AMJ Raja Johns

Academy of Management Journal 2004, Vol. 47, No. 3, 350367.
THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS

USMAN RAJA GARY JOHNS FILOTHEOS NTALIANIS Concordia University
This research examined the relationship between employee personality and psychological contract type, perceptions of contract breach, and feelings of contract violation. In general, personality characteristics (extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, self-esteem, equity sensitivity, and locus of control) were related to reported contract type. They also tended to predict perceptions of contract breach and to moderate the relationship between those perceptions and feelings of contract violation. Both contract type and feelings of violation were associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to quit.
Recent years have seen a renewal of interest in two phenomena with histories of research in organizational behaviorpersonality, and psychological contracts. In this article, we examine the relationship between these two phenomena to address important research omissions in both domains. Despite renewed interest in personality, spurred in part by convergence among researchers on the utility of the five-factor model of personality (Goldberg, 1990), and despite growing evidence of associations between personality and work attitudes and behavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge & Bono, 2001), the exact mechanisms by which personality affects organizational behavior have not been well specified. This is a serious omission in light of the fact that the failure to specify the mechanisms linking particular personality traits or dimensions to criteria was in part responsible for the earlier demise of research on personality in the workplace (Hough & Schneider, 1996). At the same time, despite growing agreement among researchers that psychological contracts are personal and idiosyncratic (Rousseau, 1989), research has not systematically examined dispositional contributors to contracts. This omission is curious, given that such contracts are self-constructed. In what follows, we offer theoretical arguments that predict
This research was supported by grant 00-ER-0506 from Quebecs Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et lAide a ` la Recherche and grants 410-99-1491, 410-20030630, and 410-2003-1014 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The first author also received support from the International Council for Canadian Studies under their Canadian Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Program.
350
what kinds of contracts people with certain personality traits will establish, as well as the likelihood that they will perceive contract breaches and report feelings of violation. In addition, we consider how contract type and violation are associated with important personal and organizational outcomes. Psychological contracts are defined as a persons perceptions and expectations about the mutual obligations in an employment exchange relationship (Rousseau, 1989). Transactional contracts are short-term, have a purely economic or materialistic focus, and entail limited involvement by both parties. Relational contracts are long-term and broad, as they are not restricted to purely economic exchange but also include terms for loyalty in exchange for security or growth in an organization (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Concepts that have attracted attention in research on psychological contracts include perceived breach and felt violation. According to Morrison and Robinson, Perceived breach refers to the cognition that ones organization has failed to meet one or more obligations within ones psychological contract in a manner commensurate with ones contributions . . . perceived breach represents a cognitive assessment of contract fulfillment that is based on an employees perception of what each party has promised and provided to the other (1997: 230). Violation, however, refers to emotional distress and feelings of betrayal, anger, and wrongful harm arising from the realization that ones organization has not fulfilled a highly salient promise (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1989). This distinction clearly signifies breach as the product of a more deliberate and cognitive search aimed at monitoring how well ones psychological contract
2004
Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis
351
is being upheld by ones organization. Violation is, on the other hand, a deep emotional response that is more affective and a result of blaming ones organization for a broken promise. Other things being equal, a more serious breach should lead to stronger feelings of violation. However, it is our contention that personality will influence the propensity both to detect breach and to respond to breach with feelings of violation.
PERSONALITY, CONTRACTS, AND OUTCOMES Relating Contract Types, Perceived Breach, and Violation to Personality Personality might affect psychological contract dynamics through three processes: choice, construal, and enactment. Choice refers to job-seeking behavior and is most pertinent to the type of contract sought after or negotiated. The motivational implications of personality are most relevant to preferences for contract type. Construal refers to perceptions of contract type, breach, and violation. The cognitive and affective implications of personality are most relevant to construal. Rousseau (1989) has stressed the highly personal, idiosyncratic, self-constructed nature of psychological contracts. These characteristics suggest that there are few external constraints on construal, thus allowing for the influence of personality (cf. Mischel, 1968). Finally, enactment refers to the impact of personality on organization behavior and attitudes. Such behavior and attitudes might influence the contract terms offered by an employer or the modification of a contract over time. We chose personality variables for study and framed hypotheses mainly on the basis of their relevance for choice and construal. In the discussion section, we speculate about the role of enactment in the interpretation of our results. Given our belief that personality might affect organizational behavior in part through its impact on contracting, we chose personality variables with a demonstrated history of relevance to behavior in organizations. We began with the Big Five model of personality (Goldberg, 1990), which has had considerable impact on thinking about organizational behavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Below, we offer specific logic for inclusion of the Big Five variables neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness. We omitted from consideration the Big Five dimension known as openness to experience in view of its controversial structure, limited research history, and generally weak relevance to organizational behavior (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997). Because of
their preference for close relationships and their cooperative good nature, we predicted that individuals high on the Big Five trait agreeableness would report relational contracts and be less prone to experiencing breach and violation. However, we were unable to establish a reliable level of measurement for agreeableness ( .43) and thus omitted it from our predictions and analyses. For exploratory purposes, we were also interested in incorporating a few narrower, more specific traits. We developed a list of such traits and eliminated those that were closely associated with particular Big Five dimensions or with each other. Equity sensitivity was retained in light of the promissory aspect of psychological contracts and previous conjecture concerning its relevance to contracting (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Self-esteem was incorporated because its implications for self-confidence and vigilance respectively pertain to contract formation and maintenance. Similarly, locus of control was chosen because its relevance for sensitivity to future events and vigilance respectively pertain to contract formation and maintenance. Narrower traits considered relevant but not measured owing to conceptual overlap included negative affectivity, which is highly correlated with the Big Five neuroticism dimension (Watson & Clark, 1997), and generalized self-efficacy, which is highly correlated with self-esteem (e.g., Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). Neuroticism. Neuroticism is a widely researched personality trait from the Big Five. It is associated with emotional instability, mistrust, anxiety, selfpity, and lack of psychological adjustment (Goldberg, 1990; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Neurotics are limited in social skills and avoid situations that demand taking control (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). There is a negative correlation between neuroticism and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1999; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), extrinsic career success (Judge et al., 1999), job complexity (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000), and performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991) over a wide variety of jobs. High anxiety, an important facet of neuroticism, is negatively related to performance on complex tasks (Spector, 1982). The characteristics associated with neuroticism suggest that such individuals will not engage in relationships that require long-term commitments on their part and demand high social skills, trust in others, and initiative. They will form psychological contracts that are short-term and purely economic, involving exchanges for specific aspects of performance that do not demand high initiative and confidence. On the one hand, the low trust of neurotics in
