It is your fault! How blame attributions of breach predict employees’ reactions

Abstract

Purpose -Using insights from attributions, planned behavior and fairness theories, this study examines the effect of blame attributions of psychological contract breach on employees' attitudes (affective organizational commitment) and behaviors (OCB). The aim of this study is to understand whether employees' reactions depend on the attributions they make concerning who is responsible for the breach.Design/methodology/approach -Cross-lagged design in which data were collected from 220 employees and their supervisors in a public company at two times. Moderated mediation was tested using bootstrapping analysis outlined by Hayes (2012). Findings -The results supported our predictions: employees' blame attributions to the organization have a negative impact on OCBs (as rated by supervisors in time 2) through BLAME ATTRIBUTIONS OF PC BREACH 2 decreased affective organizational commitment; but blame attributions to the economic context act as a buffer of the relationship between blame attributions to organization and affective organizational commitment, with consequences for OCBs.Research limitations/implications -Attributions can also be made to concrete persons (i.e., supervisor, coworker, self) rather than to just the organization or context. Practical implications -When hiring, recruiters should provide accurate and realistic promises to the candidates. When facing hard times, managers should provide additional information to employees and adjust their expectations to the current situation of the firm.Originality/Value -This study makes a unique contribution to the literature by questioning the "single story" perspective about reactions to psychological contract breach, in which is assumed that employees always respond negatively to such event.Keywords -blame attributions, psychological contract breach, affective organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors.

What Happens to Others Matters! An Intraindividual Processual Approach to Coworkers’ Psychological Contract Violations

“…The severity of PC violation captures “the extent to which employees perceive that the most important promises” have not been fulfilled (Ng & Feldman, 2009, p. 1056). Blame attribution captures the degree of responsibility each party has in the negative disruption event and is related to the intentionality and control of the organization’s action (Costa & Neves, 2017). If the focal individual finds the coworker’s PC violation is not severe and/or that the coworker is to blame for the organization’s action, they will be motivated to “avoid” and do nothing (O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011).…”

“…In support of this argument, the fairness literature states that when the organization does not have control over the situation (e.g., PC violation), individuals tend to be tolerant (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). Prior research has shown that when individuals blame the context for PC violation, no changes occur in the perceptions of the employment relationship in terms of their organizational commitment (Costa & Neves, 2017). On the other hand, if the focal individual finds the coworker’s PC violation is severe and the organization is to blame (the coworker’s PC violation was intentional), they will feel motivated to engage in active sensemaking. Proposition 4: An observed or coworker-disclosed PC violation that is deemed severe and intentional by the focal individual is more likely to trigger the focal individual’s sensemaking process.…”

But they promised! How psychological contracts influence the impact of felt violations on job-related anxiety and performance

“…Third, in response to calls to apply contingency approaches to the outcomes of negative psychological contract situations (e.g. Arshad, 2016; Biswas, 2016; Costa and Neves, 2017; Restubog et al , 2015), this study proposes that employees’ beliefs about the nature of their psychological contract may influence how much job strain they experience due to felt violations, which then informs their job performance. Consistent with COR theory, the extent to which the nature of their psychological contract intensifies the resource loss caused by a sense of organizational betrayal should enhance the experience of job-related anxiety in response to this negative situation (Priesemuth and Taylor, 2016).…”

Motivational Orientations and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Moderator Role of Perceived Discrimination in the Brexit Context

“…In a moment of crisis and segregation, where ethnic groups are more salient, the perception of discrimination toward immigrants may have an impact on immigrant workers’ OCB. Perceived discrimination runs counter to the clause of dignified treatment that defends the psychological contract, and recent studies show that the attributions of blame for the breach of this contract have a negative impact on OCB [8].…”

“…Motivational orientations can be defined as the individual’s guide for the interpretation of knowledge and the production of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors when facing tasks [9]. The literature has pointed out the existence of two types of motivational orientations, performance orientations and learning orientations, which have been identified as two distinct dimensions [8]. Learning orientation is characterized by the search for perfection in new situations and the acquisition of skills.…”