CONTRACT VIOLATIONS
William H. Turnley
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Daniel C. Feldman
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
While previous research suggests that employees rarely believe organiza-tions keep all of the commitments made to them, only in some cases do employees perceive these unfulfilled commitments as psychological contract violations and make active attempts to ``get even'' with their employers for the betrayal. This paper presents a discrepancy model for understanding when employees will perceive unfulfilled commitments as psychological contract violations and for understanding when employees will respond in a hostile manner to those violations. Among other factors, the sources of employees' expectations, the specific contract elements on which discrepancies occur, and the magnitude and timing of the unfulfilled commitments are all posited as important contributors to perceptions of psychological contract violations. Then, individual differences, organiza-tional practices, and labor market factors are examined as important moderators of how strongly employees respond to perceived psychological contract violations. The article concludes with directions for future theoretical and empirical research on psychological contract violations and employees' reactions to them.
A DISCREPANCY MODEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT VIOLATIONS
The topic of psychological contracts between employees and organizations has received renewed attention over the past 10 years. While the earliest work on this topic defined psychological contracts as the shared perceptions between employees and employers regarding what each party owed the other in the employment relationship (cf., Argyris, 1960; Schein, 1965; Kotter, 1973), more recent work has defined the psychological contract as an individual's percep-tion of what he/she owes the employer and the inducements the individual
Direct all correspondence to: William H. Turnley, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA. E-mail: turnley@ksu.edu
believes that he/she is owed in return (Rousseau, 1989). As currently con-ceptualized, then, the psychological contract is an inherently subjective per-ception; each individual possesses a unique psychological contract based upon his / her own understanding of the reciprocal obligations in the employment relationship between the individual and the organization.
In line with this recent conceptualization, research has examined two questions in particular. First, there has been considerable work conducted on the changing nature of the psychological contract and the general decline of mutual loyalty between employees and employers (Hall & Moss, 1998; Martin, Staines, & Pate, 1998; Parks & Kidder, 1994). Second, a great deal of attention has been given to the aversive consequences of psychological contract violations on employees' job attitudes, work be-haviors, and turnover (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1999).
Although it is clear that many employees (especially new hires and employees in downsizing organizations) feel their psychological contracts have not been fully met, the research also suggests that not all unfulfilled commitments are perceived as psychological contract violations and not all employees respond in a hostile manner even when they perceive their psychological contracts have been violated (Rousseau, 1995; Turnley & Feldman, 1998). The present article addresses these two phenomena in particular.
In the first section of the paper, a discrepancy framework for under-standing psychological contract violations is presented. This framework examines when unfulfilled commitments will reach the threshold of being perceived as psychological contract violations. Here, the focus is on the sources of employees' expectations, the specific contract elements on which discrepancies occur, and the nature of the discrepancy itself. Then, in the second section of the paper, we examine when employees will respond negatively to those psychological contract violations they do experience. Specifically, we examine the individual differences, organizational practices, and labor market factors, which moderate employees' reactions to psycho-logical contract violations. The article concludes with directions for future theoretical and empirical research on psychological contract violations and employee responses to them.
WHEN WILL UNFULFILLED COMMITMENTS BE PERCEIVED AS PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT VIOLATIONS?
Robinson (1997:230) define psychological contract breach as thecognition``that one's organization has failed to meet one or more obligations within one's psychological contract in a manner commensurate with one's contributions.'' They reserve the term psychological contract violation to refer to theemotional andaffectivestate, characterized by disappointment and anger, thatsometimes results from the belief that the organization has failed to adequately maintain the psychological contract. According to this perspective, then, psychological contract violation refers only to those instances when employees feel be-trayed by their organization's failure to live up to the commitments it made to them.
Prior research has yielded somewhat inconsistent results regarding the extent to which employees experience psychological contract violations. On one hand, Robinson and Rousseau (1994) reported that approximately 55% of a sample of recent MBA graduates indicated that their psychological contract had been violated within the first two years of employment. In addition, many recent discussions of the changes taking place in the employment relationship suggest that psychological contract violations are ubiquitous in today's workplace (e.g., Herriot, Manning, & Kidd, 1997; Kissler, 1994; Parks & Kidder, 1994; Singh, 1998). In contrast, Turnley and Feldman (1998) reported a much lower incidence of perceived psychological contract violation. In their study, only 25% of respondents reported significant violations of their psychological contracts.
A large part of this discrepancy may be explained by the way that psychological contract violation is conceptualized and measured. According to prior research, most employees report receiving less than they were promised on at least one element of the psychological contract. In the strictest sense of the term, then, most employees have experienced a violation of their psychological contract. However, when asked about the overall extent to which their organization has kept its promises and obligations, most employees are more positive.
Specifically, in a study of over 800 managers, Turnley (1996) found that 81% of respondents reported receiving less (or much less) than promised on at least one of the job factors comprising the psychological contract. However, when asked to assess the overall extent to which their organization had kept its promises, only 24% of respondents said that they received less (or much less) than promised. Thus, the extent of reported psychological contract violation (and possibly the magnitude of the problem it represents in the workplace today) appears to be largely dependent on the way that psychological contract violations are measured.
Sources of Employees' Expectations
Individuals develop the expectations that comprise their psychological contracts from three main sources: the specific promises made to them by organizational representatives, their perceptions of the organization's culture and common practices, and their idiosyncratic (and often idealized) expecta-tions of how the organization operates.
First, numerous individuals act as organizational agents or representatives. Recruiters, human resource specialists, direct supervisors, and upper-level managers may make specific promises about what employees can expect to receive from the organization. For example, a supervisor may tell a new employee that a raise and promotion will be forthcoming if the employee performs well during his or her first year on the job. Additionally, statements made in organizational personnel manuals may generate expectations that become a part of the psychological contract ( Rousseau & Greller, 1994). For example, personnel manuals that specify a certain level of benefits or which outline policies to be used regarding compensation, advancement, or discipline are commonly perceived as obligating the organization to provide the benefits described or to follow the policies that have been prescribed. These explicit statements, whether made verbally by organizational agents or conveyed in writing within personnel manuals, are likely to be among the most salient sources of employees' expectations.
Second, employees' perceptions of the organization's culture or standard operating practices are also likely to shape the beliefs that make up the psychological contract (Guzzo & Noonan, 1994; Sims, 1994). These beliefs are likely to be formed by early socialization experiences that help to crystal-lize and define the expectations of employees regarding the way that they will be treated by the organization and what they can reasonably expect to receive (Feldman, 1976; Thomas & Anderson, 1998). Similarly, employees are likely to develop expectations from observing typical organizational practices and from
interpreting historical patterns of organizational practice as part of the unwritten agreement that exists between employees and their organizations (Rousseau, 1989). Thus, although the expectations arising from individuals' perceptions of their organization's culture may never be explicitly discussed, these expectations are likely to form a substantial part of the psychological contract as well.
Third, the content of the psychological contract is also likely to be shaped by the idiosyncratic ways in which individuals process information and by individuals' idealized notions of how organizations operate. For example, faculty members who are relatively weak in research may define their psychological contracts as substituting superior teaching and service as alter-native forms of contribution, even when that compromise has never been explicitly agreed to by their department head or dean. This does not imply that psychological contracts simply reflect individuals' desires regarding the terms of the employment relationship. However, due to self-serving biases that are common in individual perceptions, it is likely that individuals will inter-pret the terms of the psychological contract in ways that tend to benefit themselves ( Shore & Tetrick, 1994).
Organizational Agents. While psychological contracts exist between indivi-duals and organizations, a number of different organizational representatives make the promises that form the psychological contract, including supervisors, top management, and HR professionals. Moreover, many employees' expecta-tions come from written recruiting material or from word-of-mouth about the corporation in the business community. Thus, not all the perceptions of the organization's expected contributions come from one source, and not all sources are equally weighted or equally credible in the formation of the employees' expectations.