352
Academy of Management Journal
June
others suggests that they would expect breach to occur. On the other hand, neurotics are not expected to be active information seekers monitoring how well their psychological contracts are being maintained, because such processes can lead to the discovery of psychologically disquieting information. Also, being an affect-related trait, neuroticism is more likely to influence an individuals emotional response (violation) than to influence perceived breach, which is more cognitive (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). We therefore suggest that: Hypothesis 1a. Neurotics will tend to form transactional contracts. Hypothesis 1b. Neuroticism will be negatively related to perceived breach. Extraversion. Extroverts are highly social, talkative, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive, and ambitious (Costa & McCrae, 1992). They have high desire for material gain, status, recognition, and power (Costa & McCrae, 1988). The assertive component of extraversion is associated with a desire for increased salary and status (Cattell, 1981). Extraversion is also positively related to performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002). Although extroverts actively seek economic rewards in exchange relationships, they will tend to form long-term psychological contracts. The reason is that short-term, purely economic contracts are very limited and restrictive. Such psychological contracts cannot offer opportunities for gaining desired status, power, or recognition that require central positions in social networks (Krackhardt, 1990). We argue that extroverts will form relational contracts with more emphasis on materialistic terms and opportunities for gain in their exchange relationships. Being highly assertive, energetic, ambitious, and susceptible to materialistic influence, extroverts will be very vigilant in monitoring how well their contracts are being fulfilled by their organization. Using their high social skills, they will actively seek information to ensure that the organization does not deny them opportunity for gain in the short or the long term. Hypothesis 2a. Extroverts will tend to establish relational contracts. Hypothesis 2b. Extraversion will be positively related to perceived breach. Conscientiousness. Individuals with high conscientiousness are methodical, dependable, and risk averse (Goldberg, 1990). They tend to exhibit high performance and to be satisfied with their jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge et al., 1999, 2002). People rating high on this trait exhibit motivation
for achievement, and they are more concerned with task accomplishment than with economic rewards (Stewart, 1996). We argue that conscientious people will tend to form long-term employment exchange relationships. They will try to choose an environment in which they have greater opportunities for achievement and success, even though they might have to delay gratification for future growth opportunities. Although conscientious people will form relational contracts, they will be very active in monitoring how well their contracts are being maintained. Being risk averse, they will actively seek information regarding their exchange relationships with organizations so that they do not face any unpleasant surprises. Also, their desire for growth and success will stimulate vigilance to monitor their psychological contracts. We therefore propose: Hypothesis 3a. Employees with high conscientiousness will tend to form relational contracts. Hypothesis 3b. High conscientiousness will be positively related to perceived breach. Equity sensitivity. Proposed by Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles (1987), equity sensitivity is a personality variable that explains individual differences in reactions to inequity (ONeil & Mone, 1998). Persons high in equity sensitivity are outcomeoriented, wanting more than others for a given level of inputs (Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). On the other hand, those low in equity sensitivity pay more attention to their inputs and are less sensitive to equity issues in exchange relationships (Huseman et al., 1987; Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). Miles, Hatfield, and Huseman (1994) found that people high in equity sensitivity place importance on tangible extrinsic outcomes such as pay, status, and fringe benefits. Employees with low equity sensitivity placed importance on intangible intrinsic outcomes such as a sense of accomplishment, making use of ones abilities, and feelings of personal worth. Equity sensitivity is negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment and positively related to intentions to quit (ONeil & Mone, 1998). Equity sensitivity is also associated with a poor work ethic and low social responsibility (Mudrack, Mason, & Stepanski, 1999). In light of the above, we expect that people high in equity sensitivity will form transactional contracts. Being focused on pay, status, and material gain, they will form contracts that provide clear opportunity for these. Being very sensitive to equity issues, they will place less importance on relationships than on extrinsic gains. As they exhibit low social responsibility and tend to sacrifice the work ethic to make gains (Mudrack et al., 1999),
2004
353
they will not form long-term psychological contracts that may require delay of gratification and/or the exhibition of high social responsibility in their organizations. Similarly, being highly concerned with equity issues, they will be very vigilant in monitoring the maintenance of their psychological contracts. We therefore propose the following two hypotheses: Hypothesis 4a. People high in equity sensitivity will tend to form transactional contracts. Hypothesis 4b. Equity sensitivity will be positively related to perceived breach. Locus of control. Locus of control is a variable reflecting how people perceive the strength of the link between their own actions and the outcomes of those actions (Rotter, 1966). People with internal loci of control (internals), as compared to those with external loci of control (externals), believe more strongly that outcomes (such as rewards) are under their own control (Rotter, 1966; Spector, 1982). Externals are less likely to perceive a relationship between their inputs or efforts and outcomes. They attribute success or failure to factors beyond their own control, such as chance or powerful others. Internal locus of control is positively related to affective commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) and job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001). Compared to internals, externals find jobs that are less well suited to them (Judge et al., 2000), are less satisfied and motivated, and exhibit lower job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2000). Externals show low alertness and are not sensitive to information related to future situations and outcomes (Miller, Kets De Vries, & Toulouse, 1982; Phares, 1976; Spector, 1982). Paying little attention to future situations, externals will be less concerned with long-term relationships. They will form contracts that offer them accessible short-term gains rather than future opportunities fraught with uncertainty. As opposed to internals, who are better adjusted in their jobs, externals will form psychological contracts that allow maximization of the short-term outcomes of their inputs. They will not vigilantly monitor their exchange environment, as they believe outcomes to be under the control of factors such as influential others or luck. Hypothesis 5a. Externals will tend to form transactional psychological contracts. Hypothesis 5b. External locus of control will be negatively related to perceived breach. Self-esteem. Self-esteem, which refers to the value one puts on the self, has been termed the
evaluative component of the self-concept (Rosenberg, 1979). People high in self-esteem value themselves, exhibit confidence, and opt for occupations that match their abilities and self-perceived traits (Judge et al., 1997, 2000; Tharenou, 1979). Selfesteem is positively related to job satisfaction, task motivation, and job performance (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001). Individuals with high self-esteem tend to have a desire for achievement and are highly competitive (Brockner, 1988). Being strong performers and having a desire for growth, achievement, and success, they will form psychological contracts that promise such opportunities. The preference for growth and achievement is unlikely to be fulfilled through a purely economic, short-term relationship. It calls for a long-term relationship in which economic terms are accompanied by factors such as status and prestige being linked to high performance. Also, as they choose jobs that match their abilities and personalities (Judge et al., 2000), they will be well adjusted in their jobs, considering them to provide maximum opportunities for success. Therefore, individuals with high self-esteem will form long-term contracts that are somewhat balanced in terms of relationship and performance/rewards criteria. Their high confidence and perceptions of high self-worth will make them active and vigilant in monitoring information pertinent to exchange relationships. In order to maintain their positive self-concepts, they will exhibit high alertness to ensure that their psychological contracts are being properly maintained and they are receiving what is expected from their organizations. Hypothesis 6a. People high in self-esteem will tend to form relational contracts. Hypothesis 6b. Self-esteem will be positively related to perceived breach.
