+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Job satisfaction and employee performance

Job satisfaction and employee performance

Date post: 23-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: fahad-rahman
View: 34 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Thesis on Job satisfaction
Popular Tags:
153
MS Thesis Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and Organizational Disidentification: Mediating role of Perceived Organizational Support and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity MUHAMMAD IRFAN RAZA Reg # MM131057 [email protected] MS (HRM) Supervisor Dr. S. M. M. Raza N. i
Transcript
Page 1: Job satisfaction and employee performance

MS Thesis

Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and

Organizational Disidentification: Mediating role of Perceived Organizational Support

and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity

MUHAMMAD IRFAN RAZA

Reg # MM131057

[email protected]

MS (HRM)

Supervisor

Dr. S. M. M. Raza N.

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION & SOCIAL SCIENCES

MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

i

Page 2: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and

Organizational Disidentification: Mediating role of Perceived Organizational Support

and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity

By

Muhammad Irfan Raza

Reg # MM131057

Human Resources Management

An Honors Degree thesis Submitted to the Department of Business administration,

in the fulfillment of the MS/ M-Phil degree program Requirement

in the Faculty of Business Administration & Social Sciences

Muhammad Ali Jinnah University

Islamabad, Pakistan

January 2015

ii

Page 3: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on Organizational Identification and

Organizational Disidentification: Mediating effect of Perceived Organizational Support

and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity

By

Muhammad Irfan Raza

Reg # MM131057

__________________________

Dr. S. M. M. Raza Naqvi

(Thesis Supervisor)

_______________________

(Internal Examiner)

_________________________

(External Examiner)

____________________________

Dr. Sajid Bashir (HoD)

(Management and Social Sciences)

___________________________

Dr. Arshad Hassan

(Dean, Management and Social Sciences)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SCIENCES

MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

iii

Page 4: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Certificate

This is to certify that Mr. M. I. Raza A. has incorporated all observations, suggestions and

comments made by the external evaluators as well as the internal examiners and thesis

supervisor. The title of his Thesis is “Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact

on Organizational Identification and Organizational Disidentification: Mediating

role of Perceived Organizational Support and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity”

Forwarded for necessary action.

--------------------------------------

Dr. S. M. M. Raza Naqvi

(Thesis Supervisor)

iv

Page 5: Job satisfaction and employee performance

TABLE CONTENTS

CHAPTER 01...................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Problem statement......................................................................................................................7

1.2 Research questions......................................................................................................................8

1.3 Research objectives.....................................................................................................................9

1.4 Significance of the study..............................................................................................................9

1.5 Theories supporting research study...........................................................................................11

1.5.1 Equity Theory......................................................................................................................11

1.5.2 Norms of reciprocity...........................................................................................................12

1.5.3 Social exchange theory.......................................................................................................13

1.5.4 Organizational Support Theory...........................................................................................14

CHAPTER 02..................................................................................................................................16

REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................................................................16

2.1 Psychological Contract:..............................................................................................................16

2.2 Psychological contract Brach:....................................................................................................17

2.3 Organizational Identification.....................................................................................................18

2.4 Organizational Disidentification.................................................................................................20

2.5 Psychological Contract Breach and organizational Identification/Disidentification...................22

2.6 Role of Equity Sensitivity...........................................................................................................26

2.7 Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support................................................................29

v

Page 6: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Theoretical Model........................................................................................................................32

Identification of Variables/Keywords............................................................................................32

Conceptual Framework 2.1...........................................................................................................32

Hypothesis...................................................................................................................................33

CHAPTER 03..................................................................................................................................34

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................34

3.1 Research Methodology and Design...........................................................................................34

3.1.1 Research Design..................................................................................................................34

3.1.2 Population and sample size................................................................................................34

3.1.5 Instrumentation..................................................................................................................35

3.1.6 Data Collection Technique and time frame.........................................................................37

3.1.7 Data Analysis Tools.............................................................................................................37

3.1.8 Analytical techniques and tool used...................................................................................38

3.2 Reliability...................................................................................................................................41

CHAPTER 04..................................................................................................................................43

RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................43

4.1 Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................................43

4.2 Correlation Analysis...................................................................................................................45

4.3 Regression Analysis....................................................................................................................48

4.4 Mediated Regression Analysis...................................................................................................48

CHAPTER 05..................................................................................................................................48

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION....................................................................................................48

vi

Page 7: Job satisfaction and employee performance

5.1 Discussion and conclusion.........................................................................................................48

CHAPTER 6...................................................................................................................................48

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..........48

6.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................48

6.2 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................48

6.3 Limitations.................................................................................................................................48

6.4 Recommendations & Direction for Future Research.................................................................48

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................48

QUESTIONNAIRE...........................................................................................................................48

vii

Page 8: Job satisfaction and employee performance

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Instrumentations……………………………………………………..……………37

Table 3.2: Sample Characteristics…………...………..………………………...……...….…38

Table 3.3: Scale Reliability…….………………………………………………...….……….41

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics………….………………………………………..…………44

Table 4.2: Correlation Analysis………….……….……………………………..……………47

Table 4.3: Regression Analysis for outcomes of PCB.………….……...…………….…...…48

Table 4.4: Mediated Regression Analysis………………….…………..….……….………...51

Table 4.5: Moderated Regression Analysis…….…………….……..…..………….………...53

Table 4.6: Moderated Regression Analysis…….…………….….….…..………….………...54

Table 4.7: Summary of Accepted/Rejected Hypothesis…..…..….…..…..……...…….……..55

viii

Page 9: Job satisfaction and employee performance

OBBREVIATIONS

PCB: Psychological Contract Breach

EQ: Equity Sensitivity

POS: Perceived Organizational Support

OI: Organizational Identification

OD: Organizational Disidentification

ix

Page 10: Job satisfaction and employee performance

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. S. M. M. Raza Naqvi, the

supervisor of my Honor thesis, for her generous guidance on my work. Whenever I met any

challenges on my research, he was always patient to give advice to me. Her experiences in

research do not only bring me new insights, but also inspire me to carry out the thesis in a

great success.

Moreover, credits should also be given to my friends who assisted me to distribute and

collected questionnaires, and gave comment on my research design. Without their kindness,

this study could not be done in such a way.

Last but never the least; I would like to thank all the respondents for sharing with me their

information and points of view on the above mention titled. Their generous support is

undoubtedly the foundation of my study.

Muhammad Irfan Raza

x

Page 11: Job satisfaction and employee performance

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between breach of psychological

contract and organizational identification & organizational disidentification with mediating

role of perceived organizational support and moderating role of equity sensitivity. This study

was conducted in nonprofit organizations (NGO’s) of Pakistan. The survey was conducted on

different areas of Pakistan such as Islamabad, Rawalpindi, and some district of Azad Jammu

& Kashmir. Primary data was collected using questionnaires which consist of 5 point likert

scale as well as 7 likert scale for organizational identification and organizational

disidentification. The sample size of the study was two hundred and seventy three (273)

employees from various nonprofit organizations. The overall response rate was (67%).

Results show that psychological contract breach was negative and significant relate to

organizational identification and positive significant to organizational disidentification.

Regression analysis shown that perceived organizational support and equity sensitivity will

mediating and moderating the relationships. The current study found significant results. Out

of six hypotheses five are accepted and one is rejected. At the end of this study we will

discuss the discussion and conclusion, limitations and recommendations for future research

have been discussed.

xi

Page 12: Job satisfaction and employee performance

CHAPTER 01

INTRODUCTION

The concept of psychological contract initially rooted in psychological sciences. Argyris

(1960) was the first who discuss the concept of psychological contract, other researcher

further explore this concept like Schein (1980), Levinson et al. (1962) and most famous

Rousseau (1989; 1995; 2000). In literature the concept of psychological contract is widely

used and emerged in every field to understand what employee ready to offer organization and

in return what employee expect to received from organization. Employees works in

organization and they expect some unwritten promises in form of regards, esteem, self

identity from organization which are commonly known as psychological contract (Tijoriwala

and Rousseau, 1998).

In psychological contract literature psychological contract have two types; transactional

contract and rational contract (Millward & Brewerton, 1999; Roussseau 1990, 1995;

Millward & Hopkin, 1998). As name shown that Transactional contract are related to

financial matters so transactional contract are those contracts which are naturally in short

term and belongs to financial where as Rational contracts are long term and relate to other

organizational benefits not financial (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau & McLean

Parks, 1993). In Transactional contracts employee receive compensation, wages and short

term guarantee from organization to compensate their work whereas Rational contracts are

socio emotional and employee show their commitment in the form of organization citizenship

behavior and identification of organization. On other hand organization give them training,

skills, job security and self esteem for gain organizational goals (Bunderson & Thompson,

2003). When organization fail to fulfill these perceptions of employees in the scope of

1

Page 13: Job satisfaction and employee performance

transactional or rational contract these create breach between employee – employer

(Morrison and Robinson, 1997) are known as breach of psychological contract.

Psychological contract breach occurs when between the relationships one party think or

perceives that other party has neglected him to provide their promises or commitment

(Rousseau, 1995). E.g workers think that employer is obliged to offer him personal capacity

building opportunities and if these promises does not fulfill by employer than breach will be

further strengthen.

Study of (Tyler and Lind 1992; Lind and Tyler 1988) discuss group value model which

suggest that breach will minimize the employees affiliation towards organization

(organization identification) and maximize the degree towards organization disidentification

or detach him selves from organization. Low degree of identification and high degree of

disidentification may be shown in large number of employees in their behaviors and attitudes

because of less time in building relationship (McHoskey 1999), abandon or defecting (Gunn-

thorsdottir et al. 2002), and create negative attitude to take revenge instant of corporation

(Meyer 1992).

Restubog et al. (2008) debate on organizational citizenship behavior and breach of

psychological contract, study propose that organizational identification and trust mediate

between psychological contract breach and organizational citizenship behaviors. Study of

Ashforth and Kreiner (2004) and Gibney et al. 2011 interpret correlations of the study show

that negative association between psychological contract breach and organizational

identification. There is positive and significant relationship shown between breach and

organizational disidentification (Ashforth & Kreiner 2004; Restubog et al. 2008; Gibney &

colleagues 2011). In generally, when psychological contract breach take place in employees

2

Page 14: Job satisfaction and employee performance

they feel that organization are not consider them as a valuable member and employees

distance himself from organization and take lesser interest in the organization.

Organizational support theory principally elucidates perceived organizational support

(Aselage & Eisenberger 2003; Eisenberger et al. 1986) on the basis of perceptions that

developed in their employees that employer values their considerations and welfare.

According to reciprocity norm (Gouldner 1960) and social exchange theory (Blau 1964),

perceived organization support relate positively with employee – employer relationship thus

it creates feeling of responsibilities in employees which help for organization to reach its

targets (Eisenberger & Rhoades 2002; Eisenberger et al. 2001). In positive viewpoint

organization handling with terms of fairness, good supervisory relation and job conditions

whereas employees hold good attitudes and behaviors in terms of affective organizational

commitment, increased OCB and decreased withdrawal through perceived organizational

support which helps organization to reach its goals (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber 2011;

Riggle et al. 2009; Eisenberger & Rhoades 2002; Eisenberger et al. 2001).

Organization favorable attitude for employees increase their affective commitment to the

employer (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2002). Further POS fulfill employees socio-emotional,

association and support (Eisenberger, Sowa & Hutchison, Huntington, 1986; Eisenberger,

Armeli, Lynch & Fasolo, 1998) thus employees affective commitment will enhances

(Eisenberger and Rhoades, 2002; Rexwinkel, Rhoades, Lynch, Armeli, 2001; Bormann &

Birjulin, 1999; Shore & Liden, Wayne, 1997; Randall, Settoon, Cropanzano, , Bennett &

Liden, 1996; Guzzo, Noona & Elron, 1994; Tetrick & Sinclair, 1994; Shore & Wayne, 1993;

Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Eisenberger, Davis-LaMastro & Fasolo, 1990). Those employees who

believe that their organization will provide them little support will higher propensity to leave

their job (Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 1999; Griffeth & Aquino, 1999; Wayne et al., 1997;

Noonan & Elron, Guzzo, 1994). Whereas those employee who believe that their organization

3

Page 15: Job satisfaction and employee performance

have been support them well will performing better and lower tendency to leave the

organization. As a result POS will positively relate to the organization identification and task

performances (Wayne et al., 1997).

Social exchange theory and reciprocity norm theory will help us to analysis how POS

mediate between psychological contract breach and organizational identification and

organizational disidentification. POS is the valuable handling an employee received from

organization (Shore & Shore, 1995; Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Eisenberger, Hutchison &

Sowa, Huntington, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Perceived organization support is

essential element for employee to maintain their jobs effectiveness and execute their attitude

(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, Eisenberger, 1986).