Proposition 1. Discrepancies arising on commitments made by supervisors or members of top management are more likely to be interpreted as psychological contract violations than discrepancies arising on commitments made by recruiters, human resource speci-alists, or coworkers.
Supervisory Changes. When administrative changes take place or reporting relationships are altered, the psychological contract is likely to be renegotiated to some extent (Rousseau, 1995). More specifically, when a change in super-vision occurs, employees are more likely to accept Ð and may even expect Ð some degree of change in their psychological contracts. Thus, employees may be less likely to interpret discrepancies as violations if such discrepancies arise after a change in reporting relationships. Such a change may occur either when the employee gets a new supervisor or when the employee changes jobs within the organization.
Proposition 2. Discrepancies are less likely to be interpreted as a violation of the psychological contract if the commitments that created the obligation were made by a supervisor to whom the employee no longer reports.
Explicitness of Promise. The perceived obligations that make up the psycho-logical contract may be conveyed explicitly or implicitly (Rousseau, 1989). However, when discrepancies occur, the explicitness of the promise may influence how likely the employee is to perceive that the psychological contract has been violated. When promises that were conveyed implicitly go unfulfilled, individuals may be more likely to make the attribution that they misunder-stood what was being offered ( Morrison & Robinson, 1997). In such cases, employees may be more likely to come to the conclusion that the perceived obligation was actually nothing more than wishful thinking on their part. In contrast, promises that are made explicitly (either verbally or in writing) are likely to carry more weight both legally and in terms of firmly establishing employees' expectations.
Proposition 3. Discrepancies are more likely to be interpreted as a violation of the psychological contract when they arise on obligations that were conveyed explicitly than when they arise on obligations that were conveyed implicitly.
Specific Elements Violated
on the basic inducements that make up the psychological contract. Here we focus on those elements most frequently studied in previous research: amount of pay, merit pay, fringe benefits, job security, training and development, advancement opportunities, and the work itself.
We hypothesize that, in general, discrepancies between expected and received compensation (amount of pay, merit pay, fringe benefits) will be most likely to be perceived as psychological contract violations. First, employees may simply view these elements as more important; the amount of compensa-tion received directly influences employees' standard of living, feelings of equity toward coworkers, and sense of self-esteem and self-worth. Second, compensation issues are more likely to be explicitly discussed, and thus are more tangible and observable. As a result, the organization's failure to fulfill its obligations with regard to compensation issues may be more readily apparent to employees. For these reasons, then, discrepancies on compensa-tion elements are more likely to be perceived as psychological contract viola-tions than discrepancies on other psychological contract elements.
Proposition 4. Discrepancies on compensation elements (amount of pay, merit pay, and fringe benefits) are more likely to be perceived as psychological contract violations than discrepancies on other elements.
There may also be differences across groups of employees in terms of which discrepancies are most likely to be interpreted as psychological contract violations. For older workers, in particular, discrepancies involving job security are likely to be highly salient and the consequences of reduced job security are likely to be especially negative. Moreover, job security is a particularly important issue for older workers as the likelihood of losing one's job through downsizing increases with age (Leana & Feldman, 1992). In contrast, while younger workers also appreciate job security, they usually have lower expecta-tions of spending their whole careers with one organization and have less trepidation about finding new jobs even if they are laid off (Dopson & Neumann, 1998). As Proposition 5 suggests, then, discrepancies involving job security are more likely to be perceived as psychological contract violations by older workers than by younger workers.
Proposition 5. Discrepancies involving job security are more likely to be perceived as psychological contract violations by older workers than by younger workers.
particular, younger workers are particularly likely to perceive their psycho-logical contracts as violated. In contrast, for older workers towards the end of their careers, such discrepancies Ð while disappointing Ð may be less salient and frustrating.
Proposition 6. Discrepancies involving training and development opportunities, advancement opportunities, and work challenge are more likely to be perceived as psychological contract violations by younger workers than by older workers.
Characteristics of the Discrepancy
Several characteristics of the perceived discrepancy may make it more likely that an individual will interpret the breach as a psychological contract violation. These characteristics include the magnitude of the discrepancy, over-reward and under-reward tradeoffs, amount of time between promise and discrepancy, and perceived cause of discrepancy.
