Research paper on psychological contract

1. Why and When Leader Experience Psychological Contract Breach? The role
of Self-affirmation
1. Introduction and Literature Review
Negative Workplace Gossip (NWG) can be viewed as a form of indirect attack, aggression
(Beersma& Kleef, 2012), or victimization (Ellwardt et al., 2012a) which is likely to provoke
moral and judgmental responses (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Since negative WG invades one’s
privacy, erodes one’s sense of control, and undermines one’s reputation and social image, the
target is unlikely to feel valued or fairly treated by the organization and its members (Colquitt et
al., 2001). The notion of NWG underlies the believe that, other members of an organization view
an individual negatively, which suggests that it may be particularly detrimental to one's self-
esteem at work (Korman, 1970; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995).Gilmore (1978)
observed that gossip is different when it is about individuals with greater power and
status.Accordingly, since gossip is considered as a social comparison process, gossipers would
be expected to gossip less about a supervisor to gather self-relevant information than about a co-
worker who is of greater similarity. Thus, it can be expected that, the target of the NWG can be
supervisors which can demoralize their self-esteem. We assume that, upon perceiving NWG,
supervisor's self-esteem is undermined which leads towards the supervisor's perception of the
contribution breach. This is because, the psychological contract can underpin the social exchange
relationship between an employee and his or her supervisor (Shore et al., 2004).
Moreover, if supervisor has unfavorable experiences in the form of NWG from subordinates, it
might have negative repercussions for the subordinates as well (Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Based
on Self affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), we further provide that upon given an opportunity to
affirm self-integrity will lead to a decline in defensive reactions to threatening information.
Typically, self-affirmation procedures occur when people are asked to identify an important
value or aspect of life and subsequently are given the opportunity to reflect upon this self-
relevant aspect (McQueen & Klein, 2006). Using self-affirmation as a moderating mechanism, it
is expected that, high self-affirmation can act as cushion to reduce the negative effect of NWG
on the supervisor's threat to self-esteem.
Negative WG about
supervisor
Self Esteem Employee cognition
Self-affirmation

2. Figure 1. Research Model
We thus, hypothesize that;
H1= Perceived Negative Workplace Gossip will be positively related to Threat to supervisor's
self-esteem
H2= PNWG will be positively related to supervisor's perception of contribution breach
H3= Threat to supervisor's self-esteem mediates the relationship between perceived NWG and
supervisor's perception of contribution breach.
H4= Supervisor's Self affirmation will moderate the relationship between perceived NWG and
threat to supervisor's self-esteem in such a way that, high self-affirmation will buffer the negative
relationship between Perceived NWG and Supervisor's self esteem
3. Method
In this study we’ll examine the impact of employee’s negative workplace gossip toward
supervisor on supervisor perception of contribution breach with the mediating role of threat to
supervisor self esteem and moderating role of supervisor’s self affirmation as coping
phenomenon. It includes the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, the
methods associated with data analysis and data collection management.
3.1 Research Design
Research design is the arrangement of conditions for the collection and analysis of data in a
manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy in procedure"
(Sellitz, Jahoda, Deutsch & Cook., 1965 p.50, Terre Blanche &Durrheim, 1999 p. 29). It is a
comprehensive process for managing the research process and included details of the study,
regarding study type, study settings, unit of analysis and time horizon which are discussed
below.
3.1.2 Study Setting
We'll conduct two studies
1. Study 1 Field study
The current study will be a field study because participants, i.e. employees and their Supervisors
will be contacted at their jobs and they will fill the survey questionnaires for a quantitative data
in their natural work environment (Brennan, Chugh& Kline, 2002).

3. 3.1.3 Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis will be dyadic, because the hypothesized variables are from leader-followers
relationship. In this situation unit of analysis will be dyad (Thompson & Walker, 1982).
3.1.4 Time Horizon
The data for this study will be collected in five (5) to six months. This will be the time lag data.
The data regarding predictor variable (employee's negligence) will collect in time one in two
months, after the time 1 lag, in time 2 the data regarding mediator (supervisor's perception of
contribution breach) will collect from the same supervisors. In the same time lag 2, the data
regarding criterion variable (leader's support and leader coercive behavior) will be collected form
subordinates.
3.2 Population and Sampling
The population of this study will be the Nurses and their supervisors from hospital emergency
department. Hospital sector selected for data collection. The reason behind the selection of
hospital emergency department is that the possibility of employee's negligence in emergency
department maybe high because of nurses several roles at the same time. This serious type of
activities negatively triggers supervisor's perception and cognition in case of discrepancy
(Keenan & Newton,1984) but individual behavior varies on the basis of distortional factors (e.g.
Personality).
3.3 Measurement
We'll collect responses by using five pointlikert scale 1_storngly disagree; 5_strongly agree
To address potential problems with same-source response bias, supervisor will fill the
questionnaires regarding employee's negative gossips toward supervisor and supervisor
contribution breach with the mediating role of threat to supervisor self esteem Finally the
response regarding supervisor support and supervisor coercive power will collect from
employees (i.e. immediate subordinates).
3.3.1 Employees' Negative workplace Gossips toward supervisor
We’ll measure Employees' Negative workplace Gossips toward supervisor by five items
developed by Brady, Brown, and Liang, (2017). (e.g. “questioned your supervisor’s abilities
while talking to a work colleague "; 1_strongly disagree, 5_strongly agree).
3.3.2 Threat to supervisor self esteem
We’ll assess supervisor self esteem by using seven items developed by Schroth, Holly A.
(2000). (e.g. “I feel confident about my abilities"; 1_strongly disagree, 5_strongly agree).