Literature identified a large number of compensations and desirable working situation which

are positive relate with perceived organizational support; e.g. employees skills development

(Wayne, Liden & Shore, 1997), autonomy in their jobs (Eisenberger, Cameron & Rhoades,

1999), friendly working conditions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Favorable working

condition in organization will bridge psychological contract. When employees perceive that

these conditions are in positive way, they feel that employer respect values and work for their

wellbeing (Shore & Shore, 1995). In advance Kessler and Coyle-Shapiro (2002) commentary

on their study that when employer provide favorable environment or fulfill employee

contractual obligations will increase perceived organizational support.

When employee sense that their organization have been fulfilled their psychological contacts

(social-emotional) needs (Eisenberger et al., 1986), employee perceive that organization has

treated him in positive way. This link further built strong ideological exchange between

employee and organization (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Kacmar & Witt & Andrews, 2001;

Witt, 1992). Eisenberger et al., (2001) further debate that this link that perceived

4

Page 16: Job satisfaction and employee performance

organizational support and psychological contract will increased employee’s acceptance,

reciprocity norm and exchange theory. As result perceived organizational support will

increase the employee identification, their affective commitment, perform their tasks

effectively and least turnover rate in the organization.

Present study also helps us to address the limitations, investigate, empirical & theoretical, and

outcomes of equity sensitivity. This study also focus on theoretical and empirical testimony

concerning with selected variables and influence of equity sensitivity on other dependent

variables. Equity sensitivity react different when work environment change, they hold

different characteristics and react according to these characters. In particular the nonprofit

organization environments makes more difficult to fulfill all premises that employees believe

that organization will provide them. As a result these believe or promises are strengthen the

psychological contracts where employees perceive that organization must fulfill their needs

and return employees give them their services (Rousseau 1995). In different phenomenon

various perceive psychological contracts has been breached, which results employee react

negatively to identify the organization and positively related to the organizational

disidentification. Through breach of psychological contracts employee react negatively and

their behaviors and attitudes falls towards negative mode and hence their performance also

decreases (Meta analysis, Zhao et al. 2007). This study may debate on that employees

generally response positively to organization identification and negatively identify the

organization when breach is happen.

Employer – employee relationships are critical process to understand the process to which

incorporate with employee – employer relationship. We further debate on organizational

identification which is negative and organizational disidentification which is positive relate

with breach. Negative attitude occurs when employee’s thinks that organizations are fail to

fulfill their welfare and does not importance their contributions. Further study also explores

5

Page 17: Job satisfaction and employee performance

the moderating and mediating role between breach and organizational identification &

disidentification.

Studying these theories we will be able to contribute literatures in existing body of

knowledge. Initially we research on breach of psychological contract which relate to the

social exchange theory, norms of reciprocity to explain the employee attitudes which are

either identify or disidentify the organization. Restubog et al. (2008) and (Tyler & Lind

1992, 1988) who discuss group value model and social exchange theory which can clarify the

breach to identifying and disidentifying the relationship. Secondly when psychological

contract breach has been discussed, few other literatures have study on psychological breach

of employee’s attachment to the organization as a contour of disidentification and

identification. Breach have also send a strong symbolic message to employees which identify

themselves as a valued member of organization (Restubog et al. 2008). In 2008 Restubog et

al. show that breach was negative relates with organization identification hence employees

trust was fully mediate between the relationships. In study of Restubog et al. (2008) examine

the association between organizational disidentification and breach. The mediating effect of

organizational support are explore within literature through study of K. L. Scott & W. T. Few

& T. J. Zagenczyk & Ray Gibney (2011) which explore relationship between identification

and psychological contracts with role of perceived organizational support in the collage,

university members. Than study the equity sensitivity as a moderator in the study belongs to

Scott W. Lester & Jill Kickul (2001) where the authors study the link among breach -

employee behavior & attitudes. With the help of these relations we will able to study and

further explore these links and add some literature in the existing body of knowledge.

6

Page 18: Job satisfaction and employee performance

1.1 Problem statement

In 21st century organizations undergone substantial changes to meet their challenges through

organizational support, fulfill employee’s psychological needs which create employees

identification towards organizations which ultimately enhance the performance, job

satisfaction and commitment of employees towards organizations and if employees beliefs

are not fulfilled by employer or organizational support are not given in a right direction

which create organizational disidentification which are harmful and employees distance

himself from the organization. In contexts of nonprofit organizations where employees are

psychological attached with organizations and mostly work in different communities, ICBs,

unions which are characteristics of collectivist environment (Hofstede, 2001) provide quick

response to affected peoples, IDP’s, provide faculties like health, education, wash, awareness

etc. in this situation employees are too much attached with organizations which perceived

psychological contract, perceived organizational support, on the bases of these employee

moderate their equity sensitivity which result in their performance, behavior and attitude

(Giardini & Frese, 2008; Fox, Tett, & Wang, 2005; Gibson & Barsade, 2007; Stankov, &

Roberts, 1998) either positive or negative which finally belongs to employees own their

organization or distance them self form the organization.

Individual has a unique sensitivity preference and use their sensitivity on fair and unfair

situations which are also affect on employee’s decision whichever positive or negative side.

This study will also useful in developing countries where grass domestic products and

economy growth rate is low. Employees are attached with society or organization with

different form; either financially or emotionally, and their reaction depend on either these

form which own or distance them self form organizations. Guerts et al.(1998) concluded that

when employee think that they are not treated fairly as compare to other co-workers or the

7

Page 19: Job satisfaction and employee performance

effort they have utilized, feelings of frustration and negative perceptions are created in their

mind. In organizations where employees don’t see any other opportunity, they start spreading

rumors, reduce their input and affect the outcome of organization, and employees are distance

themselves from organization as a result organization face different problems. In light of all

above discussion we found very common problem in our private sector organizations (ngo’s)

where employees distance them self form organization when their psychological needs are

not fulfilled by employer or vice versa which are ultimately produced different positive or

negative outcomes.

Hitherto the link between these variables has not to my knowledge, has not been explore in

the literature. To explore this gap between breach and organizational identification and

disidentification we conduct this study in private sector organizations (nonprofit

organizations). In Pakistani context no vital study has been investigated by the past researcher

in those areas. In this study we build our arguments on the basis of empirical and theoretical

study to test the all linkage and their role in the organization which add new dimensions and

figures in the existing body of knowledge.

1.2 Research questions

Keeping in mind that every individual have different assumption and beliefs and on the bases

of these assumption they own or disown their organization and react differently in fair or

unfair situation in the organization.

To understand this situation the aim of my research is

Ɋ: What is the interrelationship between breach of psychological contract, equity sensitivity,

perceived organizational support, organizational identification and organizational

disidentification?

8

Page 20: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Ɋ: Does perceive organizational support will mediate between psychological contract breach,

organizational identification and organizational disidentification?

Ɋ: Does equity sensitivity will moderate the relationship between psychological contract

breach, organizational identification and organizational disidentification?

1.3 Research objectives

The key objectives of this research are

To find out impact of psychological contract breach on organizational identification?

To find out impact of psychological contract breach on organizational

disidentification?

To find out the mediating role of perceived organizational support between

psychological contract breach and organizational identification?

To find out the mediating role of perceived organizational support between

psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification?

To find out moderating role of equity sensitivity between breach of psychological

contract and organizational identification?

To find out moderating role of equity sensitivity between breach of psychological

contract and organizational disidentification?

1.4 Significance of the study

Present research will open new dimensions and direction to explore the new horizons in

psychological contract, identification and disidentification of organization. Present study is

unique in different dimensions. This effort develops an integrated model of organizational

identification and disidentification with breach of psychological contract. This study focus on

9

Page 21: Job satisfaction and employee performance

the relationship between psychological contract breach and its outcomes which are identify or

disidentify the organization. Further we examine the moderating and mediating role of equity

sensitivity and perceived organizational support which are very useful for organizations and

explore the further dimensions. variables of our current model are not directly studied by any

researcher specially in developing countries and the links between these variables are also

comparatively new will be fruitful for organizations and researchers in future to grasp these

gaps. This study was mainly important for organizations who recognize that how to fulfill

employees needs to meet to organizational challenges because satisfied employees are

blessing and gift for the organization while unsatisfied employees hurts the organization

badly.

In every culture employees holds different norms and beliefs, on the bases of these

employees react different in different environment. In nonprofit organizations where

employees are working in highly competitive environment and attached with organizations

either financially or emotionally and employees also beliefs that employer fulfill their

psychological needs, provide organizational support to achieve their organizational goals, if

these beliefs are not fulfilled by employer employees react either positive or negative way

which affect the organizational performance. Current study fruitful for all organizations

(ngo’s), through the use of these results organization will achieve their goals more

effectively. This study will also help to find out the behavior of employees and their

attachment or detachment towards organization and also immensely important for private

sector organizations and future researchers. By testing these variables it will be add new

aspects and dimensions in the existing body of knowledge.

10

Page 22: Job satisfaction and employee performance

1.5 Theories supporting research study

1.5.1 Equity Theory

Through Equity theory we explain the employee behavior and attitude at work floor. Adam

(1965, 1963) presented equity theory. Inequity exists when one person perceives that their

outcomes to input ratio different from others ratio. Equity theory focuses on perception

whether it prevails in reality or not. Equity theory compares the degree of inequity by

comparing one’s ratio to others. This theory focuses on exchange relationship between where

employee gives input and gets output. He believes that equity motivate when fairness comes

between organization and coworkers. On the work floor equity structure based on the ratio

between inputs and outcomes, Input means contributions done by employees and outcomes

stand by organization doing for employees. (Koppes & Vinchur, 2011) study on job

satisfaction and motivation through the result of comparison of perceived employee inputs

and outcomes to the outcomes and inputs form organization. This model can be explained as:

Where OA and OB are organization side means outcomes and IA and IB are Input from

employee. In organizational context outcome may be psychological rewards, feedback,

support for administration or supervisor and salary etc (De Cooman, Hofmans, De Gieter, &

Jegers, & Pepermans, 2012) on other side input refer to commitment to the organization,

qualification, etc (Anderson, 1976). According to Adams (1963, 65) equity feeling outcome

of (1) comparison between inputs and outcomes for self to organization, and (2) comparison

between both ratio means self to other colleagues. When this ratios is unfair, inequity is

practiced, which further turn into conflict situation and burnout stress. When larger the

inequity the stress is higher, to reduce this stress organization should eliminate the inequity

11

Page 23: Job satisfaction and employee performance

which further belongs to organizational identification. Generally equity theory tested by

monitoring the reaction of employees in inequity situation by intentionally overpaying or

underpaying them (Landy & Conte, 2010; p. 375). In this situation when employee overpaid

would raise their performance and own their organization or quality and when underpaid

would lower down the performance and distant them self from organization.

This theory is used to measure the equity sensitivity. There are inputs and outputs in a

relationship inputs is what employee given to the organization and output means what receive

form organization when this situation happened employee react towards organizational

identification or disidentification. In general when employee inputs are high their

organizational identification is high and when output is low relative to other their

disidentification are happened.

1.5.2 Norms of reciprocity

Many of us ready or agree to help colleagues when he/she is under work pressure. People

remember and thanks to those who remembered their important days in his life. And many of

us have buying gifts for friend who remember last time during the illness. These are all

examples of norm of reciprocity. Norm of reciprocity is a social rule among people who

return some favors and other acts of goodness or response to positive action with other who

act as a positively (kind reward action) (Gouldner, 1960). This rule gives fair social exchange

and positive behaviors. Yet, norm can also be use as to gain unfair advantage. The norm of

reciprocity is that people will response to each other by returning fair for fairness and respond

unfair for unfairness. As a result this theory is important in exchange between input and

output ratio.

In literature we found two key elements of norm of reciprocity as either positive or negative

aspects. In positive the exchange of favors with favors and benefits with benefits with

12

Page 24: Job satisfaction and employee performance

individuals. This norm commits benefits or favor until he or she repays (Chen, 2009). This

positive reciprocity norm is normal in society when one person helps others expect good

feedback from other side. On other side negative norm is that when individuals act against

unfair or unfavorable treatments (Chen, 2009). In generally both type of reciprocity norm

either positive or negative emphasizes the return as other party react either fair or unfair

means. Studies show that individual who react crime or anger might more support the

reciprocity norm negatively to hostility by punishing or mistreatment. (Eisenberger, Lynch,

Rohdiek and Aselage 2004). Carlsmith, Robinson and Darley, (2002) conduct a research on

college students and most of them believe that punishment should be decide on seriousness of

the crime instant by set examples to preventing parallel crimes. This theory is more important

for mediating and moderator variables such as perceived organizational support and equity

sensitivity. In POS employees beliefs that employer give than all their promises in return of

his work and in equity sensitivity individuals act against fair or unfair situation which are

provide employee psychological contract which further own or distance himself from

organization. This theory assumes that when one employee gives some things to organization

it also expects reciprocation.

1.5.3 Social exchange theory

In 1958 George Homans explain Social exchange theory with his publication "Social

Behavior as Exchange". Social exchange define as the exchange among persons, less or more

reward, intangible or tangible or exchange of activity among two or more persons.