Contract Type and Personal and Organizational Outcomes Theory provides good grounds for expecting that relational contracts will facilitate positive personal and organizational outcomes better than transactional contracts will (Rousseau, 1995; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Indeed, relational contracts have been shown to relate positively (and transactional contracts, negatively) to job commitment, organizational commitment, and expected job tenure (Millward & Hopkins, 1998; Rousseau, 1990). However, most other evidence bearing on the differential outcomes of these contract types is indirect (e.g., Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Shore &
354
June
Barksdale, 1998). In light of such limited but suggestive evidence, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 7a. Relational contracts will be negatively related to intentions to quit and positively related to job satisfaction and affective commitment. Hypothesis 7b. Transactional contracts will be positively related to intentions to quit and negatively related to job satisfaction and affective commitment.
Hypothesis 9a. Perceived breach will be positively related to violation. Hypothesis 9b. Violation will mediate the relationship between perceived breach and intentions to quit, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Robinson and Morrison (2000) showed that attributions and fairness perceptions interacted with perceived breach to predict violation. We anticipated that personality would serve a similar moderator function. Personality explains how people differ in their social interactions, reactions to perceived injustice, and attachment of importance to various extrinsic and intrinsic outcomes. Conscientious people are more concerned with task accomplishment than with rewards (Stewart, 1996). They are willing to forego immediate extrinsic rewards for future success (Goldberg, 1990). These people are not expected to readily convert the realization of every unmet promise into feelings of violation. In order to maintain healthy relationships with their employers and have optimal opportunities for growth and achievement, they will tend to focus more on their inputs in order to give their best. People with high self-esteem tend to be good performers and to choose professions that best fit their abilities and strengths (Judge et al., 1997, 2000; Tharenou, 1979). Being well adjusted, they will trust their organizations and not show emotional reactions to every breach they detect. Similarly, externals are less likely to feel violated because they attribute success and failure more to factors such as chance (Spector, 1982). They will neither be too excited over a success nor be too surprised if some of their expectations are not met. Extroverts will not exhibit very strong emotional reactions to any detected breaches to conserve their relationships with their employers and maintain social reputation. People high in neuroticism are anxious, lack trust, and perceive failures in life (Judge et al., 1999). They are expected to show stronger affective reactions to a perceived breach, once detected, than those who are low in neuroticism. Skarlicki, Folger, and Tesluks (1999) finding that negative affectivity, which is very closely related to neuroticism (Watson & Clark, 1997), moderated the relationship between perceptions of fairness and retaliatory behaviors extends some support to this idea. Similarly, people high in equity sensitivity want more outcomes for a given level of inputs than do referent others (Huseman et al., 1987). They also view the world as unfair, and a small breach can make them feel that they have been treated unjustly. Being highly sensitive to equity issues, and focusing
Perceived Breach, Violation, and Outcomes Perceived breach signals an imbalance in the social exchange process in which an employee does not receive expected outcomes from an organization for fulfilling his or her obligations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). To address this imbalance, employees have the options of altering either their own or the organizations obligations (Robinson et al., 1994). Available theory and some empirical evidence justify a positive relationship between perceived breach and undesirable outcomes such as intentions to quit and actual turnover (Bunderson, 2001; Robinson, 1996). Similarly, literature supports the idea of a negative relationship between perceived breach and desirable outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance (Bunderson, 2001; Robinson & Morrison, 2000). Hypothesis 8. Perceived breach will lead to higher intentions to quit and lower job satisfaction and affective commitment. Violation describes the feelings of anger, distress, injustice, and mistrust arising from the realization that ones organization has failed to fulfill its obligations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1989). Whether perceived breach is converted into feelings of violation depends on the size and salience of the promise or expectation the organization failed to fulfill (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Violation therefore is one of the mechanisms through which perceived breach is translated into outcomes such as intentions to quit, low job satisfaction, and low organizational commitment. Employees who realize that their organization has failed to provide them something that they not only deserved, but that is also important to them, experience feelings of anger, mistrust, and betrayal. These feelings in turn make the employees dissatisfied, less committed to the organization, and likely to quit.
2004
355
more on outcomes than on inputs, people high in equity sensitivity are more likely to experience feelings of violation than are those who are less concerned with outcomes and who focus more on their own inputs (such as internals). We therefore suggest that personality will interact with breach in predicting violation. Hypothesis 10. Personality will moderate the positive relationship between breach and violation in such a way that the relationship will be stronger for people high in equity sensitivity and neuroticism and weaker for persons high in extraversion, conscientiousness, external locus of control, and self-esteem. METHODS Sample and Procedure The sample consisted of employees working in five well-established private and public sector organizations located in Pakistan. The research sites included a branch of a private sector bank, a fertilizer processing and production company, an engineering firm, a research lab of a semiautonomous government research organization, and the head office of a large multinational consumer products organization. Research access was gained through personal and professional contacts of the first author who made these organizational units available for sampling. Surveys were distributed to employees working in secretarial, clerical, or higher-level positions through designated, trained people in their respective organizational units. A cover letter explaining the purpose and scope of the study assured respondents of strict anonymity and that participation in the study was voluntary. Of the 300 surveys distributed, 45 went to the bank (responses, 31; response rate, 68%), 100 to the fertilizer company (responses, 66; response rate, 66%), 45 to the engineering company (responses, 30; response rate, 66%), 30 to the research lab (responses, 21; response rate, 70%), and 80 went to the head office of the multinational company (responses, 49; response rate, 61%). Overall, from the 300 questionnaires distributed, we received 197 usable responses, representing a response rate of 66 percent. The respondents had a mean age of 38.81 years (s.d. 9.86), and 94 percent were male. Mean tenure with the organization was 12.25 years (s.d. 9.50). Education levels ranged from high school completion to receiving a Ph.D., with 10.2 percent of the respondents having a high school certificate and the remaining 89.8 percent having college or university education. Although respondents occu-
pied diverse occupational levels, ranging from clerical and secretarial staff to upper management, most of the sample (76%) occupied junior and middle-level managerial, professional, and technical positions. To partially check for sampling bias, we compared the mean age of our respondents with the corresponding organizational means for the fertilizer (37.1 vs. 38.7, t 1.26, n.s.) and multinational (37.4 vs. 39.5, t 1.16, n.s.) companies. A close correspondence was observed in both cases. Measures All measures were obtained from a self-report questionnaire. Unless otherwise noted, a response scale anchored by 1, strongly disagree, and 5, strongly agree, was used, and high variable scores denote high levels of the construct in question. In Pakistan, English is taught as a major, compulsory subject beginning in grade school and is the medium of instruction for all university education. Except for entry-level jobs in which almost no education is required, every person employed in Pakistan can at least read and understand English. Thus, given the sampling frame, we did not have to translate the questionnaire into the native language. Neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness were measured with 36 items (12 items each) taken from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFI was derived from the revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and is an extensively validated and used measure of the Big Five personality dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 1988). Examples of items include I often feel inferior to others, for neuroticism; I like to have a lot of people around me, for extraversion; and I am pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time, for conscientiousness. Alpha reliabilities were .72 for neuroticism, .62 for extraversion, and .77 for conscientiousness. Equity sensitivity. Equity sensitivity was measured with the 16-item Equity Preference Questionnaire (EPQ) developed by Sauley and Bedeian (2000). They presented construct validity evidence and argued that their measure does not have problems endemic to earlier measures (e.g., see Miles et al., 1994). Items such as I prefer to do as little as possible at work while getting as much as I can from my employer tap high equity sensitivity, or an orientation toward outcomes. Items such as I feel obligated to do more than I am paid to do at work reflect low equity sensitivity, or orientation toward inputs. Scores on items reflecting low eq-
356
June
uity sensitivity were reverse-coded so that a high score on the scale reflected high equity sensitivity. The reliability of the EPQ measure was .75. Locus of control. We assessed locus of control with Spectors (1988) Work Locus of Control Scale (WLCS). The WLCS is a 16-item measure designed to capture employees beliefs about their control over their organizational outcomes (Spector, 1988). Eight items each are worded to reflect external versus internal locus of control. An example of an externally worded item is It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs. Conversely, On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish is an example of an internally worded item. Scores for internally worded items were reversed so that a high score reflected high external locus of control. The WLCS demonstrated an internal consistency reliability of .63. Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured with the eight-item Rosenberg Global Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), an instrument that captures overall perceptions of self-appreciation and selfworth. I feel that Im a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others is a sample item. The internal consistency reliability for this scale was .70. Given that we measured 76 personality items with 197 respondents, we assessed the discriminant validity of the six personality traits following procedures recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1998). This assessment involved 15 confirmatory analyses assessing the discriminant validity of each pair of traits in which a constrained model (a single-factor model or a two-factor model with a perfect correlation of one) was compared with an unrestricted two-factor model. Discriminant validity was achieved for all personality variables, as the chi-squares in all the comparisons were significantly lower (p .001) for the unconstrained models. Psychological contract. The reported psychological contract was initially measured with the 31item Psychological Contract Scale developed by Millward and Hopkins (1998). Two dimensions, comprising relational (11 items) and transactional (20 items) contracts, underpin the instrument. Principal axis factor analysis forcing two factors did not exactly replicate the Millward and Hopkins (1998) solution. Five items did not load on either factor. In addition, a number of Millward and Hopkinss transactional items (items that their own focus group had designated as relational) cross-loaded or loaded negatively onto our relational factor. We considered this instability unhelpful for future research and thus trimmed the measure so as to retain
only the items that had replicated loading patterns in both studies. In doing so, we retained 9 of their 11 relational items and 9 of their 20 transactional items. These items were among those also retained in a factor analysis of contract terms by Irving, Cawsey, and Cruikshank (2002). The shortened 18item scale revealed a clear two-factor solution that accounted for 36.4 percent of the variance (see the Appendix), with coefficient alphas of .79 for relational contract and .72 for transactional contract. To examine the validity of our shortened scale, we administered both it and the contract items (10 relational, 8 transactional) from Rousseaus (2000) Psychological Contract Inventory to an independent sample of 103 employees attending universitysponsored employee development programs in Pakistan. Our derived measures of transactional and relational contracts correlated .71 and .59 with the respective Rousseau measures, thus providing evidence for convergent validity. Perceived breach. A five-item measure developed by Robinson and Morrison (2000) was used to assess perceived contract breach. It captured employees perceptions of how well their employing organizations had fulfilled their obligations to them. Robinson and Morrison (2000) argued that this measure was consistent with current psychological contracts literature in which breach is viewed as an overall estimation of employer-kept promises (Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1989). Items for perceived breach included My employer has broken many of its promises to me even though Ive upheld my side of the deal. The perceived contract breach scale demonstrated an internal consistency reliability of .79. Feelings of violation. Feelings of violation were assessed with a four-item measure developed by Robinson and Morrison (2000). While breach has a cognitive focus, violation is meant to capture affective reactions in the context of a contract. Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed with statements such as I feel extremely frustrated by how I have been treated by my organization. Coefficient alpha for feelings of violation was .81. The high correlation between perceived breach and violation (r .72) and the relative newness of the scales warranted caution in using them. We therefore performed a confirmatory factor analysis to see if perceived breach and violation were distinct constructs. Results revealed that a two-factor model (2 68.43, df 26, CFI .94, GFI .93, AGFI .88, RMSEA .09) fitted the data slightly better than a single-factor model (2 76.20, df 27, CFI .92, GFI .92, AGFI .86, RMSEA .10), and the difference in chi-squares was significant (2 7.77, df 1, p .01), Similar tests
2004
357
supported the discriminability of the contract types from breach and violation. Outcomes. Intentions to leave the organization were measured with a three-item scale extracted from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1982). Items included I will probably look for a new job in the next year. The coefficient alpha for the scale was .83. Affective commitment was measured with the eight-item scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Items included I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. For this scale, the coefficient alpha was .82. Job satisfaction was measured with Hoppocks (1935) scale, which comprises four multiple-choice questions, each of which offers seven answer options. For example, for the question Which one of the following shows how much of the time you feel satisfied with your job? response options range from 1, never, to 7, all the time. The reliability coefficient was .75. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a three-factor model best fitted the outcome data (2 152.71, df 87, CFI .94, GFI .90, AGFI .87, RMSEA .06), providing evidence for discriminant validity. Control variables. Age, tenure with the employer, occupational level, and organization were used as control variables. Age and tenure were included because contract dynamics may change over the course of an individuals career. Occupational level was measured by reported job title and job grade. We coded jobs in such a way that higher