4. 3.3.3 Supervisor perception of contribution breach
We'll adop Perceived contribution breach seven items scale by De Vos, Buyens, and Schalk
(2003) and three items from scale developed by Takleab and Taylor (2003) to assess PCB. These
ten items were used by Chen et al., 2008, the reliability was 0.82.
3.3.4 Personality factor. Supervisor's self affirmation
We’ll use four items of self affirmation developed by Irmak , Caglar , Beth Vallen , and Sankar
Sen, (2010) (e.g. “negative aspects of myself - positive aspects of myself”)
Control variables
Given that recent meta-analyses (Mackey et al., 2015) suggest that supervisor demographic
variables may be associated with outcome variables. The supervisor participants' age, gender,
and organizational tenure etc maybe associated with Despotic Leadership that will be decided on
the basis of one way ANOVA test.
Study 2: Method (Experiment)
Participants, Design, and Procedure
The sample will be MBA's final year's students from a public sector university of Pakistan. We'll
engage participants in a scenario based study during schedule meeting; participants will be
served with high tea and credit hours for completion of study. We'll use a between subject design
in which participants will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions (high vs. low
employees negative gossip toward supervisor). After reading a scenario, and looking a video
about (high vs. low employees negative gossip toward supervisor), they will complete a survey
in which they will be asked to rate their perception and reactions about negligent employees as a
supervisory leader. In this design, participants will complete manipulation check items and a
measure of their reactions from their immediate perceptions.
Measures
We’ll use all same measurement as we mentioned in field study
Manipulation Check
To assess the effectiveness of our manipulation, we'll ask participants to think about the
employees in the scenario and indicate how strongly they agree the employee will exhibit the
behavior from the four items of employee's employee’s negative gossip toward supervisor scale
(a_.7). Sample item is “Pat criticized me while talking to a work colleague” (1_strongly disagree
to 5_strongly agree). We'll do analysis one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the
main effect for employee's employee’s negative workplace gossip’s manipulation; we'll use F

5. state to differentiate employee's High and Low negligent workplace behavior on the basis of p
value.
Data Analysis Techniques
We'll use mplus model number 7 from macros to conduct analysis of the first field study in
second experimental study we'll analysis significance difference in high and low employee's
negligence by ANOVA test.
MPLUS SYNTAX
Title: ARM Assignment
DATA: FILE IS "Reg.dat";
VARIABLE: NAMES ARE GenSGenE Age Expe NG1 NG2 NG3 NG4
CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 CB5 CB6 CB7 CB8 CB9 CB10
SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4 SE5 SE6 SE7
SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4;
USEVARIABLES ARE X W M Y XW GEN GenE;
DEFINE: XW= X*W;
ANALYSIS: TYPE = GENERAL;
ESTIMATOR = ML;
BOOTSTRAP = 10000;
MODEL: X BY NG1-NG4;
W BY SA1-SA4;
M BY SE1-SE7;
Y BY CB1-CB10;
[Y] (b0);
Y ON M (b1);
Y ON X (cdash);
Y ON GenSGenE Age Expe;
[M] (a0);
M ON X (a1);
M ON W (a2);
M ON XW (a3);
MODEL INDIRECT:
Y IND X;
MODEL CONSTRAINT:
NEW(HW MW LW IND_HW IND_MW IND_LW);
HW = 1;
MW = 0;
LW = -1;
IND_HW = a1*b1 + a3*b1*HW;

6. IND_MW = a1*b1 + a3*b1*MW;
IND_LW = a1*b1 + a3*b1*LW;
PLOT:
TYPE = plot2;
OUTPUT:
STDYX TECH4 TECH3 CINT (bcbootstrap);
References

7. Alcover, C., Rico, R., Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2017a). Multi dependence in the
formation and development of the distributed psychological contract. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 16–29.
Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of
general psychology, 8(2), 111-121.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: An empirical analysis of social
motives, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(11), 2640-2670.
Brady, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Liang, L. H. (2017). Moving beyond assumptions of deviance: The
reconceptualization and measurement of workplace gossip. Journal of applied
Psychology, 102(1), 1.
Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contract of professional
employees: Doctors’ responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22, 717 741.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psychological contract breach: A dual
perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(5), 527-548.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425.
Conway N, Briner RB. (2009). Fifty years of psychological contract research: What do we know
and what are the main challenges? Int. Rev. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 24:71–131.
Conway, N.,& Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological
contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
287–302.
Coyle-Shapiro JA-M, Kessler I. 2002. Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the
psychological contract: employee and employer perspectives. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol.
11:69–86
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of general psychology, 8(2),
100- 110.
Edwards, J. C., Rust, K. G., McKinley, W., & Moon, G. (2003). Business ideologies and
perceived breach of contract during downsizing: the role of the ideology of employee self‐
reliance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of
Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), 1-23.

8. Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. J., & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of positive and negative
gossip at work?: A social network perspective on workplace gossip. Social
Networks, 34(2), 193-205.
Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., &Wielers, R. (2012). Talking about the boss: Effects of generalized and
interpersonal trust on workplace gossip. Group & organization management, 37(4), 521-
549.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review of
general psychology, 8(2), 78-99.
Gilmore, D. (1978). Varieties of gossip in a Spanish rural community. Ethnology, 17(1), 89-99.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced
aggression. Journal of Applied psychology, 91(5), 1125.
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004a). Psychological contract and organizational
citizenship behavior in China: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 311–321.
Irmak , Caglar , Beth Vallen , and Sankar Sen (2010), "You Like What I Like, but I Don’t Like
What You Like: Uniqueness Motivations in Product Preferences", Journal of Consumer
Research, 37, 443 455.
Kickul, J., Lester, S.W.,&Belgio, E. (2004). Attitudinal and behavioral outcome of psychological
contract breach: A cross cultural comparison of United States and Hong
Kong Chinese. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4, 229–252.
Kniffin, K. M., & Sloan Wilson, D. (2010). Evolutionary perspectives on workplace gossip: Why
and how gossip can serve groups. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 150-
176.
Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied
psychology, 54(1p1), 31.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 68(3), 518.
Lee, C., Liu, J., Rousseau, D. M., Hui, C., & Chen, Z. X. (2011). Inducements, contributions,
and fulfillment in new employee psychological contracts. Human Resource
Management, 50(2), 201 226.
McQueen, A., & Klein, W. M. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: A
systematic review. Self and Identity, 5(4), 289-354.

9. Mills, C. (2010). Experiencing gossip: The foundations for a theory of embedded organizational
gossip. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 213-240.
Montes, S. D., & Zweig, D. (2009). Do promises matter? An exploration of the role of promises
in psychological contract breach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1243.
Morrison, E.W.,& Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how
psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226–
256.
Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in
organizations. Organization studies, 14(1), 23-36.
Raja, U., Johns, G., &Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350–367.
Robinson SL, Morrison EW. 2000. The development of psychological contract breach and
violation: a longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 21:525–46
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.
Rousseau, D. M., Hansen, S. D., &Tomprou, M. (2018). A dynamic phase model of
psychological contract processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1081-1098.
Schroth, Holly A. (2000), "Procedures: Do We Really Want to Know Them? An Examination of
the Effects of Procedural Justice on Self-Esteem", Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
462-471
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Jaqueline, A. M., Liden, R. C., Parks, J. M., ... & Van
Dyne, L. (2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of
transition. In Research in personnel and human resources management. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self.
In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). Academic Press.
Tayong, D. M. (2019). The Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on the Performance Of
Employees In An Organisation: The Case Of Camccul Ltd. International Journal of
Innovation and Applied Studies, 28(1), 88-100.
Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren't there two parties in an employment relationship?
Antecedents and consequences of organization employee agreement on contract
obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal
of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(5), 585-
608.

10. Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the
employee organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off.
Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1089–1121.
Vecchio, R. P. (2007). It's not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. In R. P.
Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and
influence in organizations (p. 563– 582).
Vogelgesang, G. R., Crossley, C., Simons, T., & Avolio, B. J. (2020). Behavioral Integrity:
Examining the Effects of Trust Velocity and Psychological Contract Breach. Journal
of Business Ethics, 1- 16.
Wu, L. Z., Birtch, T. A., Chiang, F. F., & Zhang, H. (2018). Perceptions of negative workplace
gossip: A self-consistency theory framework. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1873-
1898.
Yang, C., Chen, Y., Roy, X. Z., & Mattila, A. S. (2020). Unfolding deconstructive effects of
negative shocks on psychological contract violation, organizational cynicism, and turnover
intention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102591.
Yao, Z., Luo, J., & Zhang, X. (2020). Gossip is a fearful thing: the impact of negative workplace
gossip on knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Yu, L., Duffy, M. K., & Tepper, B. J. (2018). Consequences of downward envy: A model of self-
esteem threat, abusive supervision, and supervisory leader self-improvement. Academy of
Management Journal, 61(6), 2296-2318.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more
attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.