Further (Blau 1964) explain social exchange theory that person are mutual depends on each

other’s and when one person propose some things to other they expects reciprocate by other

party. In contexts of our present study social exchange theory is very important and widely

used in research. This theory is the most significant and mold theory for understand the

13

Page 25: Job satisfaction and employee performance

workplace behavior. We found their roots in the literature for last more than 10 decades

(Mauss, 1925; Malinowski, 1922), in anthropology Sahlins, 1972; Firth, 1967), sociology

(Blau, 1964) and social psychological studies (Kelley & Thibault, 1959; Homans, 1958;

Gouldner, 1960). Despite this many social exchange have different views and their relation

which creates sense of responsibility (Emerson, 1976). Social exchange theory are

interrelated and interdependent on person to person and interactions each other (Blau, 1964).

Social exchange theory also stress on interdependent transactions which alternatively

generate strong relationships, while this happened only under certain circumstances. Social

exchange theory has been explore different areas such as social power (Peterson, Molm, &

Takahashi, 1999), independence (Westphal & Zajac, 1997), networks (Cook, Molm, &

Yamagishi, 1993; Galaskiewicz, Brass, Greve, & Tsai, 2004), organizational justice

(Konovsky, 2000), leadership (Wayne, Liden, & Sparrowe, 1997) and psychological

contracts (Rousseau, 1995).

There is strong consequence of social exchange theory on breach of psychological contract

and its outcomes. Breach happen when individual received different in return what they

expect from employer or when there is a difference between employee perceived and

individual actually received from employer. This theory gives us how employees respond

when their psychological contract are broken and then further show its effects on

organizational identification and disidentification.

1.5.4 Organizational Support Theory

Organization support theory is that managers are concerned with their employee that they are

dedicated with organization and in return organization is focus on employees welfare and

care their contribution (Eisenberger et al. 1986). When this identification is given to

employees they approve their esteem and affiliation. Hutchinson, Sowa, Eisenberger, &

14

Page 26: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Huntington, 1986; ; Shore & Shore, 1995; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2002) support and discuss

the social emotional needs of employees which increase their work efforts, change employee

perception which concern that their contributions valuable for the organization and

organization care about their well being. Such perceived organization support increase

employee satisfaction, their affective commitment, expectation towards organization and

improve their performance which help organization to reach their goals. The representative of

the organization are generally fair or unfair orientation towards employees which conflicting

the individuals motives (Eisenberger et al. 1986). In light of this, Levinson’s (1965) draw

organization support theory idea that every employee in the organization represents the

organization which gives the basic social exchange relationships between employer –

employee. With this in mind that such relationships provide organizational identification in

form of commitment and work effort which are coherent with reciprocity norm, such type of

support from employer’s employee compel to support and minimize the stress and conflict in

the organization which alternatively oblige employee to organizational identification

(Eisenberger et al. 2001; Gouldner 1960).

In literature social exchange has generously control on organizational support theory

Eisenberger et al. (1986) proposed socio-emotional need for esteem, regards and

recongnization are the important function of perceived organization support Armeli et al.

1998. Fulfilling of these socio-emotional needs reduce the organizational disidentification

like psychosomatic and psychological reactions when employee faces high work pressure

(Ilies et al. 2010; George et al. 1993). In general the gratification of these needs employee fit

himself into social identity from organizational membership (Fuller et al. 2006; Eisenberger

et al. 1986; Eisenberger and Rhoades, 2002). Organizational support theory is vital to

analysis the perceived organizational support variable. Which are further links between

breach of psychological contract to organizational identification and disidentification.

15

Page 27: Job satisfaction and employee performance

CHAPTER 02

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

When two parties’ beliefs that they have mutual obligations between employee and employer

or more than two parties (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1998) are define as Psychological

contract. When these obligations are not fulfill from organization and organization does not

perform according to the expectations of employees (Robinson and Morisson, 2000) are

referred to as breach of psychological contract

2.1 Psychological Contract:

Argyris 1960 was the first who initiate the concept of psychological contract. Psychological

contract was developed by organizational scholar Denise Rousseau that illustrates the mutual

perceptions and beliefs, and the informal relationship between employer and employee. They

discuss detailed practice and define their relationship between organization and employee.

This is conspicuous from the formal written agreements of employees, which mutually

identify their responsibilities and duties. Psychological contract are unwritten agreements

take place before the formal agreement between two parties, the employee and employer. The

contract start when selection process is began and two parties are not defining each other.

This process can be start through observation and signaling theory when employee receives

signaling from organization and construct expectation from organization according to their

own perception and through towards organization. Both parties construct unwritten promises

to gain mutual benefits.

Applicant becomes employee psychological contract link relationship among employee and

16

Page 28: Job satisfaction and employee performance

employer. Rousseau define in their work that ‘employee reciprocal exist between employee

and employer and employee assume responsibility from organization and their responsibility

towards organization’ Rousseau (1989). Rousseau also suggests that most employees want to

transactional relationship. (Levinson et al. 1962) define psychological contract that employee

– employer to share their assumptions and their contributions.

In 1993 two scholars discuss three type of psychological contract as promise, payment and

acceptance (Rousseau and Park, 1993). Promise is the first stage of psychological contract it

perceived in first interaction. In next step decide what is being offered to them as payment

and last when both first two are according to the employee it is accepted. Transactional

contracts and rational contracts are also discussed by (Rousseau & Park, 1993; Rousseau,

1989) in their research as type of psychological contract. Transactional contracts are refer to

wages, salaries and those are short term contract where as rational contracts are long term as

commitment, job satisfaction, and organization identification. Both are very important in

nature.

2.2 Psychological contract Brach:

Brach of psychological contract happens when employees in the organization perceived that

employers have failed to accomplish their promises or not deliver their beliefs. In breach

employee react as negatively, employee change their attitude and behavior in negative

manner. In psychological contract breach employee reduced loyalty to organization, reduced

organizational commitment and increase turnover intention (Hussain, 2013). Morrison and

Robinson, (1997) explain that employee in the organization perceived that organization will

fulfill their beliefs based on their perception, when these beliefs are not fulfill breach has take

place, this breach further strength employee to change their attitude and behavioral (Kraatz,

& Rous-seau, Robinson, 1994; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993).

17

Page 29: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Psychological contract breach is the situation when employee belief that organization fails to

fulfill their promises (Briner & Conway, 2002). Contract are define as positive way as trust,

sincerity to organization than these beliefs are not fulfill from organization it leads to breach

of psychological contract (Sykes, 1996). Psychological contract depends on individual

rational and transactional beliefs regarding promises so it is individual employee perceived

regarding effort and rewards and fair or unfair between them. Breach is happened when one

or more contracts are not fulfill form organization employee feel emotional experience that

breach has occurred (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).

Many researchers discuss psychologically contract and many of them has the similar

definition which composed of beliefs, assumption, expectations, reciprocity and obligations.

In light of these researcher Rousseau define psychological contract as it contain employees

beliefs in a reciprocity responsibility between employee and employer (Rousseau, 1989).

Researchers explain that it has a subjective nature that depends on the employee beliefs

regarding their own view of point that organization must fulfill them (Rousseau, 1989;

Bellou, 2009; Rousseau, 1995). In further Rousseau (1989) discuss in his study that contract

is essential element exist between employee and organization because it is essential to

mediate between job outcomes. Psychological contract begins when job applicant holds a job

in organization and their beliefs start comparison with other party (Hess & Jepsen, 2009).

2.3 Organizational Identification

Many researchers define organizational identification in the literature that identification is the

positive link with organization to fulfill the expected role, task, goal, performance,

organization citizenship behaviors, job satisfaction, commitment and tenure (Bartel, 2001;

Ashforth, 2001; van Knippenberg, 2000) which are alternatively benefiting both employee

and employer.

18

Page 30: Job satisfaction and employee performance

In literature many researcher examined the relationship between employee and employer and

define their relationship in term of identification of themselves in the work floor (Ashforth &

Mael, 1989; V. Knippenberg, Ellemers & Haslam, Platow, 2003; Pratt, 1998; Dutton,

Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Elsbach, 1999). Every member in organization identifies

themselves with organization in term of what organization though to present them. To

understand the concept of organization identification we must understand the concept of

organization fit. Organization fit define as work environment and individual match with each

other (Johnson, Kristof-Brown, & Zimmerman, 2005; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982;

Dawis, 1992; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Characteristics of person may include

biological or psychological needs, goals, beliefs, abilities, and self esteem whereas

environmental characteristics include extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, cultural values, norms,

traditions and other characteristics of individual and collectives social environment (French et

al., 1982). Fit concept is very important in industrial and organizational psychological fields

(Edwards, 2008). It is measurement of self concept and perception of employee towards

organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1989; Pratt, 1998) constructs their perceived identification

which fit with commitment of the organization: individuals may recognize themselves

negative way whereas other may good fit with similar organizations and feel to good

reorganization and committed.

In last decades organizational behavior play important role to study the organizational

identification (Rousseau, 1998; Pratt, 1998; Whetten & Godfrey, 1998). At every level

individual, group or organizational level identification is very important implications. It has

found positive relation with ocb and performance whereas negative related to turnover

intentions (Rao, Bhattacharya, & Glynn, 1995; Tyler, 1999; Hinkle, Abrams & Ando 1998;

van Knippenberg, 2000; Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Pratt, 1998; Haslam, 2001; Griffeth, Wan-

Huggins, & Riordan, 1998; Bartel, 2001). Identification also holds quality of work and work

19

Page 31: Job satisfaction and employee performance

control (Ashforth,2001). Almost every organization results/outcomes are strongly attached

with employee perception either positive or negative. Many other researchers also discuss the

dark side of organization (Elsbach, 1999; McLean Parks, Dukerich, & Kramer, 1998; Michel

& Jehn, 2003) where employees hold negative feeling towards organization.

Male and Tetrick (1992) define psychological group of identification that they share their

common experience and characteristics with each other in the group Tetrick & Mael (1992).

In specific organizational identification certain group of people shares their perceived

experience of its failures or success (Mael and Ashforth (2001). Employee perceives

themselves as a member of this organization Rousseau (1998). Members identify themselves

with the organization when employee perceive that at least they are part of the organization

Kreiner and Ashforth (2004), it is the cognitive perception of individual member in group or

organization not behaviors results Gould (1975) in Mael and Tetrick (1992). In literature

researcher give lot of emphasis on organizational identification which is important

implications in organizational. Mael and Ashforth (1995) found that organizational

identification has positively relates to organization citizenship behavior and performance

which motivate employees. In healthcare sector employees likely to engage in extra role,

improve quality, identify themselves and minimize the cost of work Golden, Duckerich, and

Shortell (2002).

2.4 Organizational Disidentification

Many researcher works on other side of identification Ashforth (2001), Bullis and DiSanza

(1999), Dukerich et al. (1998), and Elsbach (1999) which are known as organizational

disidentification. Disidentification occurs when employee show their attributes and behaviors

negatively and perceived that he or she are not fit with the organizational environment and

resist to organization (Bhattacharya & Elsbach, 2001).

20

Page 32: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Individuals are opposed to some or all characteristics of their organization (Ashforth, 2001).

Ashforth (2001) also correlates disidentification positively with abuse, poor attention span,

and absenteeism (Ashforth, 2001). Disidentified employee retains poor attitude and

performance which promote negative norm and culture in the organizational environment.

Example is; if someone challenges the value and missions of the organization other party or

opponents who support these values and mission are ‘disidentify’ them. In disidentification

individual or group of peoples are disidentify with the organization as peoples are like or

identify in organizational identification. Disidentification is a opposing him selves from

organization not just for accidental or began with unfit with their environment Elsbach

(1999). Disidentification may be entitled with separation form organization’s mission, vision,

culture or norms frequently and force himself to separate her identity and reputation from

those organizations. Employees involve finding out objectionable aspects of the organization

which help them to psychological separation from organization.

It is very important that clearly define the identification and disidentification. Many scholars

discuss that identification is not opposite to disidentification. To clarify this discusses the

relationship between disidentification and identification. At initially they seem uni-

dimensional variable. In the past research (Elsbach, 2001, 1999; Ashforth, 2001; Di-Sanza &

Bullis, 1999; Pratt, 2000; Dukerich et al., 1998), disidentification and identification are

separate variable. Both are containing unique psychological state. Identification is typically

positive or connecting aspect of the organization from individual where as disidentification is

typically negative or disconnecting state of the organization from individual. Despite of this

the purpose of identification & disidentification to conserve the identity of the

organization,the environment and the fact that experience in time to time. The best example

coated by Elsbach’s (2001). He discusses the califormia legislative staff where every member

of legislative show identification or disidentification to the legislature and every member use

21

Page 33: Job satisfaction and employee performance

different tactics to recognize them self identification. They identify them self in policy

making process and distance them self for political matters, where identified himself for

politicking and disidentify with ordinary mechanics of law making.

In organization number of reason are seem to disidentify or unrecognized the organization

which will produced conflicts between member and organization and as a result turnover and

absenteeism are strongly occur in employees which are harmful for the organization. Results

show that cost of turnover is high (Griffeth & Hom, 1995). When disidentifying employees it

manager responsibility to minimize individual negative views towards organization. However

managers of the organization are not desire disidentification in their employees which are

harmful for the organization.

2.5 Psychological Contract Breach and organizational Identification/Disidentification

Many researchers conceptualize and debate on employee - employer relationship in a social

exchange relationship where the organization furnish employees with physical, mental and

social needs in exchange for employee roles to achieve its organizational goals (Rousseau,

1995; Eisenberger et al. 1986). This concepts depends on psychological contracts theory

which debates that unwritten employees beliefs, assumptions that organization must fulfill

regarding job security, training, promotion and other related factors which are not in written

contracts play a very important role in employee attitude for exchange relationship which

relate to organization effectiveness (Rousseau, 1995). Many studies suggest that employee’s

early experience with organization; experiences during recruiters and early socialization with

organization members begin to develop psychological contract promises or perceived

organization values (Rousseau, 1995). During passage of time employee interact with other

coworkers (Rousseau and Dabos, 2004) and supervisors (Rousseau, 2001) and further

develop psychological contact. Psychological contract is very important for redesigning

22

Page 34: Job satisfaction and employee performance

organizational structure, downsizing, technological innovation and change, outsourcing and

provide strength during difficult economic times (Robinson and Morrison, 2000).

The most important theories reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) and Social exchange theory

(Blau 1964) are important to debate on the results of breach. Social exchange theory explains

through the gratification of employee’s contracts, which creates feelings of responsibilities

within entities to reach the organizational goals (Rousseau, 1995). Gouldner’s explain the

reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) that individual entrust to help other individual who help

them which are a generalized moral norm. On the other hand the organization’s who not

fulfill perceived beliefs and assumption of employees which are further motivate employees

to seize negative organization related behaviors and minimize contributions towards

organization (Zhao et al. 2007) actually harmful for organization and give opportunity for

revenge (Bordia et al. 2008) and also withhold from customers (Bordia et al. 2010) this type

of act support the negative reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960), which are danger for other

party to take revenge from other party who treated negatively.

There is largely research evidences supported (Zhao et al. 2007) the instrumental approach

support by psychological contracts theory limit their power in some cases, particularly when

significance of psychological contract breach is naturally by symbolic (Restubog et al. 2008;

Fuller et al. 2003). Many different models are used and one of them is a group value model

(Lind and Tyler, 1988;1992) was develop to address the fact that behaviors of employees are

not mutually or equity perspectives which minimize workers efforts towards organization to

compensate their losses which accrue due to its actions. Unfair treatment and response

towards employees may be the products of their feelings which are result of the expense of

actual cost. Further, group value model propose group values which are used to treatment for

employees is important for individuals to perceived organization values or group values

because such treatment s creates symbolic worth of employee which is valuable member of

23

Page 35: Job satisfaction and employee performance

the organization or group. More further, fair or unfair treatment or just or unjust treatment

will be influence the perceptions of employees if or not he/she belong to organization as a

useful entity. In fact these perceptions have influence on employees which becomes

psychologically attached or separate from the organization (Tyler and Lind, 1988).

A research conduct and illustrate on the group value model that there are negatively relate

breach and organization identification and positively between breach and organization

disidentification and Zagenczyk et al. (2011a) Restubog et al. (2008). Both concepts are

similar and describe the function of organization membership that performs in employees self

concepts. Organization identification is a form where employees emerge their attributes and

redefine self concepts (Mael and Ashforth 1989). Dutton et al., 1994 also define identification

is likely when employees perceive that organization or group consider them as a distinct

entity or in a positive manner. Especially when employees look organization values, mission,

purpose etc. they likely perceive the organization in a positive manner and define their

attributes which are similar to those which are define by the organization. Further employees

perceive that organization consider them as a meaningful entity and distinguish themselves

from others, under this type of perception employees are likely to become psychologically

attached to organization. In organization contents this type of attachment is desirable because

when employees positively psychologically attached with organization become more attached

with organization and engaged in positive citizenship behavior and minimize the negative

intentions towards organization (Riketta, 2005).

When employees psychologically detach or separate themselves from the organization is

known as Organizational Disidentification (Ashforth and Kreiner, 2004). In other hands,

employee will disconnect from organization when they feel that they will stand direct

opponent side to those who defines the organization (Elsbach and Bhattacharya, 2001). As

identification is a distinct self concept occurs when organization provides positive and

24

Page 36: Job satisfaction and employee performance

distinct self concept to employees. Similarly disidentification occurs when employee perceive

that their value is different from organization and they believe that organization has a

negative reputation (Kreiner and Ashforth, 2004; Elsbach and Bhattacharya, 2001;

Bhattacharya and Elsbach 2002). Under such situation, disidentification enables employees to

separate or disconnect themselves from organization or groups and maintain their self-

concept. Thus disidentification among employees is high is not a desirable state because they

always impel employees to negative opinions regarding organization and employee share

their negative attitude to other coworker to leave the organization altogether (Kreiner and

Ashforth, 2004).

Although past literature (Restubog et al. 2008; Gibney et al. 2011; Ashforth et al. 2004) also

explores link between breach and identification and some past research also empirically

illustrate the importance of these variables and why these variable are interrelated. In today’s

breach of psychological contract is ordinary or inescapable within the organization (Rousseau

2001), it is important for us to understand why and who this variable in interrelated with

organizational identification and disidentification. It is also important for us to debate on why

breach influences on employee and change their attitudes, interventions and innovations can

be adopt and change the situations within employer – employee relationship (Zagenczyk et al.

2009).

In light of previous studies, I expect in my research that breach of psychological contract

would be negative related to organizational identification and positive relate to organizational

disidentification. When psychological contract breach occurs employee thinks that they are

not consider as a valueable members of his organization and separate themselves (Zagenczyk

et al., 2011a; Restubog et al., 2008). in identification, psychological contract breach will not

only produce feelings of rejection but also weaken the employee’s psychological attachment

towards organization also reevaluate what they believe and where they stand for, these type

25

Page 37: Job satisfaction and employee performance

of attachment may decrease the organization attractiveness, especially when employees are

responsible to initiate some steps within the organization. In other hand disidentification,

beach is lead employees to perceive organization negatively that their values are distinct and

opposite to the organizational values.

Hypothesis 1: There a negative and significant relationship between Psychological contract

breach and organizational identification.

Hypothesis 2: There a positive and significant relationship between Psychological contract

breach and organizational disidentification.

2.6 Role of Equity Sensitivity

In current research the moderating role of equity sensitivity is most interesting variable of this

study. Equity sensitivity proposes that every individual in the organization have unique

sensitivity to fair and unfair situations which are further force to change their attitudes and

behaviors according to the situations either positive or negative (King el at., 1993; Huseman

et al., 1987, 1985; Miles el at., 1989). This concept explore the perceptions of individuals

what is and what is not equal and then use the other source of information to react the unfair

situation (Miles, King and Day 1993). Individual’s equity sensitivity may be moderate

between the reactions of individual behavioral and emotional those pursue a breach of

contract (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Equity sensitivity concept was studied by different

examiner that every individuals hold distinctive sensitivity in fair and unfair situation which

effect individual reactions & attitude, either positive or negative (King et al., 1993; Huseman

et al., 1987, 1985; Miles et al., 1989;).

Empirical and theoretical evidence show that in same inequitable situations equity sensitivity

react different with others (Kickul et al., 2005; Huseman et al., 1985; Jackson & Patrick

26

Page 38: Job satisfaction and employee performance

1991). Different studies has also link equity sensitivity to a extensive range of different work

attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, responsibilities and rights (Raja et al. 2004), violations of

contract and action policies (Walker et al. 2007; Kickul & Lester 2001), outcomes (Miles et

al. 1994), ethical behavior and attitudes (Mudrack et al. 1999), commitment and job

satisfaction (Mone and O’Neill 1998), efficiency in job (Burroughs and Bing, 2001), and

OCB (Restubog et al. 2007; Akan et al. 2009).

Adams’s (1963, 1965) original study the equity theory, organizational behavioral scholars

have dedicated lot of interest towards dimension of fair or unfair situation in the organization.

Every member in organization is much concerned about how much he or she gets (outcomes)

in proportion to how much he or she contributes (inputs) in the organization. In this situation

equity theory tells about the comparison the ratio of individual with another individual to

determine whether the situation is equitable. When things are inequitable or unequal then

employees are react differently.

Adam’s (1963, 65) explain equity theory that every individual have different sensitivity to

react different in fair and unfair situation. In light of this theory we explain the following

views: (i) individual wants to fair relationships (ii) compare outcomes and inputs to other

party (iii) show negative feeling or reaction when feeling inequitable condition (iv) try to

balance these situations. According to Adam theory it is universal phenomenon that every

individual compare their inputs and outcomes with other opponent. This situation experience

during inequity situation regardless of whether under-rewarded or over-rewarded of

outcomes. Adams (1965) also explains that inequity distress appears in both situations either

under rewarded or over rewarded (Tornow, 1971; Carroll & Dittrich, 1978). Huseman, Miles,

and Hatfield (1985, 1987) originally debate on equity sensitivity concept and more dynamics

of equity perceptions. Equity sensitivity may vary their perception when they compare their

outputs/input ration with other referent.

27

Page 39: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Huseman and his colleagues (1987, 1985) explain the three types of individual’s sensitivity to

equity which vary from individual to individual: (i) Benevolent (inputs greater than

outcomes), (ii) equity sensitive (those who seek equity preference, who seek balance their

inputs and outcomes with others), and (iii) entitled (outcomes greater than inputs) Huseman

et al., (1985, 1987).

Other than the management sciences equity theory used a number of other fields such as

expectations of consumer (Kurtz, Clow, and Ozment, 1998), one to one business marketing

(Boyd and Bhat 1998; Patterson, Spreng, and Johnson, 1997), customer suggestions and

complaints (Pinkerton and Lapidus, 1995), and pricing tag Monroe and Martins, 1994),

satisfaction of customers (Oliver and Swan, 1989), and relationship between seller – buyer

exchange (Arenson, Huppertz, and Evans, 1978).

This study further examines the breach of psychological contract (inequity form) which

reciprocally effect on equity sensitivity and affect the employee behaviors, attitude and their

reaction towards organizations. These forms of breach relate with extrinsic and intrinsic

outcomes. Extrinsic includes benefits, pay etc and intrinsic includes emphasize on worthiness

of job. When these form are not fulfilled employee react more negative in their attitudes and

behaviors which affect their identification and employee react towards organizational

disidentification.

Hypothesis 3: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract

breach and Organizational identification.

Hypothesis 4: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract

breach and organizational disidentification.

28

Page 40: Job satisfaction and employee performance

2.7 Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support

Last few decades perceived organizational support has important variable in the fields of

psychological science and management sciences (Allen et al., 2008; Rhodes and Eisenberger,

2002; Fuller et al., 2003; Stamper et al., 2003; Aube et al., 2007). Researcher define

perceived organization support variable in various way. Eisenberger define in 1986 that

employee in the organizations perceived that employer care their welfare and value their

contributions Eisenberger (1986). How organizations recognize the contributions of

employees and care about their wellbeing (Allen et al., 2008). Many scholars define basic

principle of organizational support theory in their studies (Eisenberger et al. 1986;

Eisenberger and Aselage 2003) that employees in the organization develop overall

perceptions regarding their organization that organization cares about their wellbeing and

provide all essential needs of employees. In light of social exchange theory and reciprocity

norm many authors commentary on perceived organizational support positively relate to

employee - employer relation it creates feeling of responsibilities which help for organization

to reach its targeted results (Eisenberger and Rhoades 2002: Eisenberger et al. 2001; 1986).

Perceived organizational support and HR practices links positive employee attitudes and

behaviors. Supervisor support, good working condition and fair reward system link strong

positive relationship with perceived organizational support (Eisenberger and Rhoades, 2002)

it also strengthen employee beliefs which are helpful for employer to achieve their goals. In

this mata-analysis of Rohades and Eisenberger (2002) identify that rewards has positive relate

to perceived organizational support through which employees polish their capabilities (Shore,

Wayne, & Liden, 1997), identity within their job (Cameron, Rhoades, & Eisenberger, 1999),

and self recognition in management (Tetrick, Bommer, Shore, & Wayne, 2002). On other

antecedent beliefs in their supervisor which care and value employee contributions

(Sharafinski & Kottke, 1988) supervisors act on behalf of the organization and employee

29

Page 41: Job satisfaction and employee performance

identify them as an organization. When employees perceive positive and significant treatment

from supervisor employee indicate them as organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 2002b).

There are also many empirical studies show a strong and significant relationship of job

satisfaction and organizational commitment Riggle et al., 2009; Aube et al., 2007; Rhodes

and Eisenberger, 2002) which help their organization to target their goals (Aselage and

Eisenberger, 2003).

It is the duty of the organization to care their employees and increase their affective

commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Through affective commitment employees

fulfill their socio-emotional needs through emotional support (Huntington, Eisenberger,

Hutchison & Sowa, 1986; Eisenberger, Fasolo, Armeli & Lynch, 1998). This Perceiced

organizational support enhance commitment to the organization (Wayne, Liden, & Shore,

1997; Eisenberger, Rexwinkel, Armeli, Lynch & Rhoades, 2001; Shore & Wayne, 1993;

Eisenberger, Fasolo & D. LaMastro, 1990; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Cropanzano,

Randall, Bormann & Birjulin, 1999; Bennett, Settoon, & Liden, 1996; Tetrick & Shore ,

1991; Sinclair & Tetrick 1994;) which are further helpful them to identify their organization

and produce better result for their organization. employees who believe that their

organization are not support or little support are higher intention to leave the organization and

increase absenteeism (Griffeth, Shore & Allen, 1999; Aquino & Griffeth, 1999; Wayne et al.,

1997;) which leave towards organizational disidentification, similarly who believe that

organization support them well are more satisfied with their work and performing better

results which lead towards organizational identification. Consequently perceived

organizational support is positive and significantly relate to organization performance

(Wayne et al., 1997). 

30

Page 42: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Perceived organizational support is significant and positive relate with organization in form

of fairness, supervisor relationships, work conditions, etc which force employees to hold

positive attitudes in form of affective organizational commitment and react in good behavior

to enhance performance, increase citizenship, decrease withdrawal and absenteeism that

every organization want (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber 2011; Riggle et al. 2009; Eisenberger

et al. 2001).

Perceived organizational support and breach of psychological contract are the important

variables in the field of researcher. Perceived organizational supports are generally positive

reciprocity and employee’s belief in their contribution, as employees tends to be performs

better to pay back. On other construct psychological contract breach is the feeling of

disappointment arising in their belief because employees think that organizations has broken

its promises, in general it has a negative reciprocity and employee perform poorly to pay

back.

Hypothesis 5: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between

psychological contract breach and organizational identification.

Hypothesis 6: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between

psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.

31

Page 43: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Theoretical Model

Identification of Variables/Keywords

Finding of this study has based on conceptual framework 2.1. Key variables of current study

and their keywords which are used in this study are as follow:

Dependent Variable: Organization Identification (OI)

Dependent Variable: Organization Disidentification (OD)

Independent Variables: Psychological Contract Breach (PCB)

Moderating Variables: Equity Sensitivity (ES)

Mediating variables: Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

Conceptual Framework 2.1

32

Page 44: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Hypothesis

H1: There a negative and significant relationship between Psychological contract

breach and organizational identification.

H2: There a positive and significant relationship between Psychological contract

breach and organizational disidentification.

H3: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between

psychological contract breach and organizational identification.

H4: Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between

psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.

H5: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract

breach and Organizational identification.

H6: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract

breach and organizational disidentification.

33

Page 45: Job satisfaction and employee performance

CHAPTER 03

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter we thoroughly discuss the population size of our research, sampling

techniques & tools, instruments used to measure the variables and some other research

methodologies which are used in this research.

3.1 Research Methodology and Design

3.1.1 Research Design

In this study we examine the theoretical and empirical analysis of the linkage between

organizational identification and organizational disidentification with Breach of

psychological contract. Further we also investigate mediating role of perceived organizational

support and moderating role of equity sensitivity in this study and explore their different

dimensions.

3.1.2 Population and sample size

The population of current study represents different non-profit organizations (local &

international organizations) in different locations of Pakistan. Different areas belong to

Islamabad, Rawalpindi and some district of Azad Jammu & Kashmir are selected for data

collection. Approximately more than 25 different private sector organizations (non-profit

organization) were selected and among of them different questionnaires are distributed. Some

famous organizations are Muslim Aid UK, WWF, US Aid, Care international, Plan

International, Save the Children, ROZAN, Water Aid, message trust, NRSP, HRDF etc. were

34

Page 46: Job satisfaction and employee performance

used for gather the required information. The sample size for this study was two hundred and

seventy three (273) questionnaires. Questionnaires are filled through by manually, sending

emails and used different technologies like Google docs etc. More than 410 questionnaires

were distributed among different organizations. Through email and Google docs we received

ninety eight (98) questionnaires which of them eighty eight (88) are useable. One hundred

and eighty five (185) questionnaires were filled through personal distribution and collection.

The overall response rate was sixty seven percent (67%).

The convenience sampling technique was used to attain the required data. This technique is

widely used in social sciences which allow researchers to collect data on the availability of

the subject. This technique is also helpful to meet the time frame and best utilizations of

resources in minimize time and resources. Due to time frame and other resources we used

cross sectional data to analysis the results.

3.1.5 Instrumentation

In this study closed ended Questionnaires will be used to collect the primary data. Nominal

scale are used which contain five likert scale options as Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2),

neither agree nor disagree (3), Agree (4) and Strongly Agree (5) which are used for

psychological contract breach, perceived organizational support and equity sensitivity

whereas seven likert scale ranges from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) are used for

organizational identification and organizational disidentification.

3.1.5.1 Psychological contract breach

Psychological contract breach were measured using five scale items taken form Robinson and

Morrison’s (2000) with five likert scale options from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree

(5). The value of cronbach’s alpha reported as 0.775.

35

Page 47: Job satisfaction and employee performance

3.1.5.2 Organizational Identification and organizational disidentification

Organizational identification and disidentification was measured using Kreiner and Ashforth

(2004) which contain six, six items scale. Seven likert scale are used ranges from strongly

disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) for both organizational identification and organizational

disidentification. The value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.914 and 0.882 respectively.

3.1.5.3 Equity Sensitivity

Equity sensitivity was measured using 16 scale items which are developed by Sauley &

Bedeian (2000) and further used by Foote and Harmon (2006) and other researcher in the

literature for measuring equity sensitivity. 16 items with 05 point likert scale are used ranges

from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). The value of cronbach’s alpha is 0.856.

3.1.5.4 Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived Organizational Support (POS) was measured using eight-item scale taken from

survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al. 2001), 08 items with 05 likert

scale are used ranges from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). The value of

cronbach’s alpha reported as 0.849.

36

Page 48: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Table 3.1

Instrumentation

Variable Sources Items

Breach of Psychological Contract Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) 05 Items

Perceived Organizational Support Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) 08 items

Equity Sensitivity Sauley & Bedeian (2000) 16 items

Organizational Identification Kreiner and Ashforth (2004) 06 items

Organizational Disidentification Kreiner and Ashforth (2004) 06 items

Five Likert Scale are used as Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither, Agree and Strongly Agree

3.1.6 Data Collection Technique and time frame

In this study we use Convenience sampling technique because it is easy to use and gather

required data within time constrain where a large number of respondents are there. This

technique is widely used in the research studies. In this study we used two hundred and

seventy three respondents from more than twenty five (25) private sector organizations (non-

profit organization) which are international as well as local organizations.

3.1.7 Data Analysis Tools

Data are collected through closed ended questionnaires, SPSS software were used to analysis

the data. Correlation and regression analysis are run to analysis the data. Correlation analysis

and regression analysis are used to check the relation between dependent and independent

variable while regression analysis show how much change in independent variable caused to

change dependent variable. Factor analyses are also used to check the causal relationship

between variables.

37

Page 49: Job satisfaction and employee performance

3.1.8 Analytical techniques and tool used

IBM SPSS Statistic 17 was used for determination of further results; various statistical

analyses like reliability test, descriptive test, Liner Regression, correlation were used to find

out the impact of variables on each others. Cronbach’s alphas were used to calculate the

internal reliability of the scale.

Table 3.2

Sample Characteristics

Respondents’ demographic characteristics

Gender

Frequency Percent

Male 141 51.6

Female 132 48.4

Total 273 100.0

Qualification

Frequency Percent

Bechlor 66 24.2

Master 122 44.7

MS/Phil 85 31.1

Total 273 100.0

Experience

38

Page 50: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Frequency Percent

Below 5 68 24.9

5-10 130 47.6

10-Above 75 27.5

Total 273 100.0

Organizational Tenure

Frequency Percent

less than 2 year 83 30.4

3 – 5 84 30.8

more than 5 years 106 38.8

Total 273 100.0

Organization

Organizations Frequency Percent Organizations Frequency Percent

Action Aid 10 3.7 NRSP 12 4.4

AJKRSP 10 3.7 Plan 9 3.3

Aurat Foundation 12 4.4 ROZAN 14 5.1

Care 18 6.6 Sahil 5 1.8

CHIP 17 6.2 Save the children 5 1.8

ERRA 14 5.1 Shade 12 4.4

HASHOO 14 5.1 Sharp 9 3.3

Helping Hands 10 3.7 US Aid 9 3.3

HRDF 6 2.2 Water Aid 12 4.4

Islamic Relief 14 5.1 World vision 6 2.2

Kiran 14 5.1 WWF/Wetlands 16 5.9

Lead 5 1.8 Total 273 100.0

Message Trust 10 3.7

Muslim Hands 10 3.7

Gender wise frequency analysis reports that majority of the respondents was male. Total

number of males consists of 141 out of 273 that work out to be 51.6% of the sample. On the

39

Page 51: Job satisfaction and employee performance

other hand total number of female respondents is relatively low (i.e. 132 in number &

48.4%). The above descriptive statistics also explain marital status of the respondents and

result indicates that a total of 156 respondents that work out to be 57.1% are married &

unmarried respondents consist of 117 that make it 42.9%.

The survey also collects data about the qualification of the respondents. Here the highest

percentage has been seen for Master level i.e. 16 years of education. There are 122 of the

respondents has formal education for 16 years i.e. 44.7%. However in other qualification

categories 85 respondents (31.1%) are found in MS/M.phil Category, 66 respondents has

completed their Bachelor degree which are 24.2% of the total sample. Experience wise the

highest percentage consists of 5-10 years group that is a total of 130 respondents making it

47.6% of the total sample. However, 68 respondents are reported in less than 5 years making

it 24.9% of sample. Rest 75 respondents (27.5%) are reported as above the 10 year of

experience. In this study we also gather data about respondent current organization tenure; we

found that most of the respondent belongs to more than 5 years which are 106 respondents

(38.8), and less than 2 years respondents belongs to less than 2 years which are 30.4% of the

total size.

This study also contains information about the sample size of questionnaires that are

distributed among different organization. Approximately 25 non-profit organizations are

selected for sampling size. The maximum numbers of questionnaires are received form Care

international, CHIP, WWF which are 18, 16 and 16; whereas minimum numbers of

questionnaires are received form lead international, save the children and world vision as 5, 5

and 6 respectively.

40

Page 52: Job satisfaction and employee performance

3.2 Reliability

Through IBM SPSS Statistic 17 we run reliability test on collected data of different variables

in private sector organizations (non-profit organizations), the calculated reliability

(Cronbach’s Alpha) show that collected data is reliable for further analysis. Table 3.3

explains the reliability of different variables.

Table 3.3

Scale Reliabilities

Variable Cronbach’s Alpha No. of Items

Breach of Psychological Contract .775 05 Items

Perceived Organizational Support .849 08 items

Equity Sensitivity .856 16 items

Organizational Identification .914 6 items

Organizational Disidentification .882 6 items

Internal reliability of a scale refers to its ability to consistent results when administered with

several numbers of items or even in the case of checking reliability by various methods such

as split half method and others. Reliability test is the one of the common test to verify the

validity of scale that asses the reliability of a scale. It refers to its internal consistency in

measuring a construct. The range of Cronbach’s Alpha is 0 to 1. However, higher values are

indicates greater reliability of the scale. It also capable to measure the inter correlation among

various items in the scale. Generally the Alpha values above 0.7 are taken to be reliable,

41

Page 53: Job satisfaction and employee performance

whereas on the other hand, lower values shows lower reliability of the scale in measuring

construct or its different dimensions. The above table 3.3 gives details of Cronbach’s Alpha

coefficient used to collect data for this study. Through this table internal consistency of scales

used are visible. The highest Alpha value has been seen for the scale used to measure

organizational identification is 0.914. It refers to the high reliability of the scale used. The

lower cronbach’s alpha is reported breach of psychological contract which is .775 which is

relatively low compared to others. All the scale used for survey shows a good reliability

values.

Equity sensitivity instruments are frequently used to measure the equity sensitivity in

literature. Equity sensitivity preferences instrument are also used for measuring the equity

sensitivity due to criticized by many authors that poor items developments, sample scoring,

lack of content validity and item ambiguity (Bedeian & Sauley, 2000). The critique of equity

sensitivity instruments direct to the development of the equity preference questionnaires,

sixteen-item scale which are developed by Bedeian and Sauley (2000) are used to measure

equity sensitivity. In previous reliability and validity which are associated with equity

sensitivity instruments, the equity preference questionnaires which are developed using more

systematic item development. Bedeian and Sauley (2000) developed equity preference

questionnaires using more than six studies and developing final version which consists of 16

items. Recent studies of (Wheeler, 2007; Straus & Shore, 2008) conduct their studies and

conclude that equity sensitivity questionnaires are more valid and reliable for measuring the

equity sensitivity constructs.

42

Page 54: Job satisfaction and employee performance

CHAPTER 04

RESULTS

The objective of this study is to analysis the organizational behaviors and their outcomes of

psychological contract breach. In this research we develop relationship between breach of

psychological contract and their effect on organizational identification and organizational

disidentification with mediating role of perceived organizational support and moderating role

of equity sensitivity.

The following variables are used in current research

Psychological contract breach (PCB)

Organizational identification (OI)

Organizational disidentification (OD)

Equity sensitivity (ES)

Perceived organizational support (POS)

To test relationship between these variables we use correlations, regression and other

mediating and moderating analysis to check our hypothesis.

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics used to analysis the data in sample and summaries form. Descriptive

statistics tells us about the details of data that has been used and collected such as ’N’ number

of respondents, maximum, minimum, standard deviation and mean value of the data. It also

gives information in percentage and summarized form. The details of research data is

presented in the table 4.1 as below.

43

Page 55: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Table 4.1

Descriptive Statistics

(Minimum, Maximum, Mean and Standard Deviation)

Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Perceived Organizational support 273 1.00 5.00 2.1351 .60455

Breach of Psychological Contract 273 2.00 4.80 3.6630 .60231

Organizational Identification 273 1.17 7.00 4.3010 1.17941

Organizational Disidentification 273 1.33 7.00 4.0201 .90472

Equity Sensitivity 273 1.00 5.00 2.7283 .96335

This above table 4.1 explains descriptive statistics of the variables under study. The table

summarized the data related to ‘N’ number of participants, maximum, minimum, and also

shows the standard deviation and mean of variables. The first column of the table consist of

variable names, the 2nd column explain about the sample size of the study which are three

hundred and nine, 3rd & 4th column tell us about the minimum and maximum values collected

data. The 5th column tells about the mean value of each variable. The data has been collected

as a whole value instead of fraction values. Gender represent in two forms 1 for male & 2

denote for females. The mean value for Breach of Psychological Contract is 3.6630 with

standard deviation of .60231. The mean value of organizational Identification is 4.3010 with

standard deviation of 1.17941 and mean value of organizational disidentification is 4.0201

with standard deviation of .90472. Perceived organizational Support as mediator is observed

to have mean value of 2.1351 with standard deviation of .60455. Moderator variable Equity

Sensitivity has mean value of 2.7283 having standard deviation of .96335. Perceived

44

Page 56: Job satisfaction and employee performance

organizational support indicates to have lowest mean and organizational identification has

measure with highest mean and highest standard deviation. The, results of the study are same

as others studies are available in literature.

4.2 Correlation Analysis

The purpose of correlation is used to signify the relationship between two or more variables

which are moves in similar or opposite direction. Correlation test was used to check the

relationship between independent variables, breach of psychological contract and dependent

variables, organizational identification. It is different from regression analysis which is not

considering causal linkages for the variables understudy. In correlation we analysis the

variables are moving in same or opposite direction with zero correlation. It may have values

from -1 to +1 means +1 is perfect positive correlate and -1 means perfect negative

correlation. However 0 means there is no correlation exists between variables.

Correlation analysis is indicated in below table 4.2. Results are explain here

The table also show the results with reference to the demographic variables such as

psychological contract breach has significant correlation with Gender (R= .169 having

p≤0.01), qualification (R = -.140 having p≤0.05), while organization tenure (R = .014) and

experience (R = -.157 having p≤0.01) has negative and significant relationship. The

correlation analysis of dependent variable as organizational identification has shown their

correlation with other demographic variables as gender (R = -.130, significant), qualification

(R = -.128 having p≤0.01), organizational tenure (R = .094) and experience (R = -.207) have

negative relationship. Organizational disidentification has correlate with other variables as

gender (R = .116, insignificant), qualification (R = .076), organization tenure (R = .116), and

experience (R = .051). The above table also illustrate demographic variables has correlate

45

Page 57: Job satisfaction and employee performance

with moderating variable of equity sensitivity and mediating variable of perceived

organizational support.

This study also depicts the relationship of independent variable (breach of psychological

contract) and dependent variables. Organizational identification having (R = -.207 with p

value of 0.01) show strong negative significant correlation and organizational

disidentification having (R = .375 with p value of 0.01) show strong positive significant

correlation with psychological contract breach. Further correlation between perceived

organizational support with organizational identification having (R = .257 with p value of

0.01) and with organizational disidentification having (R = .409 with p value of 0.01)

significant correlation exists between these variables.

Moderating role of equity sensitivity correlate with organizational disidentification having R

is equal to -.331 with p value ≤0.01 and organizational identification R is equal to .236 with p

value ≤0.01. Perceived organizational supports (mediator) correlate with dependent variable

(breach of psychological contract) having R is equal to -.740 , correlate with organizational

identification R is equal to .257 with p≤0.01 show positive correlation and organizational

disidentification having R is equal to -.409 with p≤0.01 show negative correlation. The result

of current correlation is same as the previous researchers has explored in their studies.

46

Page 58: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Table 4.2

Correlation

Correlation Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 1

2. Qualification .117 1

3. Organizational Tenure .132* .170** 1

4. Experience -.055 .311** .266** 1

5. Psychological Contract Breach .169** -.140* .014 -.157** 1

6. Perceived Organizational Support -.144* .013 -.024 .042 -.740** 1

7. Equity Sensitivity -.178** -.106 -.116 .074 -.558** .568** 1

8. Organizational Identification -.130* -.128* .094 .034 -.207** .257** .236** 1

9. Organizational Disidentification .116 .076 .116 .051 .375** .409** -.331** -.139* 1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

47

Page 59: Job satisfaction and employee performance

4.3 Regression Analysis

Regression analysis is widely used to predict and exams the relationship among variables.

Correlation analysis shows the strength of relationship of X variables with Y variable.

Whereas the regression analysis explain the predictions about Y from the values of X. It is

used to illustrate conclusion regarding variable dependence on each other. The analysis is

used to estimate the dependence of one variable over other variable where dependent variable

is regressed on independent variable.

Table 4.3

Regression Analysis for outcomes of PCB

Predictor : PCBOrganizational

Identification

Organizational

Disidentification

Step I

Control Variables .030 .024

Step II

Breach of psychological

contract

-.189** .064 .035** .366*** .154 .130***

*** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05

In the table 4.3 shows the direct relationship of psychological contract breach with other two

dependent variables such as organizational identification and organizational disidentification. In

organizational identification result show that having beta (β) = -.189 with significant level of P≤

0.01 negative and significant relationship with psychological contract breach. In organizational

disidentification beta (β) having .366 having P≤0.001 strong positive significant relationship with

48

Page 60: Job satisfaction and employee performance

psychological contract breach which depict that when breach of psychological contract take place

organizational identification has negatively relate to identification of organization whereas

organizational disidentification has strongly positively relate when breach of psychological

contract take place.

H1: There a negative and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach

and organizational identification.

Results of regression analysis show that organizational identification has negative and

significant relationship with breach of psychological contract having beta (β) = -.189 with

significant level of P≤ .001. According to the results, which supporting the hypothesis that

breach of psychological contract is negatively and significantly relate to organizational

identification. Thus our hypothesis is accepted

H2: There a positive and significant relationship between Psychological contract breach

and organizational disidentification.

Results of regression analysis show that organizational disidentification has positive and

significant relationship with breach of psychological contract having beta (β) = .366 with

significant level of P≤ 0.001. According to the results, which supporting our hypothesis that

breach of psychological contract is positively and significantly relate to organizational

disidentification. Our hypothesis is accepted

49

Page 61: Job satisfaction and employee performance

4.4 Mediated Regression Analysis

Figure 4.1

I II

III

To understand the mediating roles of variable in research we go through the paper of Barron

and Kenny (1986) who explain the following conditions which are must be fulfilled to prove

mediation. Figure 4.1 was explains the mediating role and their influence on other variables

in the research.

Predictor must be related to mediator (I)

Mediator to criterion (II)

Predictor to criterion (III)

Mediating role of perceived organizational support

To test the mediation, regression analysis was used and run test on the data. This was

confirmed by placing independent variable (psychological contract breach) followed by

mediating variable (i.e. perceived organizational support) and in the end dependent variable

(i.e. organizational identification and organizational disidentification). Mediating test was run

through three steps. In 1st move control variables in independent box, than next step perceived

organizational support and last step take psychological contract breach in that box, dependent

variable (organizational identification and disidentification) was moved in dependent box and

then run the regression test.

50

Predictor

Mediator

Criterion

Page 62: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Table 4.4

Mediated Regression Analysis

Predictors Perceived Organizational

Support (POS)

Organizational

Identification (OD)

Organizational

Disidentification (OI)

β R² ΔR² β R² ΔR² β R² ΔR²

Step I:

Control Variables .021

Step II:

Psychological contract breach -.736** .542 .527***

Step I:

Control Variables .030 .024

Step II:

Psychological contract breach -.189** .064 .033** .336** .154 .130***

Step I:

Control Variables .030 .024

Step II:

Perceived Organizational

Support

.244*** .088 .058*** -.400*** .181 .157***

Step III:

Psychological contract breach -.021ns .088 .000ns .155ns .192 .011ns

*** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05, ns = insignificant

51

Page 63: Job satisfaction and employee performance

H3: Perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between psychological

contract breach and organizational identification.

The results (Table 4.4) indicate that organizational identification have (β = -.189, ΔR² =.033,

having p≤0.01) significant relationship with psychological contract breach. Through use of

Barron & Kenny (1986) rules further statistics show that breach of psychological contract

becomes insignificant when perceived organizational support as a mediator is consider (β) =

-.021, ΔR² =.000 insignificant, which support our hypothesis.

H4: Perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between psychological

contract breach and organizational disidentification.

Table 4.4 explains mediating role of perceived organizational support with organizational

disidentification. Regress analysis predictor organizational disidentification having (β = .336,

ΔR² =.130, having p≤0.001) statistics depict that there is positive and significant relationship

among organizational identification and psychological contract breach. In next we run test on

perceived organizational support as a mediator in step III which indicates beta (β) = .155,

ΔR² =.192 insignificant indicates that perceived organizational support is fully mediate

between organizational disidentification and psychological contract breach. Thus our

hypothesis is accepted

52

Page 64: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Table 4.5

Moderated Regression Analysis (ES)

Predictors Organizational

Identification (OI)

β R² ΔR²

Main Effect: Equity Sensitivity

Step I:

Control Variables .030

Step II:

Psychological Contact Breach -.089***

Equity Sensitivity .183*** .073 .057***

Step IV:

Interaction term (Psychological

Contract Breach * Equity sensitivity)

-1.261*** .112 .041***

*** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05, ns = insignificant

H5: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach

and Organizational identification.

In table 4.5 regression analysis has been used to analysis the moderating role of equity sensitivity.

Result shown that interaction term between breach of psychological contract and equity

sensitivity has significant relationship with organizational identification β = -1.261 with R² = .112

having P≤0.001. Results show that equity sensitivity moderate between the psychological contract

breach and organizational identification hence our hypothesis accepted.

53

Page 65: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Table 4.6

Moderated Regression Analysis (ES)

Predictors Organizational

Disidentification (OI)

β R² ΔR²

Main Effect: Equity Sensitivity

Step I:

Control Variables .024

Step II:

Psychological Contact Breach .280***

Equity Sensitivity -.159*** .171 .147***

Step IV:

Interaction term (Psychological

Contract Breach * Equity sensitivity)

.608ns .181 .010ns

*** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05, ns = insignificant

H6: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach

and organizational disidentification.

Statistics in Table 4.6 explains the moderating role of equity sensitivity with predictor of

organizational disidentification. Result shown that interaction term between breach of

psychological contract and equity sensitivity has insignificant relationship with organizational

disidentification β = .608 with R² = .181. The P value (insignificant) indicates that insignificant

relationship exists between organizational identification and psychological contract breach. So

our hypothesis has been rejected.

Table 4.7

54

Page 66: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Summary of Accepted/ Rejected Hypothesis

Hypothesis Statements Results

H1: There a negative and significant relationship between Psychological

contract breach and organizational identification.

Accepted

H2: There a positive and significant relationship between Psychological

contract breach and organizational disidentification.

Accepted

H3: Perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between

psychological contract breach and organizational identification.

Accepted

H4: Perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between

psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification.

Accepted

H5: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological

contract breach and Organizational identification.

Accepted

H6: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between psychological

contract breach and organizational disidentification.

Rejected

Total number of Hypotheses: 06

Accepted: 05

Rejected: 01

55

Page 67: Job satisfaction and employee performance

CHAPTER 05

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Discussion and conclusion

The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between psychological

contract breach with organizational identification and disidentification with mediating role of

perceived organizational support and moderation role of equity sensitivity.

Tables 4.7 accept five hypotheses and reject one hypothesis. Five hypotheses which are

accepted are found significant relationship with other variables. Equity sensitivity as a

moderating variable between organizational disidentification and breach of psychological

contract was rejected in this study. In organizational disidentification employees are distant

himself from their organization and their belief are broken down so equity sensitivity will not

affect or moderate between organizational disidentification and psychological contract

breach in this situation equity sensitivity does not matter. In developing countries where

employees are attached with their organization either financially or emotionally and believe

that organizations give those all psychological needs when these needs are not provided and

breach occurs employees distant himself from organization. The results shown that in non-

profit organizations equity sensitivity will not moderate between breach of psychological

contract and organizational disidentification. Results of current research show the same

results as other researcher was explained in their studies, Sauley and Bedeian (2000) Thomas

J. Zagenczyk et al. (2012). When employee works in the organization psychological contract

will help employees to frame work their attitude and behaviors according to their

expectation. When relationship between employer – employee has been destabilized than

employee equity preferences input and output ratio has been changed and their preferences

56

Page 68: Job satisfaction and employee performance

shift from organizational identification and organizational disidentification and vice versa.

Previous studies have shown that when organization has not fulfilled its promises then

breach occurs. This breach has mostly negative consequences for both employee and

employer sides. Their consequences include organizational commitment, frustration of

employees, employee’s loyalty towards organization, organizational identification and

organizational disidentification. Breach occurs in private sector organization (nonprofit

organizations) due to politics in organization, policies of organization, informal structure of

organization, and their beliefs towards organization. Previous studies have been shown

significant negative relationship exists between organization identification and positive

significant association among breach of psychological contract and organizational

disidentification Zagenczyk et al. (2011a) and Restubog et al. (2008). The hypothesis testing

the linkage between psychological contract breach and identification & disidentification was

also show significant statistics by the data. The significant statistics show that breach of

psychological contract has negative associate to organizational identification and positive

associate to organizational disidentification.

In table 4.3 of chapter 4 shows the direct relationship of breach of psychological contract

with other dependent variables. With organizational identification result show that having

beta (β) = -.189 with significant level of P≤ .001 negative and significant relationship with

psychological contract breach whereas organizational disidentification show beta (β)

having .366 with significant level of P≤ .001 with positive significant relationship with

psychological contract breach which show that when breach occurs organizational

identification has strongly negative approach and strongly positive relate to organizational

disidentification. Further table 4.4 explains mediating role of perceived organizational

support which statistically explain that perceived organizational support have fully mediate

57

Page 69: Job satisfaction and employee performance

between organizational identification (β = -.021, ΔR² =.000 insignificant) and organizational

disidentification (β = .155, ΔR² =.192 insignificant).

The current study serves its purpose of investigating that organizational identification and

organizational disidentification are predicted by psychological contract breach with

moderator as equity sensitivity and mediating role of perceived organizational support. Aside

from the support for these questions, the current study has found significant result of first

five hypotheses and rejected one hypothesis.

In literature found that broken of psychological contract has received great attention and

focus of the researcher for few decades. In this research we study the broken psychological

contract implications and their effect on employee’s attitudes and behaviors. The current

research begins to analyze role of psychological contract breach with mediators or moderator

role POS and ES in the relationship and employee affiliations towards organizational

identification and organizational disidentification. In nonprofit organizations where

employees found challenging environment and deliver their works in short span of time

employee also expect from their employer to fulfill their promises. To meet these challenges

organizations have altered psychological contract with their employees. Psychological

contract provide different consequences in the relationship to fulfilled employees belief.

Scholars suggests that when organization provide employees beliefs and assumptions

employee exhibit positive attitudes and behaviors such as commitment, hard work, and

feeling satisfied with organization with further belongs to organizational identification,

however sometime organizations have failed to fulfill employee promises which result in the

breach of psychological contract which are belongs to organizational disidentification.

When an employee perceives a misfit in the reciprocal promise in the organization, their

attitude and behaviors changed which further move towards organizational disidentification.

58

Page 70: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Employees who feel psychological contract broken displeasure with their management and

neglect there in job role performance and are less likely to be loyal to the organization.

Literature show negative results which are minimize the extra role behaviors, lower job

satisfaction, negative feeling, lower level of loyalty and trust. Some research suggests a

empirical study between breach of psychological contract and irritation, frustration,

depression and decreases in loyalty (Ugwu, & Ogwuche, 2013).

Many researcher discuss when organization’s who not fulfill employees beliefs which are

motivate employees to seize negative organization related behaviors & attitudes and

minimize contributions towards organization (Zhao et al. 2007) actually harmful for

organization and give opportunity for revenge (Bordia et al. 2008) and also withhold from

customers (Bordia et al. 2010) this type of act support the negative reciprocity norm

(Gouldner, 1960) which began organizational disidentification. Many other research support

that there will be negative association between breach of psychological contract and

organization identification and positive between breach of psychological contract and

organization disidentification Restubog et al. (2008) & Zagenczyk et al. (2011a). Study of

Zagenczyk et al. (2011a) and Restubog et al. (2008) also support the results of current study.

59

Page 71: Job satisfaction and employee performance

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS &

DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

6.1 Introduction

Purpose of current research was to analysis the relationship between variables which are

used in this study. Current research explore whither there was a negative and significant

relationship exists between organizational identification and psychological contract breach

and significant and positive relationship between breach an organizational disidentification.

Current study also statistically found mediating and moderating role of ES and POS between

PCB and other dependent variables. Within this chapter we will discuss the literature and

empirical results and draw their limitations, implications and their recommendations which

are helpful for private sector organization (nonprofit organizations) and probable for future

research.

6.2 Conclusion

In this section we will draw the conclusion which is related to this study. We will draw

conclusion on the bases of empirical and theoretical study, available information in the

literature and recommendation made by the researcher.

Literature review was prepared on the bases of breach of psychological contract,

organizational disidentification/identification, perceived organizational support and equity

sensitivity which empowered by researcher to construct model, assumptions and develop

60

Page 72: Job satisfaction and employee performance

their hypothesis which evaluate and analyze the finding of earlier studies and compare the

results of current study with previous studies.

Literature focused on the concept of psychological contract breach. In literature we found

two different scales to measure psychological contract breach. In current study used scale of

Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) which shows better reliability. Further equity sensitivity is

also an important variable in this study; we found two different types of scales in the

literature. equity sensitivity was measured using Sauley and Bedeian (2000) because other

scale was criticize by many research due to dichotomous response patterns which are

difficult to measure and data gather. Kreiner and Ashforth 2004 scale was used to measure

the organizational identification and disidentification.

Literature support that there will be negative association between breach of psychological

contract and organization identification and positively relate with breach of psychological

contract and organization disidentification Zagenczyk et al. (2011a) and Restubog et al.

(2008). Both concepts are similar and describe the function of organization membership that

performs in employees self concepts. Organization identification is a form where employees

emerge their attributes and redefine self concepts (Mael and Ashforth, 1989). Identification is

likely when employees perceived that organization or group consider them as a distinct entity

or in a positive manner (Dutton et al. 1994). Our hypothesis was also developed on the basis

of these literature and further current study shown the same results as previous authors

discuss in their research.

This study also addressed the difference between organizational identification and

organizational disidentification. It also discussed organizational identification and

organizational disidentification in general and examined the role of perceived organization

support and equity sensitivity which influences between the relationships.

61

Page 73: Job satisfaction and employee performance

6.3 Limitations

Every study has some limitations which dependent on different factors. In current study there

are also some limitations which are explain below

Cross sectional data is used in this study which is the main limitation of current study.

Longitudinal studies require data collection in different time slots did not allow a

longitudinal analysis of variables under this study. The main limitation of current study was

the collection of data from different nonprofit organizations based on Islamabad, Rawalpindi

which are not cover the whole population of Pakistan. Another limitation is that data was

collected and investigations in a single nature of job which are not cover whole population

sample technique are used to collect the required data. This limits concluding results for a

wider contextual level of culture and hierarchical level. Further research should perhaps be

the investigations of multiple hierarchical and cultural levels to increase the generalizability

of research findings. Important limitations of this study was that there is too little information

available in the literature as it is an emerging idea and there is no much literature and

relevant studies are available in this context. Being a human and as we know human nature

the favourism phenomenon may have also affected the results because each and employer

have a list of some good and bad affiliation towards their organization. This psychological

term may have affected the result as well.

6.4 Recommendations & Direction for Future Research

Current study has investigated the link between breach of psychological contact and

organizational identification & organizational dis-identification having moderating and

mediating role of equity sensitivity and perceived organizational support. Results show

significant relationship between variables. Similarly POS mediate the relationship between

62

Page 74: Job satisfaction and employee performance

breach of psychological contract and organizational identification & disidentification, equity

sensitivity will moderating between breach of psychological contract and organizational

identification whereas organizational disidentification is not moderated through equity

sensitivity in this study.

Equity sensitivity variable is numerous opportunities for further research. First all variable or

construct can be further investigate in terms of their relationship with other variables such as

frustration, organizational commitment and job performance. Equity sensitivity either

uniquely or interactively predicts other important organizational outcomes such as employee

performance, maybe mediated by justice perceptions (cf. Colquitt et al., 2001). Second equity

sensitivity involves employee reaction to unfair situation this consequences may relate to

employee emotion state. So in future research can be study the link between emotional

intelligence and equity sensitivity or other related constructs. Equity sensitivity has different

consequences at work floor due to differences of opinions at work (Detert & Edmondson,

2011). Employees can be express their preferences depends on cultural situation, explore

further theoretical and practical implications.

Organizational identification and disidentification are relatively new variable in the literature

and it needs to be further exploring in other fields as private and public sector organizations.

This construct was investigating through breach of psychological contract and in future will

be examined with other variables as well.

In future research will be containing broader and spacious samples which are larger

exploratory of the population, investigate issues such as gender and performance rating,

ethnicity. Different personnel sectors (such as; executives, senior managers and leaders)

which give their hundred percent honest measurement and better results.

63

Page 75: Job satisfaction and employee performance

The results of this study could serve as a useful source of information in further research

even though these results may be in private sector organizations specific. It is recommended

that similar studies should be conducted in economic and other sector in order to extend the

relevance of the results on the relationship between the psychological contract breach and

organizational identification and organizational disidentification.

Comprehensively, in the future larger sample size should be recommended for study of

diversified population the impact of other variables on the research findings use different

scales to analysis the results and should be work on other sectors like governments, public

and private business sectors to explore the further dimensions in the literatures.

64

Page 76: Job satisfaction and employee performance

ANNEXURE I

REFERENCES

65

Page 77: Job satisfaction and employee performance

REFERENCES

Adams, G. L., Treadway, D. C., & Stepina, L. P. (2008). The role of dispositions in

politics perception formation: The predictive capacity of negative and positive affectivity,

equity sensitivity, and self-efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20, 545–565.

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 76, 422–436.

Akan, O. H., Allen, R. S., & White, C. S. (2009). Equity sensitivity and organizational

citizenship behavior in a team environment. Small Group Research, 40, 94–112. .

Albert, Stuart, and David A. Whetten. "Organizational identity." Research in

organizational behavior (1985).

Allen, D., Shore, L., & Griffeth, R. 1999. A model of perceived organizational support.

University of Memphis and Georgia State University.

Allen, M.W., Armstrong, D.J., Reid, M.F. and Riemenschneider, C.K. (2008), “Factors

impacting the perceived organizational support of IT employees”, Information &

Management, Vol. 45, pp. 556-563.

Allen, R. S., Biderman, M. D., & White, C. S. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its

relation to equity sensitivity and response to under-reward situations. The Journal of

Behavioral and Applied Management, 5(2), 114-136.

66

Page 78: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Allen, R. S., Takeda, M., & White, C. S. (2005). Cross-cultural equity sensitivity: a test

of differences between the United States and Japan. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

20(8), 641-662.

Aquino, K., & Griffeth, R. W. 1999. An exploration of the antecedents and consequences

of perceived organizational support: a longitudinal study. University of Delaware and

Georgia State University.

Aselage, J. and Eisenberger, R. (2003), “Perceived organizational support and

psychological contracts: A theoretical integration”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,

Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 491-509.

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

of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Aube, C., Rousseau, V. and Morin, M.E. (2007), “Perceived organizational support and

organizational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work

autonomy”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 479-495.

Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail vs.

snail-mail. Marketing Research, 8, 30–36.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Elsbach, K. D. (2002). Us versus them: The roles of

organizational identification and disidentification in social marketing initiatives. Journal

of Public Policy and Marketing, 21, 26–36.

Bing, M. N., & Burroughs, S. M. (2001). The predictive and interactive effects of equity

sensitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,

271–290.

67

Page 79: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Fuller, J. (2003). Are Chameleons good citizens? A

longitudinal study of the relationship between self-monitoring and organizational

citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 131–144.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life: New York: Wiley.

Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R. L. (2010). Breach begets breach:

Trickle-down effects of psychological contract breach on customer service. Journal of

Management, 36, 1578–1607.

Bordia, Prashant, Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, and Robert L. Tang.(2008). "When

employees strike back: investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological

contract breach and workplace deviance." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1104.

Boyd, D. E. and S. Bhat (1998), “The Role of Dual Entitlement and Equity Theories in

Consumers’ Formation of Fair Price Judgements: An Investigation Within a Business-to-

Business Service Setting,” Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 17 (1), 1-14.

