Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
The Impact of Psychological Contract Fulfillment on
the Performance of In-Role and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors
William H. Turnley∗
Department of Management, College of Business Administration,
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Mark C. Bolino
Department of Management, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
Scott W. Lester
Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business Administration,
University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702, USA
James M. Bloodgood
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Received 8 December 2000; received in revised form 25 February 2002; accepted 17 May 2002
This research examines the relationships between psychological contract fulfillment and three
types of employee behavior: in-role performance, organizational citizenship behavior directed
at the organization, and organizational citizenship behavior directed at individuals within
the organization. Using a sample of 134 supervisor-subordinate dyads, this study suggests
that the extent of psychological contract fulfillment is positively related to the performance
of all three types of employee behavior. In addition, the results indicate that psychological
contract fulfillment is more strongly related to citizenship behavior directed at the organization
than to citizenship behavior directed at one’s colleagues. Finally, this research investigates
if employees’ attributions regarding the reasons that psychological contract breach occurred
also impact their work performance. However, the data provide only limited support for the
idea that employees are most likely to reduce their work effort when they perceive that the
organization has intentionally failed to live up to its commitments.
© 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-785-532-4351; fax: +1-785-532-7024.
E-mail addresses: turnley@ksu.edu (W.H. Turnley), mbolino@nd.edu (M.C. Bolino), lestersw@uwec.edu
(S.W. Lester), jblood@ksu.edu (J.M. Bloodgood).
0149-2063/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 9 - 2 0 6 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 1 4 - 3
188
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
The employment relationship has undergone a number of significant changes in recent
years. In large part, this transformation has been brought about by the increasing globalization of business, by the dramatic rise in the number of mergers, restructurings, and layoffs,
and by the increasing rate of change that permeates all of organizational life today (Kissler,
1994; McLean Parks & Kidder, 1994). As a result of these events, psychological contracts
have become increasingly important in helping to define the contemporary employment
relationship.
Psychological contracts consist of the beliefs employees hold regarding the terms and conditions of the exchange agreement between themselves and their organizations (Robinson,
Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1989). Specifically, psychological contracts are comprised of the obligations that employees believe their organization owes them and the obligations the employees believe they owe their organization in return. Psychological contract
breach arises when an employee perceives that his or her organization has failed to fulfill one
or more of the obligations comprising the psychological contract (Morrison & Robinson,
1997; Robinson, 1996).
Recent research on psychological contracts has generally focused on two areas. First, a
number of articles have discussed the changing nature of the psychological contract and the
general decline in mutual loyalty between employees and their organizations (e.g., Hall &
Moss, 1998; Martin, Staines & Pate, 1998; McLean Parks & Kidder, 1994). These articles
have typically provided anecdotal evidence of the types of psychological contract breach
that employees have experienced or contrasted “historical” and “contemporary” psychological contracts. Second, another line of research has investigated the negative consequences
of psychological contract breach (or violation) on employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g.,
Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995a; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley &
Feldman, 1999a). This literature suggests that psychological contract breach results in a
wide array of negative outcomes, including reduced job satisfaction, reduced trust in the
organization, increased cynicism about organizational life in general, and increased intent to quit. This study aims to extend prior research on psychological contracts in three
ways.
First, most prior research has ignored the multi-dimensional nature of the psychological
contract and has instead examined global assessments of psychological contract breach
(e.g., Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995a, 2000; Turnley & Feldman, 1999a).
Therefore, based on prior conceptualizations which suggest that psychological contracts can
be divided into transactional and relational elements (e.g., Robinson et al., 1994; Rousseau,
1990), this research focuses on the two dimensions that most strongly represent these
orientations—namely, pay and a supportive employment relationship. In addition, most
prior research has ignored the fact that psychological contracts can be over-fulfilled as
well as under-fulfilled (Turnley & Feldman, 1999b). To address this issue, this research
employs a measure of psychological contract fulfillment that captures the full range of potential responses—from under-fulfillment to over-fulfillment—for each of the elements of
the psychological contract examined here (e.g., the extent to which employees receive a
competitive salary, receive a fair salary, are treated fairly, are treated with respect). In this
way, the present study seeks to determine if employees treat the transactional and relational
aspects of their psychological contract equivalently in how they respond to under-fulfillment
or over-fulfillment on these elements.
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
189
Second, although the links between psychological contract breach and employees’ attitudes have been reasonably well established, surprisingly little research has examined
how psychological contract breach influences individuals’ work behaviors. Moreover, the
few studies that have examined this issue have almost exclusively relied upon employees’
self-reports of their performance (e.g., Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995a;
Turnley & Feldman, 1999a). Thus, while these studies are often methodologically rigorous
along other dimensions (e.g., by employing longitudinal research designs (e.g., Robinson,
1996)), some legitimate concerns have been raised about the inherent limitations of using
self-reported measures of employee performance (e.g., Keeney & Svyantek, 2000). Therefore, it is important to determine whether psychological contract breach is related not just to
employee self-reports of their own behaviors, but to supervisors’ perceptions of employee
behavior as well.
Another goal of this research, then, is to focus on the relationship between psychological contract fulfillment and employee behavior. In particular, this study uses social exchange theory to examine the ways in which psychological contract fulfillment influences
job performance both in terms of the effectiveness with which employees carry out their
formally-prescribed job responsibilities (i.e., their in-role behavior) as well as their willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty (i.e., their organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB)). Moreover, this research seeks to determine which type of organizational citizenship behavior—OCBs which benefit the organization (OCB-O) or OCBs which benefit
other individuals (OCB-I)—is most likely to be affected by the extent to which employees’
psychological contracts are fulfilled or unfulfilled. In addition, in order to avoid the methodological problems associated with using self-reported measures of employee behavior,
this research assesses the performance of employees using data obtained from their direct
supervisors.