Magnitude of Discrepancy. Morrison and Robinson (1997) suggest that the greater the size of the discrepancy between what was promised and what is actually received, the more salient the discrepancy becomes. Thus, they argue that the greater the magnitude of the discrepancy, the more likely individuals are to notice that their psychological contract has not been kept. Closer to the argument being made here, Rousseau (1995) notes that the greater the size of the loss the employee incurs as a result of the discrepancy, the more likely the individual is to interpret the discrepancy as a violation of the psychological contract. Moreover, not only are larger discrepancies more likely to be noticed than smaller ones, but large discrepancies are likely to be interpreted and responded to differently than smaller ones as well. Fiske and Taylor (1984) suggest that the greater the amount of harm done, the more likely individuals are to make negative attributions towards the target that caused the damage. Drawing on these arguments, it is suggested that individuals will be more likely to interpret larger discrepancies as a violation of their psychological contract.
Proposition 7. The greater the magnitude of the discrepancy between promised and actual inducements, the more likely the employee is to perceive the discrepancy as a violation of the psychological contract.
How-ever, the larger corporation may provide workers with a more comprehensive, generous fringe benefits package than the original employer. The degree of discrepancy is likely to be lower in this case, since employees may implicitly acknowledge that getting more than they were promised in one area can make up for getting less than they were promised in another.
Proposition 8. The more over-rewarded an employee is on some elements of the psychological contract, the less likely he/she is to perceive being under-reward on other elements as violations of the psychological contract.
Amount of Time Between Promise and Discrepancy. Another discrepancy characteristic that has generally been overlooked in previous research is the amount of time that has passed between when a promise was made and when a discrepancy occurs. A number of researchers (e.g., Rousseau, 1996; Schein, 1978) have noted that the psychological contract is dynamic and that it naturally changes over time. Furthermore, previous research suggests that employees tend to recognize and accept this impermanence in the terms of their psychological contract (Turnley & Feldman, 1998). Thus, employees are not only likely to accept, but may actually expect, some changes in the psychological contract over time. Accordingly, the greater the amount of time between the initial promise and the employee's perception of a discrepancy, the less likely the employee will be to perceive the discrepancy as a violation of the psychological contract.
Proposition 9. The greater the amount of time between when the promise was made and when the discrepancy occurs, the less likely the employee will be to perceive the discrepancy as a violation of the psychological contract.
Perceived Cause of Discrepancy. Both Rousseau (1995) and Morrison and Robinson (1997) suggest that there are three perceived main causes of psychological contract discrepancies. First, discrepancies may occur because the employee and the agent representing the organization have an honest difference of opinion regarding what the organization is obligated to provide. In such instances, while employees perceive that they are not getting all that they were promised, they recognize that those acting on behalf of the organization honestly believe that the organization is living up to its end of the agreement.
Second, discrepancies may arise when an organization is unable to live up to the commitments it made. Such instances are especially likely when the organization is suffering through a time of financial hardship. In such cases, it may be impossible for the organization to actually keep all of its promises to employees.
engage in layoffs or may limit raises in an attempt to pass along higher returns to shareholders.
Any of the three circumstances above can give rise to an employee's perception that the psychological contract has been violated. However, pre-vious research suggests that some circumstances are more likely to result in perceived psychological contract violations than others. When individuals perceive that they have not received all they were promised, they commonly seek some explanation for why this is the case (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986). In those cases where the individual perceives the organization's action to be insufficiently justified, the employee is likely to be especially resentful (Turnley & Feldman, 1998).
Thus, as Proposition 10 suggests, when employees believe that organiza-tions are simply unwilling to live up to commitments they made without external justification (the third condition above), they are more likely to interpret these discrepancies as psychological contract violations. In contrast, as Proposition 11 suggests, individuals are less likely to interpret discrepan-cies as psychological contract violations when there are honest misunderstand-ings over commitments or when external factors leave organizations little choice but to break commitments.