numbers corresponded to higher occupational levels. Thus, the lowest number (1) corresponded to the clerical and secretarial level, and the highest number (5) was assigned to upper management. One-way analyses of variance were conducted to compare occupational levels on breach, violation, relational contract, transactional contract, job satisfaction, affective commitment, and intentions to quit. These tests revealed that there were differences in contract type (F 3.26, p .01) and violation (F 4.79, p .001) across occupational levels, with higher levels reporting more relational contracts and less violation. Thus, we controlled for occupational level in regression analyses. Also, one-way analyses of variance were performed on these same variables across organizations. Significant differences were observed for affective commitment (F 6.77, p .001) and job satisfaction (F 5.07, p .001), and post hoc tests indicated that they were due to the tendency for the bank employees to be somewhat more committed and satisfied than the balance of the sample. To conserve degrees of freedom, we formed a dummycoded variable (1 bank, 0 other organization) to serve as a control variable. RESULTS Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables. All correlations above .14 in magnitude are significant at p .05, and those above .17 are significant at p .01. The mean
TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilitiesa,

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Age 38.81 9.86 Tenure 12.25 9.50 .80 Organization type 0.16 0.37 .26 Occupational level 3.31 0.82 .31 Neuroticism 2.65 0.52 .13 Extraversion 3.47 0.42 .07 Conscientiousness 3.98 0.46 .09 Equity sensitivity 2.25 0.45 .08 Locus of control 2.73 0.37 .07 Self-esteem 3.93 0.48 .00 Relational contracts 3.74 0.52 .29 Transactional 2.61 0.53 .08 contracts Perceived breach 2.63 0.74 .10 Violation 2.22 0.77 .07 Intentions to quit 2.46 0.92 .28 Affective commitment 3.45 0.63 .38 Job satisfaction 5.33 0.85 .38
.51 .14 .04 .14 .13 .01 .15 .10 .16 .03 .07 .10 .01 .04 .03 .35 .24 .12 .07
.02 (.72) .04 .33 (.62) .06 .37 .36 (.77) .29 .36 .27 .47 (.75) .16 .27 .27 .18 .41 (.63) .21 .49 .35 .45 .53 .36 (.70) .16 .26 .20 .40 .36 .31 .32 (.79) .11 .25 .25 .18 .48 .31 .35 .15 (.72)
.11 .03 .11 .21 .13 .22 .31 .38 .25 .45 .22 (.79) .08 .08 .21 .20 .08 .18 .39 .29 .27 .45 .42 .72 (.81) .31 .17 .08 .11 .05 .17 .26 .17 .12 .57 .26 .48 .62 (.83) .42 .35 .15 .13 .18 .32 .43 .20 .25 .65 .37 .49 .55 .66 (.82) .48 .31 .05 .16 .17 .36 .25 .17 .29 .57 .18 .30 .33 .49 .67 (.75)
a n 197; alpha reliabilities are given in parentheses. For organization type, 1, bank; 0, other organization. Occupational level ranges from 1, clerical and secretarial, to 5, upper management. b For correlations greater than or equal to .14, p .05; for correlations greater than or equal to .17, p .01.
358
June
for transactional contract type was 2.61, and that for relational contract was 3.74. The correlation between the two contract types was .15. The mean for perceived breach was 2.63 (s.d. 0.74) and for violation it was 2.22 (s.d. 0.77). These values are consistent with research by Robinson and Morrison (2000), who reported means of 2.63 (s.d. 0.95) for perceived breach and of 2.05 (s.d. 0.95) for feelings of violation in a sample of recent U.S. MBA graduates. Robinson and Morrison (2000) reported a correlation of .68 between perceived breach and violation, and in the current study this value was .72. The bivariate associations shown in the correlation matrix indicate provisional support for all main effect hypotheses dealing with personality and contract type, contract type and outcomes, breach and outcomes, and breach and violation. However, several hypotheses concerning personality and breach were not supported: 1b, 2b, 3b, 5b, and 6b. Regression Analyses We performed several hierarchical regression analyses to formally test the hypotheses. In all the regressions, age, tenure, occupational level, and organization type were entered as control variables in the first step. Because this exploratory study included a range of broad and narrow personality traits, a legitimate question arose as to how to analyze the data. In most cases, we conducted separate regression analyses for the broader Big Five personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness and the more specific, focused traits of equity sensitivity, locus of control, and self-esteem. This analytic technique respected the basic taxonomic level of the personality variables (Hough & Schneider, 1996), and it was also consistent with their typical treatment in the literature. For example, the Big Five variables or a subset of them are frequently analyzed simultaneously, while the same has applied to the more focused variables under consideration here (e.g., Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). Also, separate analyses corresponded more closely to the theoretical thinking that guided the development of the specific hypotheses. That is, the hypotheses were guided by research devoted to explicating the nature of the individual traits rather than possible higher-order amalgamations of them (cf. Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). For instance, our treatment of locus of control owes at least as much to its implications for environmental scanning and information processing as it does to its possible higher-order self-evaluative properties, such as core self-evalua-
tions (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001). Nevertheless, we later report three analyses that assess the simultaneous impact of the broader and narrower traits thought to represent core selfevaluations. Relational contracts. The hypotheses predict that extraversion, conscientiousness, and selfesteem will be positively related to relational contracts. To test these predictions, we regressed contract type on the Big Five traits and then on the narrower traits (see Table 2). Conscientiousness ( .27, p .001) was a significant predictor of relational contract type, supporting Hypothesis 3a. However, extraversion was not related to relational contract type, disconfirming Hypothesis 2a. For the narrow traits, a significant positive relationship between self-esteem ( .15, p .05) and relational contracts confirmed Hypothesis 6a. Though not hypothesized, a negative relationship with relational contracts was found for neuroticism ( .20, p .007), external locus of control ( .21, p .003), and equity sensitivity ( .20, p .01). Transactional contracts. The hypotheses predict that neuroticism, equity sensitivity, and external locus of control will be positively related to transactional contracts. As shown in Table 2, neuroticism ( .15, p .06) was related (with marginal significance) to transactional contracts, supporting Hypothesis 1a. Of the narrower traits, equity sensitivity ( .37, p .001) showed a significant, positive association with transactional contracts, but locus of control did not. These findings support Hypothesis 4a but fail to support Hypothesis 5a. Though not hypothesized, a negative relationship emerged for extraversion and transactional contracts ( .18, p .01) Perceived breach. The hypotheses predict that all six personality variables will be associated with perceptions of breach. Results presented in Table 2 show that of the Big Five variables, neuroticism (marginally, at .14, p .08) and conscientiousness ( .17, p .04) were related to perceived breach, but in directions contrary to those predicted in Hypotheses 1b and 3b. Extraversion was not significantly related to perceived breach, and hence no support was found for Hypothesis 2b. Among the narrow traits, external locus of control ( .34, p .001) was a significant predictor of perceived breach but in a direction opposite to that predicted in Hypothesis 5b. No significant relationship was found for either equity sensitivity or selfesteem to support the predictions in Hypotheses 4b and 6b. Three of the traits we studied, neuroticism, locus of control, and self-esteem, have been incorporated in the higher-order construct core self-evaluations
2004
359
TABLE 2 Results of Regression Analyses for Transactional and Relational Contracts, Breach, and Violationa
Relational Predictors Transactional R2 Breach Violation R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
Big Five personality traits Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Neuroticism .20** Extraversion .01 Conscientiousness .27*** Narrow traits Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Equity sensitivity .20** Locus of control .21** Self-esteem .15* Perceived breach Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Perceived breach
a
.15 .15 .18** .15*** .07
.03 .14 .02 .09*** .17*
.02 .18* .03 .12
.04
.30
.12
.09
.07**
.10
.06**
.15 .37*** .09 .17*** .13
.03 .12 .34*** .22*** .07
.02 .25** .17* .18*** .05
.04
.32
.25
.20
.17
.13***
.04 .70*** .52 .48***
n 197; control variables were age, tenure, organization, and occupational level. p .10 * p .05 ** p .01 *** p .001
(Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001). In order to address the concerns of one reviewer about possible overlap among these traits, we regressed the two contract types and breach on the three traits simultaneously. For relational contracts and perceived breach, all results were similar in direction, magnitude, and significance to those reported earlier. For transactional contracts, neuroticism was no longer a significant predictor, as expected from Hypothesis 1a. However, in this supplementary analysis external locus of control was positively related to transactional contracts ( .16, p .03), providing support for Hypothesis 5a. Violation. Violation was regressed on breach and the control variables. Results presented in Table 2 show that breach significantly predicted violation ( .70, p .001), lending support to Hypothesis 9a. Outcomes. We performed regression analyses to test contract type, perceived breach, and violation as predictors of the outcome variables intentions to quit, affective commitment, and job satisfaction. Regressing each of the three outcome variables on the two contract types simultaneously and on perceived breach and violation resulted in nine regression equations. Results are presented in the upper portion of Table 3. Relational contracts were negatively related to
intentions to quit ( .53, p .001) and positively related to affective commitment ( .49, p .001) and job satisfaction ( .43, p .001). Transactional contracts were positively related to intentions to quit ( .18, p .003) and negatively related to affective commitment ( .32, p .001) and job satisfaction ( .19, p .001). These results provide support for Hypotheses 7a and 7b. As predicted in Hypothesis 8, perceived breach was significantly related to intentions to quit ( .44, p .001), affective commitment ( .45, p .001), and job satisfaction ( .27, p .001). Similarly, violation was a significant predictor of intentions to quit ( .60, p .001), affective commitment ( .53, p .001), and job satisfaction ( .35, p .001). Moderator and mediator analyses. Moderated regression analysis was used to examine the interactive effects of breach and personality traits on violation. Controlling for extent of breach, this test examined the propensity of those with particular personality traits to react more strongly in terms of violation. First, control variables were entered into the model. In the second step, we entered personality variables along with breach to predict violation. Then, in the last step, the interaction terms between breach and personality were entered.
360
June
TABLE 3 Results of Regression Analyses for Outcomesa

Intentions to Quit Predictors Main effects: Contract type Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Relational Transactional Main effects: Perceived breach Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Perceived breach Mediation: Violation Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Violation Step 3 Perceived breach Main effects: Personality Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Six personality traits Mediation: Contracts Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Contract types Step 3 Six personality traits
a
Affective Commitment
Job Satisfaction
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
.11 .53*** .18***
.23
.23
.41
.30***
.49*** .32***
.59
.36***
.43*** .19***
.45
.22***
.11 .45***
.23 .27***
.23
.44***
.30
.19***
.43
.20***
.30
.07***
.11 .53*** .15*
.23 .35*** .05
.23
.60***
.46
.35***
.50
.27***
.35
.12***
.04
.46
.001
.51
.01*
.35
.001
.11
.23
.23
.20
.09**
.38
.15***
.37
.14***
.11
.23
.23
.41
.30***
.59
.36***
.45
.22***
.44
.02
.61
.02
.48
.03
n 197; control variables are age, tenure, organization type, and occupational level. * p .05 ** p .01 *** p .001
Altogether, two regression equations (involving the two sets of personality traits) yielded two significant (one marginally so) interactions. The results, presented in Table 4, show that interaction terms for equity sensitivity ( .77, p .07) and
external locus of control ( 1.34, p .009) had effects on violation indicating that perceived breach had a stronger, positive relationship for higher values of equity sensitivity and lower values of external locus of control. In other words, people
2004
361
who were sensitive to equity issues were prone to convert breach into feelings of violation, as were those who were more internal. These results lend partial support to Hypothesis 10, which predicts significant interactions for all personality variables. Hypothesis 9b states that violation will mediate the relationship between breach and the three outcomes. Results of regressions shown in Tables 2 and 3 reveal breach as a significant predictor of violation as well as of the three outcome variables. In order to check for the mediation effects of violation, we regressed the three outcome variables on breach and violation together. As shown in the lower portion of Table 3, with violation in the equation, considerable reduction in the effect size of perceived breach was observed for intentions to quit (from .44, p .001 to .04, p .65), affective commitment (from .45, p .001 to .15, p .04), and job satisfaction (from .27, p .001 to .05, p .55). These results confirm Hypothesis 9b, indicating that the negative outcomes of breach are substantially a function of the degree of felt violation. We decided to perform two more sets of analyses to test for additional mediation effects. One analysis was conducted to assess whether contract type mediated the relationship between personality and the outcomes, and the other was to test whether perceived breach mediated the relationship between personality and violation. In these tests, we employed all six personality variables as a block. As shown in the lower portion of Table 3, with contract type controlled, the variance explained by personality was reduced from .09 (F 3.24, p .05) to .02 (F 1.18, n.s.) for intentions to quit; from .15 (F 7.27, p .05) to .02 (F 1.11, n.s.) for affective commitment; and from .14 (F 6.43, p .05) to .03 (F 1.56, n.s.) for job satisfaction. The reduced variance supported the mediating role of contract type in the personality-outcome relationship. Similarly, results in the lower portion of Table 4 show that, with perceived breach controlled, the variance in violation explained by personality decreased from .14 (F 5.10, p .001) to .03 (F 1.74, n.s.), again providing evidence for mediation. Summary of Results To summarize our results, Hypotheses 1a, 4a, and 5a respectively predict a positive relationship between transactional contracts and neuroticism, equity sensitivity, and external locus of control. Although Hypotheses 1a and 4a were confirmed, we found no support for Hypothesis 5a, as locus of control was not related to reports of a transactional contract. Hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 6a respectively
TABLE 4 Results of Moderator and Mediator Regression Analyses for Violationa

Violation Predictors Moderator analyses Big Five traits Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Neuroticism Extraversion Conscientiousness Perceived breach
R2
R2
.04
0.08 0.05 0.01 0.69***
.53
.49***
Step 3 Breach neuroticism 0.38 Breach extraversion 0.10 Breach conscientiousness 0.17 Narrow traits Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Equity sensitivity Locus of control Self-esteem Perceived breach Step 3 Breach equity sensitivity Breach locus of control Breach self-esteem Mediator analyses Main effects: Personality Step 1 Control variables Step 2: Six personality traits Mediation: Perceived breach Step 1 Control variables Step 2 Perceived breach Step 3 Six personality traits
.54
.01
.04
0.17** 0.06 0.00 0.68*** 0.77 1.34** 0.13
.55
.50***
.57
.02*
.04
.18
.14***
.04
0.70***
.53
.48***
.55
.03
a n 197; control variables are age, tenure, organization type, and occupational level. p .10 * p .05 ** p .01 *** p .001
362
June
