–174.

Ibarra, H. (1999). ‘Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity inprofessional adaptation’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 764–791.

Kiewitz, C. (2002). ‘The work anger model (WAM!): an inquiry into the role of anger atwork’. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 63:5-A, 1904.

Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S.L.D., Zagenczyk, T.J. and Hochwarter, W. (in press). ‘Theinteractive effects of psychological contract breach and organizational politics onperceived organizational support: evidence from two longitudinal studies’. Journal ofManagement Studies.

Kottke, J.L. and Sharafinski, C.E. (1988). ‘Measuring perceived supervisory andorganisational support’. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48: 1075–1079.

Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organisational Life,Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Levinson, H. (1965). ‘Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organisation’.Administrative Science Quarterly, 9: 370–390.

Lykken, D. (1968). ‘Statistical significance in psychological research’. Psychological Bulletin,70: 151–159.

Martin, C.A. and Tiulgan, B. (2006). Managing the Generation Mix: From Urgency toOpportunity, Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Mehta, R. and Sivadas, E. (1995). ‘Comparing response rates and response content in mailversus electronic mail surveys’. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37: 429–439.

Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997). ‘When employees feel betrayed: a model of howpsychological contract violation develops’. Academy of Management Review, 22: 226–256.

Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006). ‘Transformational leadership and job behaviours:the mediating role of core job characteristics’. Academy of Management Journal, 49:327–340.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986). ‘Self-reports in organisational research: problemsand prospects’. Journal of Management, 12: 531–544.

Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L. and Miller, J.S. (2000). ‘Marginal mentoring: the effects of typeof mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes’.Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1177–1194.

Restubog, S.L.D. and Bordia, P. (2006). ‘Workplace familism and psychological contractbreach in the Philippines’. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55: 563–585.




Restubog, S.L.D. and Bordia, P. (2007). ‘One big happy family: understanding the role ofworkplace familism in the psychological contract dynamics’, in A.I. Glendon, B. Myorsand B.M. Thompson (eds), Advances in Organisational Psychology: An Asia-PacificPerspective, Brisbane: Australian Academic Press, pp. 371–387.

Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P. and Tang, R.L. (2007). ‘Behavioural outcomes of psychologicalcontract breach in a non-western culture’. British Journal of Management, 18: 376–386.

Restubog, S.L.D., Hornsey, M., Bordia, P. and Esposo, S. (2008). ‘Effects of psychologicalcontract breach on organisational citizenship behaviours: insights from the group valuemodel’. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1377–1400.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002). ‘Perceived organisational support: a review of theliterature’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698–714.

Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (1995). ‘Developing a standardized measure of thepsychological contract’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy ofManagement, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 6–9 August 1995.

Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000). ‘The development of psychological contractbreach and violation: a longitudinal study’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21:525–546.

Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994). ‘Violating the psychological contract: not theexception but the norm’. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 15: 245–259.

Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organisations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rousseau, D.M. (2001). ‘Schema, promises, and mutuality: the psychology of the

psychological contract’. Journal of Organisational and Occupational Psychology, 24:511–541.

Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. (2002). ‘Leadership in the context of psychologicalcontract breach: the role of mentoring’, in L.L. Neider and C.A. Schriesheim (eds),Research in Management, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp.167–195.

Sherer, P. (1995). ‘Leveraging human assets in law firms: human capital structures andorganisational capabilities’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 4, 671–691.

Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (1999). ‘The impact of psychological contract violationson exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect’. Human Relations, 52: 895–922.

Zagenczyk, T.J., Gibney, R., Murrell, A.J. and Thatcher, J.B. (2006). ‘Social influence andperceived organisational support: a social networks analysis’. Paper presented at the2006 Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA, 11–16 August.

Zhao, H., Wayne, S.J., Glibkowski, B.C. and Bravo, J. (2007). ‘The impact of psychologicalcontract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis’. Personnel Psychology, 60:647–680.




Mentors, supervisors and role models: do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach?

Documents

Transcript of Mentors, supervisors and role models: do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach?