Going above and beyond for your Beliefs: the Effects of Ideological Psychological Contract Breach and Fulfillment on pro-Social Rule Breaking

Abstract

Ideological psychological contracts (PC) describe perceived obligations that relate to an organization’s mission, values, and principles, and they relate closely to employees’ self-concept. The ideological currency is prevalent across various professions and organizations. In this study, we argue that employees engage in corrective behavior (i.e., pro-social rule breaking; PSRB) in response to large discrepancies between obligated and delivered ideological inducements (i.e., ideological PC breach). We measure breach obligated and delivered ideological inducements separately to examine their different effects on PSRB. Based on prior theoretical models, we examine core self-evaluation (i.e., CSE) and include perceptions of ideological PC breach and fulfillment as antecedents of PSRB, as well as the role of CSE in the relationship between perceptions of ideological PC breach and fulfillment and PSRB. Our results suggest that PSRB negatively relates to both the breach and fulfillment continua, and delivered ideological inducements relates more strongly to PSRB than obligated ideological inducements. Moreover, CSE does not moderate the relationship between ideological PC breach and fulfillment and PSRB. These results further our understanding of how ideological PCs shape employees’ behavior. By examining the moderating role of CSE, we advance the PC literature by showing that ideological PC breach and fulfillment perceptions are better antecedents of PSRB than CSE.

Does attachment anxiety accentuate the effect of perceived contract breach on counterproductive work behaviors?

“…Our study is characterized by several limitations which in turn yields new research questions and challenges. First, we had to make a trade‐off between measuring every variable only once but at separate points in time (which is a widely used design in organizational behavior literature, e.g., Lee et al, 2020; Yang et al, 2022), and a cross‐lagged longitudinal design measuring all variables repeated multiple times. The former limits the cost of the same lengthy surveys being repeated over time resulting in higher attrition levels but at the expense of predicting causality, whereas the latter is much better equipped at addressing questions of causality, although it usually suffers from higher drop‐out levels.…”

Can proactively confessing obtain your embrace? Exploring for leader’s pro-social rule-breaking consequences based on a self-verification perspective

“…Historically, researchers focused on exploring the antecedents of pro-social rule breaking ( Morrison, 2006 ; Dahling et al, 2012 ; Baskin et al, 2016 ; Wang F. et al, 2021 ; Khattak et al, 2022 ; Yang et al, 2022 ), while very few studies have been done on its outcomes, especially the effects of leaders’ pro-social rule breaking on employee behavior. For exceptions, Chen et al (2019) identified that leader pro-social rule breaking can cause employees pro-social rule breaking, and Li et al (2019) proved that leader pro-social rule breaking would enhance the leadership identity of employees with high psychological maturity.…”

The Core Value Strategy and Mentality Evolution of the New Era of Corporate Social Responsibility

“…A company lacking social responsibility is not a positive social psychological contract, nor can it have recognized by public (Y. Yang, et al, 2022). Naturally, it will not be able to realize its value innovation and the goal of forming a core competitiveness that surpasses other companies [5].…”

“…Yang, et al, 2022). Naturally, it will not be able to realize its value innovation and the goal of forming a core competitiveness that surpasses other companies [5]. Therefore, an in-depth discussion of the internal relationship and interaction between the three elements of corporate social responsibility, value innovation, and core competitiveness will undoubtedly still have positive practical value and significance for effectively promoting the growth, success, and maturity of Chinese enterprises in a market economy environment.…”