predict a positive relationship between relational contracts and extraversion, conscientiousness, and self-esteem. Results confirmed Hypotheses 3a and 6a but failed to support the predicted association between extraversion and relational contracts. Hypotheses 1b, 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, and 6b predict relationships between personality traits and perceived breach. No relationship existed between perceived breach and extraversion, equity sensitivity, and self-esteem. Thus, Hypotheses 2b, 4b, and 6b were not supported. Although neuroticism, conscientiousness, and locus of control were significantly related to perceived breach (neuroticism was marginally so), the directions were opposite to those predicted in Hypotheses 1b, 3b, and 5b. Unexpectedly, individuals with high neuroticism, low conscientiousness, and high external locus of control were the most likely to perceive breach. Hypothesis 7a proposes relationships between relational contracts and the outcomes. This hypothesis was supported in all respects, as relational contracts were negatively related to intentions to quit and positively related to job satisfaction and affective commitment. Similarly, full support was observed for Hypothesis 7b, which predicts that transactional contracts will be positively related to intentions to quit and negatively related to job satisfaction and affective commitment. Breach was positively related to feelings of violation and intentions to quit and negatively related to satisfaction and commitment, thus supporting Hypotheses 8 and 9a. Violation mediated the relationship between perceived breach and all outcomes, supporting Hypothesis 9b. Hypothesis 10 proposes that all six personality traits will moderate the relationship between perceived breach and felt violation. It was partially supported, in that moderator effects in the predicted direction were found for equity sensitivity and locus of control. DISCUSSION In general, we found reasonably good support for many of the hypotheses. In particular, four of the six predictions concerning personality and contract type were confirmed, with equity sensitives and neurotics reporting transactional contracts, while people with high conscientiousness and selfesteem reported relational contracts. Although no support was found for the prediction that extroverts would form relational contracts, extraversion was negatively associated with transactional contract terms. In addition, consistent support was obtained for the favorable impact of a relational contract on job satisfaction, affective commitment, and intentions to quit and the unfavorable impact of a
transactional contract and breach of contract on these same outcomes. Some support was found for the prediction that personality would moderate the translation of breach into violationas predicted, equity sensitives were more inclined, and externals were less inclined, to respond to breach with feelings of violation. The data did not bear out our hypotheses concerning the personality predictors of perceived breach. In particular, extraversion, equity sensitivity, and self-esteem were unrelated to breach. More worrisome, neuroticism was positively related to breach (at p .08), as was external locus of control, while conscientiousness was negatively related to breach, all directionally counter to expectations. The hypothesized relationships were predicated on Morrison and Robinsons (1997) portrayal of breach as an essentially cognitive estimation. Thus, our predictions were based on the implications of the various personality dimensions for vigilance and information processing. If breach is a hotter construct than the cool calculation Morrison and Robinson described, our findings make sense, on the basis of the more emotive implications of the studied traits. For instance, neurotic personalities often lack trust, and such individuals might be inclined to see breach more easily than the less neurotic. There are, however, two other plausible reasons for our results for breach. First, it is possible that breach and violation are more easily separable concepts for employees new to their jobs (cf. Rousseau, 2001) than for our sample, whose members averaged over 12 years of tenure. New employees are more likely have explicitly reasoned contracts based on fresh pre-employment expectations and are more likely to respond to breach queries as if they were filling out a checklist. On the other hand, when seasoned employees are queried about breach, they may aggregate instances over considerable time, on the basis of the salience of these instances, which is surely a function of felt violation. In this case, the personality correlates of breach and violation would be similar. Conceptually, this argument implies a breach by tenure interaction when violation is being predicted, an interaction that we could not support with the current data. Second, our breach hypotheses were founded on the expected impact of personality on the perception or detection of breach, not on its actual occurrence. However, conscientious individuals might have engaged in more careful and diligent job search, thus reducing the probability of breach. Also, organizations might be less likely to breach the contracts of satisfied, productive employees. Thus, the salutary consequences of conscientiousness, low neuroticism, internality, and self-
2004
363
esteem for both satisfaction and performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2002) might account for our findings that neurotics and externals perceived breach but the conscientious did not, as well as for our null findings for self-esteem. This pattern of findings suggests a reciprocal relationship between breach and related organizational behavior, and it illustrates the role of enactmentthe conversion of personality into job behavior and attitudes. We believe that this study contributes to both research on personality and research on contracts. In the domain of personality, the study joins a small but growing body of research that opens the black box to explain how personality affects organizational behavior. Barrick, Stewart, and Piotrowski (2002) showed how motivation mediated the relationship between personality and job performance, and Judge and his colleagues (1998) illustrated how perceptions of core job characteristics mediated the relationship between personality and job satisfaction. We contribute to this stream of research by showing that contract dynamics also mediate the relationship between personality and personal and organizational outcomes. From the standpoint of contracts research, we contribute evidence that suggests an explanation for one of the most interesting phenomena in organizational behavior how employees facing ostensibly identical job conditions self-construct either disappointing or rewarding relationships with their employers. A tentative explanation is that personality influences contract terms, breach perception, and feelings of violation. Three aspects of our research warrant caution in interpretation. First, we interpreted our findings concerning personality and contract type in terms of employee choice and construal of contracts. However, one of our reviewers suggested that conscientious individuals and those with high selfesteem might be offered more encompassing and enduring relational contract terms because of their proclivity for high performance and job satisfaction. Conversely, more dispensable externals and neurotics might be held to less committing transactional contracts. This explanation, which is based on enactment, while complementary to ours, illustrates the need to view contracts dynamically. Second, our use of cross-sectional data dictated that we examine two essentially parallel models, one pertaining to contract type (personality 3 contract 3 outcomes) and the other to contract breach (personality 3 breach 3 outcomes). However, breach was moderately related to both relational contracts (r .45) and transactional contracts (r .22), and Robinson and her coauthors (1994)
reported that breach led to a shift from relational to transactional contracts. This background raised questions about how much independent information our results contained. Thus, we retested our hypotheses pertaining to personality and contract type, controlling for breach. In all cases, the results paralleled those for the uncontrolled tests. Similarly, controlling for breach did not materially affect any of the reported relationships between contract type and outcomes. All in all, these results indicate that there is utility in discriminating between breach and contract type. However, they do not obviate the need for process-oriented longitudinal designs that better capture the true dynamics of personality, contract type, breach, and violation over time. A third concern was the potential for common method variance, since all variables were measured in the same questionnaire. However, self-reports are the conventional way to assess both personality and aspects of psychological contracts. Although researchers have sometimes used observers or clinical interviews to assess personality, such tactics are rare and hard to execute in the workplace. Initially, we intended to separate the measurement of personality in time from that of the other variables, but our firsthand experience at the research sites convinced us that doing this would badly damage our response rates. Nevertheless, several factors mitigate some concern about common method variance. First, having people describe themselves in general and then report their work experiences would seem much less prone to common method variance than having people both describe and evaluate their work in the same questionnaire. In our study, the link between breach or violation and work outcomes would seem to be most prone to common method variance, but this link was not the major focus of the research, and it has been demonstrated through use of independent methods (Kickul, 2001). Also, we proposed and found some evidence for the operation of personality as a moderator of the effects of breach on violation, and method variance, if present, would work against the detection of moderators. Finally, Judge and coauthors (1998) found similar patterns of correlations between personality and satisfaction (life and job) even when predictor and criteria were measured with independent methods. Thus, all in all, we are confident that our primary findings concerning personality were not seriously affected by common method variance. Conducting the reported study in Pakistan was a decision predicated on access to the research sites. In planning the study, we considered but did not find any reason to expect that our predictions,