Proposition 10. Employees are more likely to interpret discrepancies as psychological contract violations when they attribute such discre-pancies to the organization's unwillingness to keep its promises.
Proposition 11. Employees are less likely to interpret discrepancies as psychological contract violations when they attribute such discre-pancies to honest misunderstandings or to external factors outside the organization's control.
THE IMPACT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT VIOLATIONS ON EMPLOYEES' BEHAVIORS
organiza-tional commitment, reduced performance on both in-role and extra-role beha-viors, and an increased intent to leave the organization.
However, while the direct effects of psychological contract violations on individuals' attitudes and behaviors have been frequently studied, psycho-logical contract violations do not always lead to adverse reactions among employees. Indeed, several researchers have recently examined situational moderators that impact the strength of the relationships between psychologi-cal contract violations and negative employee attitudes and behaviors. For example, Robinson and Rousseau (1994) found that careerism moderated the relationship between psychological contract violations and subsequent trust in the organization. Similarly, Turnley and Feldman (1998) found that employees responded less strongly to psychological contract violations when they per-ceived the organization had been procedurally just in how it handled changes in job security, compensation, and promotion policies.
In this section, we examine possible moderators of the relationships between psychological contract violations and employees' behaviors. In other words, here we investigate those variables that might influence whether perceptions of psychological contract violations get translated into concrete behaviors destructive to the organization. As Fig. 2 suggests, the factors posited as important moderators are individual differences, organizational practices, and labor market circumstances.
Individual Differences
Affectivity. Individuals differ in the extent to which they typically experience positive or negative affective states (Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993). Individuals demonstrating high positive affect tend to have a general sense of well-being and to most often view their circumstances in an optimistic light. In contrast, individuals demonstrating high negative affect tend to view their circumstances less favorably and to experience more negative emotional
states. In addition, individuals high on negative affectivity also tend to interpret ambiguous stimuli more pessimistically ( Watson & Clark, 1984). Thus, when discrepancies between promised and actual inducements arise, individuals with high negative affect are likely to inflate the size of the perceived loss and to make an unfavorable attribution for why the discrepancy occurred. In addition, individuals with high negative affect will be more likely to focus attention on those aspects of the psychological contract where they have received less than promised than on those aspects where they have received more than promised.
Proposition 12. The relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses will be moderated by affectivity; individuals with high negative affectivity will respond more negatively to perceived psychological contract violations.
Equity Sensitivity. Equity sensitivity refers to an individual's general prefer-ence for the degree of balance in a relationship. In contrast to traditional equity theory (Adams, 1965), which implies that all individuals seek equity in their exchange relationships, equity sensitivity research suggests that indi-viduals differ in their need and desire to be in a state of equity (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987; Miles, Hatfield, & Huseman, 1989).
Proposition 13 hypothesizes that the relationship between psychological contract violations and employees' responses to them will be moderated by equity sensitivity. Equity-sensitive employees are much more likely to perceive small discrepancies as significant and to try restore equity by withdrawing their own contributions to the firm. Consequently, the strength of the relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses is likely to be greater for those individuals who are highly equity sensitive.
Proposition 13. Equity sensitivity will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses to those violations; individuals who are highly equity sensitive will respond more negatively to perceived psychological contract violations.
Conscientiousness. Another potential individual difference moderator is con-scientiousness. Conscientiousness refers to an individual's tendency to be dependable, persistent, organized, and goal-directed (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Prior research suggests that individuals who are highly conscientious tend to be better performers in most work situations (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and that they also tend to engage in higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior (Konovsky & Organ, 1996).
Proposition 14. Conscientiousness will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses to those violations; individuals who are highly conscientious will respond less negatively to perceived psychological contract violations.
Organizational Practices
Procedural and Interactional Justice. Since discrepancies arise when employ-ees perceive that they receive less than the organization promised them, it is not surprising that these discrepancies lead to perceptions of distributive injustice (a condition in which the individual believes the outcomes that he or she received were unfair). However, prior research suggests that individuals' interpretations of and responses to unfavorable outcomes are also strongly influenced by perceptions of procedural and interactional justice. Specifically, recent research (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Moorman, 1991; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997) suggests that individuals' responses to unfavorable actions will be less severe when they perceive the decision-making process to be fair (procedural justice) and when they perceive the interpersonal treatment they receive as courteous and respectful (interactional justice). In addition, Turn-ley and Feldman (1998) suggest that fairness perceptions are likely to be important in determining how employees respond to perceived psychological contract violations.
Proposition 15. Procedural justice will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses to those violations; the relationships will be weaker when employees perceive procedural justice surrounding the discrepancy.
Proposition 16. Interactional justice will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses to those violations; the relationships will be weaker when employees perceive interactional justice surrounding the discrepancy.
Proposition 17. Offers of remediation will moderate the relation-ship between psychological contract violations and employee res-ponses to those violations; the relationships will be weaker when organizations have offered to remediate the psychological contract violation in some way.
Quality of Working Relationships. Employees who have positive working re-lationships with their boss and/or coworkers may respond less negatively to violations of their psychological contract than employees who have poor working relationships (Turnley & Feldman, 1998). The potential loss of rewarding personal relationships is likely to act as an indirect exit cost, which encourages employees to remain with their organizations. Furthermore, em-ployees should be less likely to neglect in-role performance or reduce extra-role contributions if such actions will negatively impact those to whom the em-ployee feels close. For these reasons, then, emem-ployees' reactions to psychologi-cal contract violations are likely to be less severe when they have high quality working relationships with their supervisors or colleagues.
Proposition 18. The quality of the employee's working relationships will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses to those violations; employees will respond less negatively when the quality of the working relationships with super-visors and coworkers is high.
Labor Market Circumstances
Exit Costs. Resources that are directly associated with continuity in the same job or organization, such as non-portable training or non-vested retirement funds, may restrict the options that an employee perceives in the face of psychological contract violations ( Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainus, 1988). In a very real sense, high exit costs bind an employee to the organization by providing rewards for continued employment. When faced with high exit costs, employees may not only be less likely to exit but may also be less likely to engage in behaviors ( like neglecting in-role performance or decreasing orga-nizational citizenship behaviors) that could lead to the termination of their employment. Thus, employees with high exit costs are likely to remain loyal to their organizations even during periods in which their expectations are not being met.
Proposition 19. Exit costs will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses to those violations; employees will respond less strongly when exit costs are high.
political connections, or critical relationships with important customers, suppliers, or regulators. Employees who see themselves as having a great deal of job security, for whatever reason, may be more inclined to respond strongly to psychological contract violations. Because they feel their cur-rent jobs are safe, they may be more likely to speak out against the organization, more likely to shirk some of their job duties in an attempt to restore equity, and more inclined to let it be known that they are actively searching for other employment.
Proposition 20. Employee replaceability will moderate the relation-ship between psychological contract violations and employee responses to those violations; negative responses will be more likely when the difficulty of replacing the employee is high.
Availability of Attractive Job Alternatives. An individual's response to psycho-logical contract violation is also likely to be affected by the quality of the alternative jobs available. Individuals who can easily find similar employ-ment elsewhere may be less willing to continue working hard in support of an organization that cannot be trusted to keep its promises (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). Moreover, the presence of attractive alternatives is likely to make individuals feel less dependent on their current organizations. There-fore, the availability of attractive alternatives is likely to increase the employees' inclination to attempt to get even with the organization they feel has betrayed them.
Proposition 21. The availability of attractive job alternatives will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violations and employee responses to those violations; negative responses will be more likely when attractive job alternatives are available.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In this review, we have focused primarily on two questions: (1) Why aren't all breaches of psychological contracts interpreted as psychological contract viola-tions? and (2) Why don't employees respond negatively and strongly to all psychological contract violations? In this next section, we suggest some avenues for future research on these issues.