Carrell, M.R., and Dittrich, J.E. (1978), “Equity theory: The recent literature,

methodology, considerations, and new directions,” Academy of Management Review, 3,

202-210.

Clow, K.E., Kurtz, D.L., and Ozment, J. (1998). “A longitudinal study of the stability of

consumer expectations of services,” Journal of Business Research, 42: 63-73.

Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Social interaction patterns shaping employee

psychological contracts. In K. M. Weaver (Ed.), Academy of management proceedings:

Best papers (pp. N1–N6). Academy of Management.

68

Page 80: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Davison, H. K., & Bing, M. N. (2008). The multidimensionality of the equity sensitivity

construct: Integrating separate benevolence and entitlement dimensions for enhanced

construct measurement. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20, 131–150.

Dommeyer, C., & Moriarty, E. (2000). Comparing two forms of an e-mail survey:

Embedded vs. attached. International Journal of Market Research, 42(1), 39–50.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and

member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

Eisenberger R, Armeli S, Rexwinkel B, Lynch PD, Rhoades L (2001) Reciprocation of

perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol 86:42–51

Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, Sowa D (1986) Perceived organizational

support. J Appl Psychol 71:500–507

Eisenberger R, Stinglhamber F (2011) Perceived organizational support: fostering

enthusiastic and productive employees. American Psychological Association Books,

Washington

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lync, P. D., & Rhoades, L. 2001.

Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86:

42-51.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational

support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75: 51-59.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

69

Page 81: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Elsbach, K., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not:

Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization

Science, 12, 393–413.

Foote, D. A., & Harmon, S. (2006). Measuring equity sensitivity. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 21, 90–108.

Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., & Relyea, C. (2003). A social identity perspective on

the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational

commitment. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 789–791.

Gibney R, Zagenczyk TJ, Fuller JB, Hester K, Caner TC (2011) Exploring organizational

obstruction and the expanded model of organizational identification. J Appl Soc Psychol

41:1083–1109

Gibney, Ray, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, and Marick F. Masters. (2009). "The negative

aspects of social exchange: An introduction to perceived organizational obstruction."

Group & Organization Management 34.6: 665-697.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Guzzo, R., A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. 1994. Expatriate managers and the

psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 617-626.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, and

Organizations Across Nations. 2nd edition. Sage Publications. Iyengar, S. S., &Lepper,

M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic

motivation.

70

Page 82: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Huppertz, J.W., Arenson, S.J., and Evans, R.H. (1978), “An application of equity theory

to buyer-seller exchange situations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 250-260.

Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1987), “A new perspective on equity

theory: The equity sensitivity construct,” Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234.

Huseman, Richard C., John D. Hatfield, and Edward W. Miles. (1985). "Test for

individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings." Perceptual and Motor

Skills 61.3f, 1055-1064.

Jill Kickul & Scott W. Lester, (2001) Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator

between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior, The

Academy of Management Review, 12, 300-311

Kickul, J. (In press). When organizations break their promises: Employee reactions to

unfair processes and treatment. Journal of Business Ethics.

Kickul, J., & Lester, S. W. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator of

the relationship between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and

behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 191–217.

King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133–142.

King, W. C., JR., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity

sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 301-317.

Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and

organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079.

71

Page 83: Job satisfaction and employee performance

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

organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–27.

Lapidus, R.S., and Pinkerton, L. (1995), “Customer complaint situations: An equity

theory perspective,” Psychology and Marketing, 12, 105-122.

Levinson H, Price C, Munden K, Mandl H, Solley C. (1962). Men, management, and

mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New

York: Plenum. Marketing, 26–36.

Martins, M., and Monroe, K. B. (1994), “Perceived price fairness: A new look at an old

construct,” in C.T. Allen and D.R. John (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 21, pp.

75-78).

Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail

versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 429–439.

Miles, E. W., Hatfiled, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome

importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585–596.

Millward, L. J. & Hopkins, L. J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job

commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 1530-1556.

Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. (1999). Contractors and their psychological

contracts. British Journal of Management, 10, 253-274.

72

Page 84: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe, and Sandra L. Robinson. (1997). "When employees feel

betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops." Academy of

management Review, 226-256.

Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S., & Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity sensitivity and business

ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 539–560.

O’Neill, B. S., & Mone, M. A. (1998). Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator

between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,

805–816.

Oliver, R.L., and Swan, J.E. (1989a), “Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as

influences on merchant and product satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16,

372-383.

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon

Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.Patrick, S. L., & Jackson,

J. J. (1991). Further examination of the equity sensitivity construct. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 73, 1091-1106.

Patrick, S. L., & Jackson, J. J. (1991). Further examination of the equity sensitivity

construct. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 1091–1106.

Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W., and Spreng, R.A. (1997), “Modeling the determinants of

customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services.” Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 25: 4-17.

73

Page 85: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. 1999. Organizational

politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 159-174.

Restubog SLD, Hornsey M, Bordia P, Esposo S (2008) Effects of psychological contract

breach on organizational citizenship behavior: insights from the group value model. J

Manag Stud 45:1377–1400

Restubog, Simon Lloyd D., Prashant Bordia, and Robert L. Tang. (2007). "Behavioural

Outcomes of Psychological Contract Breach in a Non‐Western Culture: The Moderating

Role of Equity Sensitivity*." British Journal of Management, 376-386.

Rhoades L, Eisenberger R (2002) Perceived organizational support: a review of the

literature. J Appl Psychol 87:698–714

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: A review of

the literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.

Riggle RJ, Edmondson DR, Hansen JD (2009) A meta-analysis of the relationship

between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. J Bus

Res 62:1027–1030

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 66, 358–384.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Developing a standardized measure of the

psychological contract. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of

Management, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

74

Page 86: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Robinson, Sandra L., and Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison. (2000). "The development of

psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study." Journal of

organizational Behavior , 525-546.

Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promises, and mutuality: The psychology of the

psychological contract. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 24,

511–541.

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

and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D.M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1998). Assessing psychological contract: Issues,

alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679–695.

Rousseau, Denise M. (1989). "Psychological and implied contracts in organizations."

Employee responsibilities and rights journal, 121-139.

Sauley, K .S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: construction of a measure and

examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26, 885-910.

Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Settoon, R., N. Bennett, & R. Liden. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: perceived

organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 81: 219-227.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. 1991. A construct validity study of the survey of perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 637-643.

75

Page 87: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. 1994. Perceived organizational support and organizational

justice: Westport, CT: Quorum.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior Comparison of

affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 774-780.

Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Chen, S., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Social exchange in

work settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Management and Organization

Review, 5, 3289–3302.

Stamper, C.L. and Johlke, M.C. (2003), “The impact of perceived organizational support

on the relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes”, Journal of

Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 569-588.

Thomas J. Zagenczyk & Ray Gibney & W. Timothy Few & Kristin L. Scott (2011)

Psychological Contracts and Organizational Identification: The Mediating Effect of

Perceived Organizational Support: J Labor Res (2011) 32:254–281

Tornow, W.W. (1971), “The development and application of an input-outcome moderator

test on the perception and reduction of inequity,” Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 6, 614-638.

Tse, A.C.B. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed, and response quality of

two methods of sending questionnaires: e-mail vs. mail. Journal of the Market Re-search

Society, 40(4), 353–361.

76

Page 88: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P.

Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and

leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management

Journal, 40(1), 82–111.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair

treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–member

exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590–598.

Wheeler, K. G. (2007). Empirical comparison of equity preference questionnaire and

equity sensitivity instrument in relation to work outcome preferences. Psychological

Reports, 100, 955-72

Yamaguchi, I. (2003). The relationship among individual differences, needs and equity

sensitivity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4), 324-344.

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

contracts and organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived

organizational support. Journal of Labor Research, 32, 254–281.

Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2011b).

Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee

citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management.

77

Page 89: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Zagenczyk, T., Gibney, R., Kiewitz, C., & Restubog, S. (2009). Mentors, supervisors and

role models: Do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach? Human

Resource Management Journal, 19, 237–259.

Zagenczyk, Thomas J., et al. (2011). "Psychological contracts and organizational

identification: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support." Journal of

Labor Research, 254-281.

Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of

psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 60, 647–680.

78

Page 90: Job satisfaction and employee performance

ANNEXURE II

QUESTIONNAIRE

79

Page 91: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Dear Respondent,

I am a student of MS in management sciences program at Muhammad Ali Jinnah University

conducting a research on the topic: “Breach of Psychological Contract and its impact on

Organizational Identification and Disidentification: Mediating role of Perceived

Organizational Support and moderating role of Equity Sensitivity”. For this I need your

valuable input. It will not take more than 10 minutes to fill this questionnaire. The data will

be used for academic purposes only and will not be shared with any one for any other

purposes. In order to ensure anonymity, you are not required to mention your name anywhere

on the questionnaire.

Thank you for your cooperation,

M. Irfan Raza

MS Scholar,

Muhammad Ali Jinnah University Islamabad, Pakistan.

1. Gender

Male 1 Female 2

2. Qualification

Less Bachelor 1 Bachelor 2 Master 3 Above MS 4

3. Organization Tenure

Below 02 year 1 03-05 years 2 Above 05 years 34. Experience

Below 05 1 05-10 years 2 Above 10 years 380

Page 92: Job satisfaction and employee performance

5. Name of Organization : -----------------------------------------------------------------

81

Page 93: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Ser

ial #

ITEMS

Str

ongl

y D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e S

omew

hat

Und

ecid

ed

Agr

ee S

omew

hat

Agr

ee

Str

ongl

y A

gree

Organizational Identification

01 When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

02 I am very interested in what others think about my organization

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

03 When I talk about this organization, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

04 This organization’s successes are my successes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

05 When someone praises this organization it feels like a personal compliment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

06 If a story in the media criticized this organization, I would feel embarrassed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organizational Disidentification

07 I am embarrassed to be part of this organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

08 This organization does shameful things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

09 I have tried to keep the organization I work for a secret from people I meet

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 I find this organization to be disgraceful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 I want people to know that I disagree with how this organization behaves

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 I have been ashamed of what goes on in this organization

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

82

Page 94: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Ser

ial #

ITEMS

Str

ongl

y D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

Agr

ee

Str

ongl

y A

gree

Psychological Contract Breach

13Almost all the promises made to me by my employer during recruitment have been kept so far.

1 2 3 4 5

14I feel my employer has come through in fulfilling its promises made me when I was hired

1 2 3 4 5

15So far my employer has done excellent job of fulfilling its promises to the contributions.

1 2 3 4 5

16I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions.

1 2 3 4 5

17My employer has broken many of its promises with me even though upheld my side of the deal.

1 2 3 4 5

Perceived Organizational Support

18 The organization values my contribution to its well-being. 1 2 3 4 5

19The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me.(R)

1 2 3 4 5

20 The organization would ignore any complaint from me.(R) 1 2 3 4 5

21 The organization really cares about my well-being. 1 2 3 4 5

22Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice.(R)

1 2 3 4 5

23The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work.

1 2 3 4 5

24 The organization shows very little concern for me.(R) 1 2 3 4 5

25The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.

1 2 3 4 5

83

Page 95: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Ser

ial #

ITEMS

Str

ongl

y D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

Agr

ee

Str

ongl

y A

gree

Equity Sensitivity

26I prefer to do as little work as possible at work while getting as much as I can from my employer. (R)

1 2 3 4 5

27If I could get away with it, I would try to work just a little bit slower than the boss expects. (R)

1 2 3 4 5

28 When I am at my job, I think of ways to get out of work. (R) 1 2 3 4 5

29It is really satisfying to me when I can get something for nothing at work. (R)

1 2 3 4 5

30It is the smart employee who gets as much as he or she can while giving as little as possible in return. (R)

1 2 3 4 5

31If I had to work hard all day at my job, I would probably quit. (R)

1 2 3 4 5

32I am most satisfied at work when I have to do as little as possible. (R)

1 2 3 4 5

33Employees who are more concerned about what they can get from their employer rather than what they can give to their employer are the wisest ones. (R)

1 2 3 4 5

34 At work, I feel uneasy when there is little work for me to do. 1 2 3 4 5

35I would become very dissatisfied with my job if I had little or no work to do.

1 2 3 4 5

36All other things being equal, it is better to have a job with a lot of duties and responsibilities than one with few duties and responsibilities.

1 2 3 4 5

37A job that requires me to be busy during the day is better than a job which allows me a lot of loafing.

1 2 3 4 5

38At work, my greatest concern is whether or not I am doing the best job I can do.

1 2 3 4 5

84

Page 96: Job satisfaction and employee performance

Ser

ial #

ITEMS

Str

ongl

y D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

Agr

ee

Str

ongl

y A

gree

39Even if I receive low wages and poor benefits from my employer, I would still try to do my best at my job.

1 2 3 4 5

40 I feel obligated to do more than I am paid to do at work. 1 2 3 4 5

41When I have completed my task for the day, I help out other employees who have yet to complete their tasks.

1 2 3 4 5

85


Recommended