Third, and finally, prior research suggests that most employees report receiving less than
they were promised on at least some of the job factors comprising the psychological contract (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1998). However, employees do not
always perceive instances of receiving less than promised as a psychological contract violation, nor do they always respond negatively to such occurrences (Robinson & Rousseau,
1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1998). One explanation for these results is that an employee’s
response to receiving less than promised is determined (at least in part) by the attribution that
the employee makes regarding why the organization failed to keep its promises (Robinson
& Morrison, 2000; Rousseau, 1995). However, prior research has not directly examined
how employees’ attributions impact their responses to psychological contract breach. This
research addresses that question. Specifically, this study examines whether employees reduce their work effort to a greater extent when they perceive that their organization willfully
breached the psychological contract than when they perceive that the psychological contract
was breached for reasons over which the organization had less control.
Theory
Prior research suggests that psychological contracts help to define the terms of the social
exchange relationship that exists between employees and their organizations (Robinson &
190
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
Morrison, 1995a; Shore & Barksdale, 1998). These relationships are made up of the voluntary actions that each party engages in with the belief that the other party will reciprocate
these behaviors in one way or another (Homans, 1961). In contrast to relationships based
purely on economic exchange, social exchange relationships involve obligations which can
not be specified ahead of time and require the parties to trust one another (Blau, 1964).
Although the obligations making up these types of relationships are somewhat diffuse, a
general expectation of reciprocation drives their evolution.
Social exchange theory provides a general approach for understanding how employees
are likely to respond when they perceive that their psychological contracts have not been fulfilled. Breach of the psychological contract occurs when employees perceive a discrepancy
between what they were promised and what they actually receive (Morrison & Robinson,
1997). From the employees’ perspective, such discrepancies create inequality in employment relationship. Thus, as long as employees perceive that they have adequately met their
obligations to their employer, they are likely to feel shortchanged by the organization’s
failure to live up to its obligations and will be inclined to take actions to rebalance the
employment relationship (Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1995). One way that employees can
do this is by reducing the extent of their contributions to the organization.
On the other hand, employees may sometimes perceive that their organization has actually provided more than it promised or agreed to provide (e.g., an unexpectedly large
pay raise, increased opportunities for advancement, an improved benefits package). In such
cases, employees may perceive a positive imbalance in the social exchange agreement. As
a result, these actions are likely to result in a broadening or strengthening of the social exchange relationship. Moreover, when this occurs, employees may attempt to reciprocate by
increasing their contributions to the firm (Homans, 1961; Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). The
predictions of social exchange theory are also consistent with the predictions that would be
made by equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965). However, prior research in both areas suggests
that the likelihood of perceiving under-fulfillment tends to be greater than the likelihood
of perceiving over-fulfillment and that the motivation to increase contributions in cases of
over-fulfillment is likely to be less compelling than the motivation to decrease contributions
in cases of under-fulfillment (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978; Goodman & Friedman, 1971).
Most prior research on psychological contracts has examined cases in which employees
perceive that they have received less than promised. However, recent research focusing on
different types of employment relationships suggests that, in some instances, organizations
may benefit from over-fulfilling psychological contracts (e.g., Shore & Barksdale, 1998;
Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Tripoli, 1997). According to this line of research, and consistent
with the predictions of social exchange theory and equity theory, employee contributions
to the firm may rise as organizations provide more than they originally agreed to provide.
Hypothesis 1, then, suggests that the extent of psychological contract fulfillment will be
positively related to the employee’s level of in-role performance.
Hypothesis 1: Psychological contract fulfillment will be positively related to in-role
performance.
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been defined as employee behavior that is
extra-role, that promotes organizational effectiveness, and that is not formally recognized by
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
191
an organization’s reward system (Organ, 1988). In recent years, as organizational structures
have become more flexible, much attention has been given to the role that employee citizenship behavior plays in improving organizational functioning (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo,
1993; Van Dyne, Cummings & McLean Parks, 1995). Given the perceived importance of
OCBs, a significant amount of attention has been devoted to investigating the antecedents
of such behaviors.
Robinson and Morrison (1995a) suggest that psychological contracts are an especially
important lens through which to view organizational citizenship behavior. However, somewhat surprisingly, there has been very little investigation of the relationship between psychological contract fulfillment and citizenship behaviors. Moreover, like the studies of in-role
performance, the limited research on this topic has utilized employee self-reports of their
citizenship behavior rather than using supervisor assessments of employees’ citizenship
behaviors (Robinson & Morrison, 1995a; Robinson, 1996).
Social exchange theory was used in the preceding section to help understand why
employees are likely to alter their in-role performance based on the extent to which their
psychological contracts are fulfilled. This theory is also useful in helping to explain how
the level of employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors will be impacted by the extent
of psychological contract fulfillment. In particular, Organ’s (1990, p. 63) “social exchange
interpretation of OCB” suggests that OCBs provide employees a means through which they
might reciprocate the positive actions of employers who treat them well. In other words,
social exchange theory suggests that employees are motivated to engage in extra-role behaviors when they perceive that their employment relationship is based upon the foundation
of a fair social exchange (Moorman, 1991; Organ, 1988, 1990).
Based upon these arguments, it is expected that employees’ perceptions of the extent to
which their organizations have fulfilled the psychological contract will impact the extent
to which they engage in OCBs. Specifically, it is expected that psychological contract
fulfillment will be positively related to the performance of citizenship behaviors.
Hypothesis 2: Psychological contract fulfillment will be positively related to the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors.
In recent years, organizational scholars have begun to differentiate between different
targets of citizenship behaviors (e.g., McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Williams & Anderson,
1991). Specifically, Williams and Anderson (1991) draw a distinction between citizenship
behaviors which are intended to benefit the organization (OCB-O) and citizenship behaviors which are intended to benefit specific individuals within the organization, especially
co-workers (OCB-I). For example, citizenship behaviors directed at the organization include
such actions as adhering to informal rules designed to maintain order, demonstrating above
average work attendance, and not taking extended work breaks. Citizenship behaviors that
are more personally focused on helping specific individuals include such actions as assisting
others who have been absent, helping colleagues who have heavy workloads, and taking a
personal interest in the well-being of other employees.