In-role performance refers to employees' fulfillment of formally prescribed job duties and responsibilities ( Williams & Anderson, 1991). A reasonable indicator of employees' behavioral response to psychological contract violation is some measure of employees' thoroughness and attentiveness in completing basic job duties; lower quantity or lower quality performance in the aftermath of psychological contract violations might be a tangible indicator of employee retaliation for those violations (Robinson, 1996).
As noted above, though, employees may not always feel free to act consis-tently with their attitudes in the face of psychological contract violations. That is, there are situational constraints on individuals' abilities to withdraw effort or lower performance after psychological contract violations (Herman, 1973). For example, if there are few available job alternatives, employees would not want to put themselves at risk with their present employers by decreasing their in-role performance. However, individuals have more control over the extent to which they engage in organizational citizenship behaviors for the good of their employers ( Parks & Kidder, 1994; Organ, 1988). While employees may be forced by circumstances to sustain high levels of performance on in-role behaviors, they are less closely monitored as to how often they voluntarily take on additional responsibilities, work longer hours to help colleagues, and promote the organization's reputation in the business community at large. When psychological contracts are violated, then, we would expect the level of their organizational citizenship behaviors to decline as well.
Other potentially fruitful dependent variables in this context are so-called ``antisocial behaviors'' (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). While on-the-job homicides are the most extreme example of such actions, other antisocial workplace behaviors include theft, vandalism, sabo-tage, arson, and physical threats and assaults (Neuman & Baron, 1996). While these behaviors are fortunately relatively uncommon, they generally result from individuals' frustration at not getting what they feel they deserve from the organization. Indeed, several recent and highly-publicized acts of violence in organizations have been linked to the firings of the perpetrators. In general, we would expect these antisocial behaviors to be most likely when psycho-logical contract violations are surrounded by both procedural and interactional injustice (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1996).
psy-chological contract violations and when psypsy-chological contract violations will result in lower performance.
Also, like much of the research in the organizational sciences, the research on psychological contracts relies heavily on self-report, cross-sec-tional data. Inferences of causality are particularly important in this research stream, because employees could be using perceptions of psycho-logical contract violations as post-hoc justifications for their hostile or anti-organizational behaviors. Clearly, then, longitudinal designs and archival data are very important in mitigating against common-method variance and inflated relationships among constructs ( particularly the global constructs discussed above).
Even more critical here, though, is the issue of sampling. A dispropor-tionate share of the research in this area has examined the transition of predominantly white, upper-middle-class males graduating from top-tier MBA programs into large, prestigious corporations. The experiences of others who face frequent psychological contract violations Ð expatriates and repatri-ates, employees who have lost their jobs, blue collar workers, unionized employees Ð have been much less frequently explored (Guzzo et al., 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1997, 1998). Thus, research on psychological contract violations needs to aggressively expand its sample base lest it be reduced to the investigation of the disappointments and perceived entitlements of highly-paid new MBAs simply experiencing ``entry shock'' as they make the transition from school to work.
CONCLUSION
Prior research suggests that psychological contract violations not only have a deleterious impact on the employees who experience them, but may also have negative consequences for organizational effectiveness. For example, psycho-logical contract violations are likely to result in increased turnover, increased neglect of in-role job duties, and a reduced willingness among employees to represent the organization positively to outsiders. Thus, the hurt feelings and sense of betrayal experienced by the employees are only half the story. Psychological contract violations also frequently result in behaviors that are likely to be harmful to organizations.
to become careerist in their orientation to work and less inclined to look out for the interests of their organizations (Feldman & Weitz, 1991; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
As the current employment relationship continues to undergo a major transformation, the importance of understanding both when employees are likely to interpret discrepancies as psychological contract violations and under what circumstances employees will respond strongly to such viola-tions will remain compelling issues for researchers and practitioners alike. Only when we learn more about these phenomena will we be in a position to really understand all of the ways in which psychological contract viola-tions are likely to impact organizational functioning Ð and to make convin-cing prescriptions for how organizations can more effectively manage individuals' psychological contracts in ways that are beneficial to both employees and their organizations.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in
experi-mental social psychology, ( pp. 267±299). New York: Academic Press.
Argyris, C. (1960).Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
perfor-mance: A meta-analysis.Personnel Psychology, 44, 1±26.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.),
Antisocial behavior in organizations, ( pp. 18 ± 36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An interactive framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189 ± 208.
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a pre-dictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595 ± 606.
Dopson, S., & Neumann, J. E. (1998). Uncertainty, contrariness, and the double-bind: Middle managers' reactions to changing contracts.British Journal of Management, 9, S53 ± S70.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization.Administrative Science
Quar-terly, 21, 433 ± 452.
Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1991). From the invisible hand to the gladhand: Understanding a careerist orientation to work. Human Resource Management, 30, 237±257.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984).Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1996).Antisocial behavior in organizations.
Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
Guzzo, R. A., & Noonan, K. A. (1994). Human resource practices as communications in the psychological contract.Human Resource Management, 33, 447± 462.
Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. (1998). The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and employees adapt.Organizational Dynamics, 26, 22±37.
Herman, J. B. (1973). Are situational contingencies limiting job attitude±job performance relationships?Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 208 ± 224. Herriot, P., Manning, W. E. G., & Kidd, J. M. (1997). The content of the psychological
con-tract.British Journal of Management, 8, 151±162.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct.Academy of Management Review, 12, 222±234. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness as a constraint of profit
seeking: Entitlements in the market.American Economic Review, 76, 728 ±741. Kissler, G. D. (1994). The new employment contract. Human Resource Management, 33,
335 ± 352.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of orga-nizational citizenship behavior.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253 ± 266. Kotter, J. P. (1973). The psychological contract: Managing the joining up process.California
Management Review, 15, 91± 99.
Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D. C. (1992).Coping with job loss: How individuals, organizations,
and communities respond to layoffs. New York: Macmillan/Lexington Books.
Martin, G., Staines, H., & Pate, J. (1998). Linking job security and career development in a new psychological contract.Human Resource Management Journal, 8, 20 ± 40. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81± 90. Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1989). The equity sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance.Journal of Management, 15, 581 ± 588. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citi-zenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citiciti-zenship?Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 845 ± 855.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psy-chological contract violation develops.Academy of Management Review, 22, 226 ± 256. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. R. (1996). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.),Antisocial behavior in organizations, ( pp. 37± 67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
Organ, D. W. (1988).Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Parks, J., & Kidder, D. A. (1994). ``Till Death Us Do Part. . .'': Changing work relationships in
the 1990s.Trends in Organizational Behavior, 1, 111±136.
Porter, L. W., Pearce, J. L., Tripoli, A. M., & Lewis, K. M. (1998). Differential perceptions of employers' inducements: Implications for psychological contracts.Journal of
Organi-zational Behavior, 19, 769 ±782.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract.Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 574 ± 599.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555 ± 572.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289 ± 298.
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. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121±139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995).Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and
unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Changing the deal while keeping the people.Academy of
Manage-ment Executive, 10, 50 ± 61.
Rousseau, D. M., & Greller, M. M. (1994). Human resource practices: Administrative contract makers.Human Resource Management, 33, 385 ± 401.
Rusbult, C. B., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainus, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction.Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599 ± 627.
Schein, E. H. (1965).Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Shore, L., & Tetrick, L. P. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. Trends in Organizational Behavior, 1, 91±109. Sims, R. R. (1994). Human resource management's role in clarifying the new psychological
contract.Human Resource Management, 33, 373 ± 382.
Singh, R. (1998). Redefining psychological contracts within the U.S. work force: A critical task for strategic human resource management planners in the 1990s. Human
Re-source Management, 37, 61± 69.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434 ± 443. Thomas, H. D. C., & Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers' psychological contracts
during organizational socialization: A study of recruits entering the British Army.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 745 ±767.
Turnley, W. H., (1996).Reconceptualizing the nature and consequences of psychological
con-tract violations.Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Psychological contract violations facing managers in international business.Journal of International Management, 3, 187±206. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during
organiza-tional restructuring.Human Resource Management, 37, 71± 83.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect.Human Relations, 52, 895 ± 922.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219 ± 235.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