Robinson and Morrison (1995a) suggest that because psychological contracts consist of
beliefs about organizational obligations, then psychological contract fulfillment/breach is
likely to be more strongly related to citizenship behaviors directed at the organization than
192
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
to citizenship behaviors targeted at specific individuals within the organization. However,
Robinson and Morrison (1995a) did not actually test this idea. Instead, they used that explanation as the justification for examining whether psychological contract breach is negatively
related to civic virtue. (Civic virtue is a specific type of organizationally-directed citizenship
behavior that indicates that the employee actively participates in and is concerned about the
life of the organization (Organ, 1988). Typical behaviors include attending organizational
functions that are not required and keeping up with new developments in the company.)
Consistent with the reasoning above, it is expected that psychological contract breach
will primarily result in resentment that is directed at the organization rather than coworkers.
In fact, in some cases, psychological contract breach could actually lead coworkers to band
together if they all feel betrayed by the same organizational policies. Thus, psychological
contract fulfillment (or the lack thereof) is likely to be more strongly related to citizenship
behaviors directed at the organization than to citizenship behaviors directed at individuals.
Hypothesis 3: Psychological contract fulfillment will be more strongly related to the
performance of organizational citizenship behaviors directed at the organization than to
citizenship behaviors directed at other individuals within the organization.
When psychological contracts go unfulfilled, both Rousseau (1995) and Morrison and
Robinson (1997) suggest that employees’ attributions regarding the reason for the breach
play an important role in determining how they will respond. At the broadest level, employees are likely to view the breach as either intentional or unintentional (Turnley & Feldman,
1999b).
Unintentional psychological contract breach tends to arise from one of two sources. First,
incongruence occurs when the employee and the agent representing the organization have
an honest difference of opinion regarding what the organization is obligated to provide
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997). In these cases, while employees perceive that they are not
getting all they expected to receive, they understand that those representing the organization
believe that the organization is fulfilling its obligations. Second, disruption occurs when the
organization is unable to live up to the promises and commitments it made to its employees
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997). In many instances, psychological contract disruption occurs
when the organization is experiencing financial difficulties. For example, when the organization is losing money or market share, it may have to cut back on the inducements that
had previously been offered as a part of the employment relationship.
On the other hand, there are instances in which organizational representatives make
an intentional decision not to fulfill the terms of an employee’s psychological contract.
Specifically, reneging occurs when the organization is simply unwilling to live up to the
commitments that were made to employees (Rousseau, 1995). For example, even during
highly profitable periods, some organizations may decide to initiate layoffs or reduce health
care benefits in order to save money. What is important in such cases is that employees
perceive that the organization had the ability to keep its commitments, but that it intentionally
chose not to.
How an employee chooses to respond to getting less than promised is likely to be determined both by the magnitude of the discrepancy and by the individual’s attribution regarding
why the discrepancy occurred (Rousseau, 1995; Turnley & Feldman, 1999b). For example,
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
193
previous studies indicate that when individuals receive less than they were promised, they
often try to understand why the broken promises occurred (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler,
1986). In particular, research on social accounts has examined the impact that managerial
explanations for organizational change (e.g., layoffs, budget cuts) have on employees’ responses when they fail to receive what they expected (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 2000). Social
accounts include the justifications and excuses that are used to explain why the undesirable
outcome occurred (Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Common types of social accounts include blaming
external factors or citing a lack of managerial control for the negative consequences which
befall employees (Bies & Moag, 1986). By employing such explanations, managers hope
to convince employees that the reason they did not receive a desired or expected outcome
was justified.
This previous research suggests that individuals are likely to be especially resentful when
they perceive the organization’s actions to be intentional and unjustifiable. Thus, responses
to psychological contract breach may be especially strong when employees believe that
the organization is simply unwilling to live up to the commitments it made (Robinson &
Morrison, 2000). More specifically, it is expected that employees will reduce both their
in-role performance and their organizational citizenship behaviors to a larger extent when
they perceive that the magnitude of the psychological contract breach is great and that the
organization intentionally reneged on its promises.
Hypothesis 4: The attribution that employees make when their psychological contracts
are breached will moderate the relationships between the magnitude of the breach and employee in-role performance and citizenship behavior. Specifically, the relationships will be
stronger when employees believe that the organization intentionally reneged on its commitments.
Method
Sample
Data were collected as part of a larger research project examining employee reactions
to psychological contract fulfillment (Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood & Bolino, 2002). Two
samples participated in this study (in both samples, participation in the study was voluntary).
Sample 1 was comprised of students who were enrolled in two evening MBA programs
associated with medium-sized, state-supported universities located in the United States.
Sample 2 was composed of employees of a large health care company who worked in its
telecommunications center.
One hundred fifteen MBA students, who were also employed in full-time positions,
completed a subordinate survey. Then, these students asked their supervisors to complete
the supervisor survey and return it directly to the researchers (using a postage-paid envelope that had been provided). Sixty-eight supervisor surveys were returned, yielding a
response rate of 59%. Surveys were administered directly to the supervisors at the health
care company. Then, subordinates were given time to complete their surveys at work. In
this case, 70% of the workforce chose to participate, resulting in data from 66 subordi-
194
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
nates and their supervisors. Thus, the total sample consisted of 134 supervisor-subordinate
dyads.
The average age of subordinates was 32 years, and the average organizational tenure was
4.27 years (or, roughly, 4 years and 3 months). The subordinate sample was 44% male. The
average age of supervisors was 41, and the average organizational tenure was 13.48 years
(or, roughly, 13 years and 6 months). The supervisor sample was 55% male.
Measures
Psychological contract fulfillment. Two dimensions of psychological contract fulfillment were examined in this study. Specifically, this study focused on the dimensions of pay
and a supportive employment relationship. The items comprising these scales were taken
from Robinson and Morrison (1995b). While Robinson and Morrison identified 6 separate
dimensions of the psychological contract, only those items assessing pay and a supportive
employment relationship were used here. These dimensions were chosen both because of
their salience to employees and because they anchor the ends of the transactional-relational
continuum that has been discussed in prior psychological contract research (e.g., Rousseau,
1990, 1995).
In particular, Robinson and Morrison’s (1995b) scale included three items which specifically assessed psychological contract fulfillment regarding pay (competitive pay, fair pay,
and pay tied to one’s performance). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .83. In addition, three
items representing a supportive employment relationship were used (respectful treatment,
fair treatment, and management support). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .87. For each
of the six items, respondents were instructed to assess the extent to which the amount of the
inducement they actually received from their organization was less than or greater than the
amount that the organization had promised them. Responses ranged from 1 (Receive much
less than promised) to 5 (Receive much more than promised). Thus, the higher the score,
the greater the extent of psychological contract fulfillment (or over-fulfillment).
The psychological contract items were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
In order to ensure that there were two distinct factors, the fit of a two-factor model was compared to the fit of a one-factor model. The two-factor model fit the data very well (χ 2 =
14.24, df = 8; GFI = .95; RMSEA = .066; CFI = .99; TLI = .98). In contrast, the fit of
the one-factor model was very poor (χ 2 = 266.98, df = 9; GFI = .65; RMSEA = .40;
CFI = .50; TLI = .16). Moreover, the two-factor model fit the data significantly better
than the one factor model (difference in χ 2 = 252.74, df = 1). The items, factor loadings, uniqueness estimates, and inter-factor correlation for the two-factor model appear in
Table 1.
Perceived cause of the psychological contract breach. Within the subordinate survey,
the measure of psychological contract fulfillment was divided into sections based on the
dimensions identified above. The employee’s attribution for any psychological contract
breach was measured at the end of each section. In particular, those individuals who reported
receiving less than promised on one or more of the individual items regarding pay or the
supportiveness of the employment relationship were instructed to indicate the single best
explanation for why they thought the organization had failed to fulfill that aspect of the
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
195
Table 1
Confirmatory factor analysis of psychological contract fulfillment items
Scale items
Factor loadings
Pay
A fair salary
A competitive salary
Pay tied to my level of performance
.88 (.23)
.84 (.29)
.65 (.58)
Relationship
The extent to which I am treated fairly and impartially
The extent to which I am treated with respect
The amount of support I receive from management
.91 (.17)
.82 (.33)
.77 (.41)
All factor loadings are significant at p < .05.
Values in parentheses are the uniqueness estimates for each item.
The inter-factor correlation is .31.
psychological contract. Thus, a single-item measure was used to assess the attribution that
employees made about each type of breach they experienced.
Items representing the response categories described below were based on the theoretical
work of Rousseau (1995) and Morrison and Robinson (1997). Four possible attributions
were presented: (1) “The organization could have kept its promise, but it chose not to” was
used to assess instances of reneging; (2) “A situation beyond the organization’s control
made it impossible for the organization to keep its promise” was used to assess instances of
disruption; (3) “There was an honest misunderstanding between myself and the organization
regarding what the organization would provide” was used to assess instances of incongruence; and (4) “I failed to keep my obligations to the company; thus, the company was no
longer obligated to keep its side of the deal” was used to assess instances of nullification.
None of the employees selected the last option (nullification). As a result, this option does
not appear in any of the data analyses. In addition, because it is expected that employees will
be most concerned with whether the psychological contract breach was intentional (coded
1) or unintentional (coded 2), the responses of disruption and incongruence were combined
to make up the single category of “unintentional” psychological contract breach.
Employee performance. Supervisors provided their evaluation of the employee’s performance along three dimensions. Specifically, in-role performance, organizational citizenship
behaviors directed toward the whole organization (OCB-O), and organizational citizenship
behaviors directed at other individuals (OCB-I) were assessed using 18 items developed
by Williams and Anderson (1991). In each case, responses were given on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the six-item
in-role performance scale was .93. Cronbach’s alphas for the six-item OCB-O and the
six-item OCB-I scales were .83 and .88, respectively.
All of the employee performance items were examined using CFA. A three-factor model
(χ 2 = 259.76, df = 132) fit the data reasonably well, and all items loaded significantly
onto their specified factor. The key fit indices were as follows: GFI = .85, RMSEA = .077,
CFI = .93, and TLI = .92. Moreover, this three-factor solution fit the data significantly
better than a one-factor model (χ 2 = 479.61, df = 135), a two-factor model in which the
196
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
Table 2
Confirmatory factor analysis of employee performance items
Scale items
Factor loadings
In-role performance
This employee fulfills all the responsibilities specified in his/her job description
This employee consistently meets the formal performance requirements of his/her job
This employee conscientiously performs tasks that are expected of him/her
This employee adequately completes all of his/her assigned duties
This employee sometimes fails to perform essential duties of his/her job (rs)
This employee sometimes neglects aspects of the job that he/she is obligated to perform (rs)
.89 (.21)
.89 (.21)
.88 (.23)
.86 (.26)
.80 (.36)
.66 (.56)
OCB-O
This employee sometimes takes undeserved or extended work breaks (rs)
This employee adheres to informal organizational rules devised to maintain order
This employee always gives advance notice when he/she is unable to come to work
This employee sometimes spends a lot of time in personal phone conversations (rs)
This employee’s attendance at work is above the norm
This employee sometimes complains about insignificant or minor things at work (rs)
.75 (.44)
.75 (.44)
.66 (.56)
.66 (.56)
.64 (.59)
.58 (.66)
OCB-I
This employee generally helps others who have been absent
This employee takes a personal interest in the well-being of other employees
This employee generally helps others who have heavy workloads
This employee goes out of the way to help new employees
This employee generally takes time to listen to coworkers’ problems and worries
This employee passes along work-related information to coworkers
.86 (.26)
.79 (.38)
.78 (.39)
.74 (.45)
.72 (.48)
.55 (.70)
All factor loadings are significant at p < .05.
Values in parentheses are the uniqueness estimates for each item.
The inter-factor correlation between in-role performance and OCB-O is .85; the inter-factor correlation between
in-role performance and OCB-I is .74; the inter-factor correlation between OCB-O and OCB-I is .71.
OCB-O and OCB-I items all loaded onto one factor (χ 2 = 378.09, df = 134), a two-factor
model in which the OCB-O and the in-role performance items all loaded onto one factor
(χ 2 = 310.11, df = 134), and a two-factor model in which the OCB-I and the in-role
performance items all loaded onto one factor (χ 2 = 434.35, df = 134). The items, factor
loadings, uniqueness estimates, and inter-factor correlations for the three-factor model are
presented in Table 2.
Control variables. Three control variables were used in the analyses. First, because
there were mean differences in supervisor-evaluated performance across the two samples,
a dummy-coded variable controlling for the data collection sample was used (1 = MBA
sample, 2 = healthcare sample). In order to control for the possibility that employees were
evaluated differently based on their gender, this characteristic was also used as a control
variable (1 = male, 2 = female). Finally, because the length of employment may be related
to the number of psychological contract breaches experienced, the employee’s tenure with
the organization was included as a control variable as well.
A correlation matrix of all the variables in this study is presented in Table 3. The means,
standard deviations, and alphas for scaled variables are reported in this table as well.
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
197
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Variable
Mean
S.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. Gender
2. Tenure
3. PC pay
4. Pay attribution
5. PC relationship
6. Relationship attribution
7. In-role
8. OCB-O
9. OCB-I
1.56
4.27
2.85
1.52
3.14
1.59
3.97
3.76
3.88
.50
3.66
.60
.50
.80
.49
.73
.70
.59
−.07
−.21
−.31
.05
−.17
−.19
−.11
−.04
.11
.16
.04
.01
.16
.11
.11
(.83)
.30
.29
.12
.20
.31
.11
.08
.42
.43
.40
.19
(.87)
.44
.41
.45
.30
.17
.20
.37
(.93)
.76
.65
(.83)
.58
(.88)
Correlation coefficients > .19 are significant at p < .05. Correlation coefficients > .21 are significant at p < .01.
Correlation coefficients > .31 are significant at p < .001.
Values in parentheses are coefficient alphas for scaled variables.
Results
Before testing the hypotheses, multigroup structural equation modeling was used to
determine if the two samples were equivalent and, thus, could be combined. This analysis
was conducted by specifying a structural model in which all of the relationships (i.e., the
factor loadings, error variances, and factor covariances) among the five key constructs (i.e.,
psychological contract fulfillment with regard to pay, psychological contract fulfillment with
regard to a supportive employment relationship, in-role performance, OCB-O, and OCB-I)
were constrained to be equal in both samples. This model is referred to as the constrained
model. The number of respondents in the two samples was small relative to the total number
of scale items across the five constructs; therefore, as recommended by Floyd and Widaman
(1995), parceling was used to create six indicator variables for the employee performance
scales. Thus, the overall number of indicators was reduced to twelve (six psychological
contract fulfillment items and six employee performance indicators).
The fit of the constrained model was then compared to the fit of an unconstrained model, in
which all of these relationships were free to vary. Sample equivalence is tested by employing
a χ 2 difference test. If the two models are significantly different, then the samples differ and
should not be combined; if the difference is not significant, then the samples are considered
equivalent and, therefore, combinable. The χ 2 value for the constrained model was 148.25
(df = 122), and the χ 2 value for the unconstrained model was 102.90 (df = 88). The χ 2
difference value of 45.35 (df = 34) was not significant at the p < .05 level. Therefore, the
two samples were combined.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 (examining the impact of psychological contract fulfillment on employee performance) were tested using hierarchical regression. The results of these analyses
are reported in Table 4. The control variables were entered in Step 1 of the regression equation. Next, in Step 2, the two dimensions of psychological contract fulfillment discussed
above (i.e., pay and a supportive employment relationship) were entered into the regression
equations.
198
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
Table 4
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting employee performance
Dependent variables
Control variables
Sample
Gender
Tenure
In-role performance
OCB-O
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
−.35∗∗
−.07
.05
−.37∗∗
−.05
.02
−.27∗
−.03
.03
−.28∗∗
.03
−.03
−.13
.01
.07
−.14
.02
.05
Independent variables
PC pay
PC relationship
F
Adjusted R-square
Change in adjusted R-square
−.01
.41∗∗
8.25∗∗
.14
12.14∗∗
.30
.16
OCB-I
−.03
.31∗∗
.14
.40∗∗
3.99∗
.06
10.82∗∗
.27
.21
1.17
.00
3.39∗
.08
.08
Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
∗ p < .01.
∗∗ p < .001.
In general, the results provide some support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. Collectively, the two
dimensions of psychological contract fulfillment explained a significant amount of variance
in employee performance. Specifically, the amount of additional variance explained was
8% in the equation predicting the extent of organizational citizenship behaviors directed at
colleagues, 16% in the equation predicting in-role performance, and 21% in the equation predicting the extent of organizational citizenship behaviors directed at the organization. However, only the extent of psychological contract fulfillment with regard to the supportiveness
of the employment relationship had a significant relationship with the various aspects of employee performance. In contrast, the extent of psychological contract fulfillment with regard
to pay did not relate significantly to any aspect of employee performance (at least when both
of these dimensions of the psychological contract were included in the regression equations).
Hypothesis 3 was tested using a procedure for analyzing the difference between the
strength of dependent correlations (i.e., correlations obtained from the same group of respondents). The procedure used to test these relationships was outlined by Steiger (1980)
and Cohen and Cohen (1983, pp. 56–57). Specifically, this analysis examined whether
the strength of the relationship between psychological contract fulfillment and organizational citizenship behaviors targeted at the organization was stronger than the strength of
the relationship between psychological contract fulfillment and organizational citizenship
behaviors targeted at individuals. In these analyses, the partial correlations between the
dimensions of psychological contract fulfillment and the two types of organizational citizenship behavior were compared after removing the effects of the control variables (sample,
gender, and organizational tenure). The correlations examined, and the significance tests
associated with these correlations, are presented in Table 5.
The difference in the strength of the correlations between psychological contract fulfillment and the two types of OCB were significant for both of the dimensions of the
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
199
Table 5
Partial correlations between psychological contract fulfillment and organizational citizenship behavior
PC fulfillment
PC pay
PC relationship
∗
OCB-O
OCB-I
t
.29
.46
.09
.30
2.48∗
1.96∗
p < .05.
psychological contract examined here (i.e., pay and the supportiveness of the employment
relationship). In each case, the extent of psychological contract fulfillment was more strongly
related to citizenship behaviors directed at the organization than to citizenship behaviors
directed at individuals. Thus, these results provide support for Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 suggested that the employee’s explanation for why a psychological contract
breach occurred would moderate the relationship between the extent of breach and his or
her work behavior (i.e., the extent to which the employee was observed to perform his/her
in-role duties and engage in organizational citizenship behaviors). Hypothesis 4 was tested
using hierarchical regression.
Because questions concerning the reasons for any perceived psychological contract
breach were answered at the end of each section of the psychological contract questionnaire,
separate analyses were run for attributions regarding pay and a supportive employment relationship. In addition, only those employees who had experienced a breach on at least one
of the items in a section were included in these analyses.
Of the 134 employees, 66 reported receiving less than they were promised on at least one
of the items concerning pay. Among these individuals, 32 suggested that the organization
had intentionally reneged on its commitments, while 34 indicated that the breach was
unintentional. In addition, 63 of the 134 employees reported receiving less than promised
on at least one of the items assessing the supportiveness of the employment relationship. In
this group, 26 individuals suggested that the organization had intentionally reneged upon its
commitments, while 37 individuals suggested that the breach was unintentional. The results
of the hierarchical regression analyses examining the impact of employees’ attributions on
their in-role and extra-role work behaviors are presented in Table 6.
In the first step, the control variables of sample, gender, and organizational tenure were
entered into the regression equations. In addition, the two independent variables—extent of
psychological contract fulfillment (coded such that lower scores represent a greater breach)
and attribution for the breach (1 = intentional, 2 = unintentional)—were also entered in
the first step of the hierarchical regressions. Then, in the second step, the interaction term
(extent of breach×attribution for breach) was included in the regression analyses. To reduce
multicollinearity problems and make the interaction term more directly interpretable, the two
independent variables were centered at their means (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, pp. 237–238).
Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Specifically, none of the interactions between psychological contract breach and the attribution for the breach were significant at the p < .05
level. However, these analyses included only those employees who experienced a breach;
thus, the sample sizes for these analyses were much smaller than those used in the other
analyses. For this reason, we also indicated which relationships were significant at the
200
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
Table 6
Impact of attributions for psychological contract breach on employee performance
Dependent variables
In-role performance
OCB-O
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
−.11
−.05
.13
−.10
.24
−.27∗
.09
.08
.07
.24∗
−.22
.02
.07
−.02
.11
−.18
.03
−.08
−.13
.16
−.13
−.04
−.09
−.22
.02
If employee perceived breach on pay
Independent variables
Sample
−.14
Gender
.00
Tenure
.13
PC pay
−.05
Pay attribution
.33∗∗
Interaction
PC pay × pay attribution
F
Adjusted R-square
Change in adjusted R-square
If employee perceived breach on relationship
Independent variables
Sample
−.41∗∗∗
Gender
−.04
Tenure
−.03
PC relationship
.43∗∗∗
Relationship attribution
−.04
3.51∗∗∗
.16
3.56∗∗∗
.19
.03
.95
.00
1.31
.03
.03
−.45∗∗∗
−.04
−.03
.45∗∗∗
.15
−.54∗∗∗
.06
−.12
.51∗∗∗
−.03
−.55∗∗∗
.06
−.12
.52∗∗∗
−.01
−.30∗∗
−.04
−.10
.35∗∗
.20
−.30∗∗
−.04
−.10
.35∗∗
.16
.25
4.91∗∗∗
−.29∗
3.14∗∗∗
.17
.01
Interaction
PC Rel × Rel attribution
F
Adjusted R-square
Change in adjusted R-square
−.28∗
−.19
3.47∗∗∗
.16
OCB-I
4.37∗∗∗
.24
.25
.01
−.05
.04
8.40∗∗∗
.37
6.89∗∗∗
.36
−.01
4.81∗∗∗
.24
3.95∗∗∗
.22
−.02
Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
∗ p < .10.
∗∗ p < .05.
∗∗∗ p < .01.
p < .10 level. Using this less conservative level of significance, the employees’ attribution
for breaches concerning pay did moderate the relationship between the magnitude of the
breach and both types of organizational citizenship behavior. In these instances, the results
suggest that employees are most likely to decrease their citizenship behaviors when the size
of the breach is large and when the employee believes that the organization intentionally
reneged on its commitments in terms of pay. Moreover, using the traditional p < .05 level
of significance, the results suggest that there is a significant main effect for attribution in
the relationship predicting in-role performance. Thus, this result suggests that the type of
attribution the employee makes does impact his/her in-role work performance (at least when
the breach concerns pay). In this case, performance was lower when employees believed
that the organization intentionally failed to keep its promises regarding pay.
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
201
Discussion
In this final section, we discuss the empirical results obtained here, directions for future research on psychological contracts, and the implications of this study for managerial
practice.
Pattern of Empirical Results
The pattern of results obtained here supports the general idea that psychological contract fulfillment is positively related to employee performance. Specifically, perceptions of
psychological contract fulfillment were positively related to all three forms of employee
behavior evaluated by the supervisors.
However, while the results were significant for the relationship dimension of the psychological contract, they were not significant for the dimension of the psychological contract
that focused on pay (cf. Table 4). In addition, an examination of the correlation matrix (cf.
Table 3) suggests that psychological contract fulfillment with regard to the employment
relationship is more strongly related to all three aspects of employee performance than is
psychological contract fulfillment with regard to pay. Thus, at least among the individuals
in this study, it appears that employees’ perceptions of the extent to which their organizations have lived up to their commitments to be fair, respectful, and supportive are a more
important predictor of their work behaviors than are their perceptions regarding the extent
to which their organizations have lived up to their commitments regarding pay.
What is less clear, however, is the exact nature of the relationship between these two
dimensions of the psychological contract. It is possible that rather than simply being the
more important of the two dimensions, the employment relationship dimension may be
a more general (or second-order) construct that is comprised of employees’ perceptions
regarding several specific dimensions of the psychological contract. In other words, it is
possible that employees’ perceptions of breach/fulfillment related to specific dimensions
of the psychological contract (e.g., pay, benefits, the job itself) subsequently impact their
perceptions of the extent to which the organization is generally supportive of its employees.
Such a relationship could help to explain the results obtained here. Certainly, this possibility
should be examined in future research.
A second focus of this research was to examine whether psychological contract fulfillment was more strongly related to citizenship behaviors directed at the organization than
to citizenship behaviors directed at other individuals. The results obtained here suggest
that psychological contract fulfillment is, indeed, more strongly related to OCB-O than
to OCB-I. Thus, consistent with the premises of social exchange theory, it appears that
employees whose psychological contracts have been breached are most likely to withhold
those behaviors that benefit the organization as a whole, rather than to withhold those behaviors that tend to more directly benefit their work colleagues. Likewise, when individuals
perceive that the organization has exceeded the terms of the psychological contract by
providing more than it was obligated to, they are most likely to reciprocate with actions
intended to benefit the organization as a whole.
However, these results need to be interpreted somewhat cautiously. Like most research on
organizational citizenship behavior, evaluations of the participants’ actions were collected
202
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
from the individuals’ supervisors. Thus, an alternate explanation for these results is that
supervisors simply have better information concerning their subordinates’ organizationallydirected citizenship behaviors than they do their employees’ citizenship behaviors which
are targeted at their colleagues. This alternative cannot be ruled out with the current data.
Finally, the results generally did not support the hypothesis examining how attributions
influence employees’ responses to psychological contract breach. Specifically, the attribution for the breach did not moderate the relationships between the magnitude of the breach
and employee performance when using the traditional p < .05 significance level.
There are several possible reasons for these results. One explanation is that, at least in
some cases, employees are less concerned with why their psychological contract has been
breached than they are about the occurrence of the breach itself. Second, it may be that
attributions matter more for some aspects of the psychological contract (e.g., pay) than they
do others (e.g., the supportiveness of the employment relationship). Third, approximately
50% of employees reported that their psychological contracts were generally fulfilled (such
that they had not experienced a breach on the two dimensions of the psychological contract
examined here). Thus, the sample size for these analyses (which examined only that subset
of the participants who had actually experienced a breach) may not have been large enough
to detect significant results (especially interactions). Finally, a single-item measure was used
to assess the attribution that employees made when they perceived that their psychological
contract had been breached. Although this item appears reasonable, the measurement of
employee attributions for breach could be improved and our use of a single-item measure
may have limited our ability to detect interactive effects in this study.
Directions for Future Research
There are several areas that need to be addressed in future research on psychological
contracts. First, more research needs to examine how the psychological contract is formed.
For example, employees may perceive the promises made by supervisors as more binding
than those made by recruiters (Turnley & Feldman, 1999b). Thus, they may respond more
negatively when breaches arise regarding commitments made by their supervisor than they
do when breaches occur regarding commitments made by recruiters.
Second, future investigations need to focus on how individual dispositional characteristics influence employees’ perceptions of and responses to psychological contract breach.
For example, individual differences like negative affectivity may be important in determining how likely individuals are to interpret not receiving all they were promised as a
violation of the psychological contract. In particular, individuals with high negative affect
(who are predisposed to view situations in an unfavorable light) may be more inclined to
view small discrepancies in the fulfillment of commitments as violations of the psychological contract. In addition, individual differences like equity sensitivity (Huseman, Hatfield
& Miles, 1987) may play an important role in determining employees’ responses to psychological contract breach. Specifically, “entitleds” (individuals who have a higher tolerance
for exchange relationships in which they receive more than they give) would be expected to
respond more negatively to psychological contract breach than “benevolents” (individuals
who have a higher tolerance for exchange relationships in which they give more than they
receive).
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
203
Third, studies that specifically target those groups of employees who are most likely to
have experienced psychological contract breach may be especially important in examining
the attributions that are made in such instances. While this study examined whether such
attributions have an effect on employee behavior, future research should investigate these
relationships using larger samples where the power to detect interactive effects is greater.
In particular, future investigations should seek to identify when the effects of attributions
are likely to be additive and when attributions are likely interact with the magnitude of the
breach to predict employee attitudes and behaviors.
Fourth, more studies which collect longitudinal data are needed in this area. This type of
data is especially important so that the direction of causality can more rigorously be assessed.
This study, like most prior research in this area, is based on the assumption that psychological contract breach results in dysfunctional employee behaviors. However, cross-sectional
research (even when the data are collected from multiple sources as was the case here) can
not truly determine the direction of causality. For example, it may be that employees whose
supervisors perceive them to be poor performers receive less organizational rewards; thus,
these employees are more likely to perceive that their psychological contracts have been
breached. Given the self-serving attributions that lead most individuals to believe that they
are “above average” employees (Kruger & Dunning, 1999), this alternative explanation
cannot be completely dismissed.
Implications for Managerial Practice
This research suggests that psychological contract fulfillment results in increased employee performance both in terms of in-role and citizenship behavior. Likewise, psychological contract breach is associated with poorer employee performance. Thus, this research
further supports the idea that the outcomes of psychological contract breach are likely to
extend beyond the hurt feelings, sense of betrayal, and poor job attitudes experienced by
employees who perceive that their organizations have not lived up to their commitments
(Turnley & Feldman, 1999a). Indeed, because employee contributions to the organization
are likely to decrease, psychological contract breach may have a negative impact on organizational performance in the long run.
This research yields only limited support for the idea that attributions play an important
role in determining employees’ responses to psychological contract breach. Specifically,
when breaches concern pay, there is at least some evidence that employees’ attributions
matter. Thus, when organizations cannot meet employee expectations regarding compensation, it may be desirable for the organization to effectively communicate the reasons for
the discrepancy (especially if there is a legitimate reason for the organization’s failure to
honor its commitments). Such communication could serve to mitigate against employees
decreasing their commitment to the organization and their efforts on its behalf (Rousseau
& Tijoriwala, 2000).
However, the attributions that employees made regarding why breach occurred on the relationship dimension had less of an impact on their behavior. To the extent that these results are
generalizable, it represents bad news for organizations. In effect, such a finding suggests that
employees typically respond negatively to psychological contract breach, even in those instances when they do not believe the organization intentionally reneged on its commitments.
204
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
In conclusion, the findings of this study extend prior research on psychological contracts
in several important ways. First, by collecting performance assessments from supervisors,
this research more rigorously examines the relationship between psychological contract fulfillment and employee performance. In particular, this research suggests that psychological
contract fulfillment (at least with regard to the general supportiveness of the employment
relationship) has a significant impact on the extent to which employees complete their
in-role responsibilities and engage in citizenship behaviors to benefit the organization and
other employees. The results also indicate that psychological contract fulfillment (or lack
thereof) is more strongly related to the citizenship behaviors that employees direct toward
their organization than to those targeted at other individuals. Finally, this study examines
how the attributions that employees make when they experience psychological contract
breach influence the degree to which they withhold their best efforts from their employers.
Although the findings examining the impact of individuals’ attributions for breach were
weak, the data suggest that employees are somewhat more likely to reduce their work effort when they believe that the organization has intentionally reneged on its commitments,
at least with regard to pay. Clearly, then, this is an area of study that warrants increased
attention in future research on psychological contracts.
Acknowledgments
Support for this research was provided by a summer research grant awarded to the first
author from the College of Business Administration, Kansas State University.
References
Adams, J. S. 1963. Wage inequalities, productivity and work quality. Industrial Relations, 3: 9–16.
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequality in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology: Vol. 2, 267–299. New York: Academic Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In M. H. Bazerman, R.
Lewicki, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations: Vol. 1, 43–55. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 71–98. New York:
Jossey Bass.
Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. 1978. Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and
new directions. Academy of Management Review, 3: 202–210.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. 1995. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment
instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7: 286–299.
Goodman, P. S., & Friedman, A. 1971. An examination of Adams’ theory of inequity. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16: 271–288.
Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. 1998. The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and employees adapt.
Organizational Dynamics, 26: 22–37.
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
205
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 on profit seeking: Entitlements in
the market. American Economic Review, 76: 728–741.
Keeney, M. J., & Svyantek, D. J. 2000. A review of psychological contract theory and research: Promise nothing
and they still may get angry. Current Trends in Management, 5: 65–94.
Kissler, G. D. 1994. The new employment contract. Human Resource Management, 33: 335–352.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own
incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 1121–1134.
Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. 2002. Not seeing eye to eye: Differences
in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23: 39–56.
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.
McLean Parks, J., & Kidder, D. A. 1994. “Till death us do part . . . ”: Changing work relationships in the 1990s.
Trends in Organizational Behavior, 1: 111–136.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. 1994. The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial
organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79: 836–844.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do
fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845–855.
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.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: Vol. 12, 43–72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:
574–599.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A
longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 137–152.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995a. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations
on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 289–298.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995b. Developing a standardized measure of the psychological contract.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 2000. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 525–546.
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. 1990. New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study of psychological
contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 389–400.
Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten
agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. 2000. What’s a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social
accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 514–528.
Shore, L. M., & Barksdale, K. 1998. Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment
relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 731–744.
Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. 1993. Social accounts in conflict situations: Using explanations to manage conflict.
Human Relations, 46: 349–370.
Steiger, J. H. 1980. Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87: 245–251.
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.
206
W.H. Turnley et al. / Journal of Management 2003 29(2) 187–206
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 1998. Psychological contract violations during organizational restructuring.
Human Resource Management, 37: 71–83.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 1999a. The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty,
and neglect. Human Relations, 52: 895–922.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 1999b. A discrepancy model of psychological contract violations. Human
Resource Management Review, 9: 367–386.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and
definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior: Vol. 17, 215–285. Greenwich, CT: JAI 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: 82–111.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601–617.
William H. Turnley is an Associate Professor of Management at Kansas State University.
He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the University of South Carolina. His
research interests include psychological contracts, impression management, organizational
citizenship behavior, and contingent employment.
Mark C. Bolino is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from
the University of South Carolina. His research interests include organizational citizenship
behavior, impression management, psychological contracts, and international management.
Scott W. Lester is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin—
Eau Claire. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the University of South
Carolina. His research interests include psychological contracts, group potency, otheroriented work values, and organizational citizenship behavior.
James M. Bloodgood is an Assistant Professor of Management at Kansas State University.
He received his Ph.D. in strategic management from the University of South Carolina.
His research interests include knowledge management, strategic change, psychological
contracts, and social capital.