364
June
based on Western research, would not apply in Pakistan. Having conducted the study, we had no specific experiences that violated this expectation. However, it is possible that the marginal reliabilities for extraversion and locus of control and the unacceptable reliability for agreeableness partly reflect subtleties of linguistic comprehension or cultural values. For example, our questionnaire administrators reported more than one query about the colloquial NEO item I am not a worrier. Also, the negative implication of not being agreeable in a collective culture might have prompted socially desirable responses among some employees. We were unable to find normative personality data for Pakistan to illuminate these conjectures. Like the samples used in most extant research on psychological contracts, our sample consisted mostly of managers, professionals, and technical people, an occupational elite with similar if not identical education and training across cultures. Below this elite, transactional contract dynamics might dominate, especially in less economically developed countries. Studying these occupations in Pakistan resulted in a sample that was almost totally male. However, the implications of this predominance of men are unclear given that very little research has examined the impact of gender on contract matters (Millward & Brewerton, 2000). We can only observe that the Pakistan locale and the mostly male sample did not appear to constrain variance in reported contract type, perceived breach, or experienced violation (cf. Johns, 1991). Two suggestions for future research pertain to organizational context. Except for the implication that contract breaches might have occurred, contextual factors were not examined in this exploratory study. Clearly, a person by situation perspective would further illuminate the conditions under which personality might be more or less relevant to contract dynamics. For example, people with particular personality traits might be more susceptible to the breach of particular contract terms or to the manner in which a breach occurred (for instance, to perceived degree of procedural justice). Time is frequently a surrogate for changes in context (Johns, 2001), and the role of time also merits scrutiny. In exploratory analyses, we found significant tenure by personality interactions in predicting breach for four of the six studied traits (extraversion, equity sensitivity, self-esteem, and locus of control). In each case, the relationship between personality and perceived breach was weaker for employees with lower tenure. This pattern of findings raises the possibility that newer employees face strong situations (Mischel, 1968) that constrain the impact of personality on perceived breach. On
the other hand, long-tenured employees might have experienced a series of contractual ambiguities that stimulate eye of the beholder effects, shaped by personality. A third suggestion for future research that would also address the relevance of time concerns our earlier contention that personality might affect contract dynamics via choice of employment, perceptual construal of ones contract, or personalityrelated attitudes and behaviors enacted on a job. Longitudinally, this formulation implies a sequence choice, construal, enactment, construal that merits attention. Particularly interesting is the possibility that certain personality traits are differentially relevant to the various events in this contract cycle. More basically, the impact of enactment merits future attention, since extant contract theory is mainly silent on how work behavior and attitudes on the part of employees affect changes in contracts over time. Although contracts may indeed be psychological (that is, construed), personality has been shown to affect important work attitudes and behaviors that should influence the actual terms offered by an employer. To conclude, a number of authors have mused about the likely importance of individual differences in matters concerning psychological contracts. We have provided some tentative empirical evidence for the merits of this idea. At the same time, we have illustrated that contractual mechanisms are one likely path by which personality affects organizational behavior. REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 118. Anderson, I. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1998. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and a recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411 423. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. 2002. Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 4351. Barrick, R. M., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 126. Brockner, J. 1988. Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA: Heath. Bunderson, J. S. 2001. How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional employees: Doctors responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 717741.
2004
365
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. 1983. Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices: 71138, New York: Wiley. Cattell, R. B. 1981. Where next in human motivation research? Some possible crucial experiments. In R. Lynn & H. J. Eysenck (Eds.), Dimensions of personality: Papers in honor of H. J. Eysenck: 5377. New York: Pergamon. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1988. Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 853 863. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Relationship of core selfevaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1270 1279. Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216 1229. Hoppock, R. 1935. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper & Row. Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. 1996. Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations: 31 88. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Huseman, C. R., Hatfield, D. J., & Miles, W. E. 1987. A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12: 222234. Irving, G. P., Cawsey, T. I., & Cruikshank, R. 2002. Organizational commitment profiles: Implications for turnover intentions and psychological contracts. In C. Sue-Chan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada: 2130. Johns, G. 1991. Substantive and methdological constraints on behavior and attitudes in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49: 80 104. Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 31 42. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traitsself-esteem, generalized selfefficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability with job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 80 92.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 237 249. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 765780. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 530 541. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, J. C., & Barrick R. M. 1999. The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52: 621 652. Judge, T. A., Locke, A. E., & Durham, C. C. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 19: 151188. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. 1998. Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 1734. Kickul, J. 2001. When organizations break their promises: Employee reactions to unfair processes and treatment. Journal of Business Ethics, 29: 289 307. Krackhardt, D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and powering organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342369. McCrae, R. R., & Costa P. T., 1997. Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology: 825 847. San Diego: Academic Press. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61: 20 52. Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. 1994. Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 585596. Miller, D., Kets De Vries, M. F. R., & Toulouse, J. M. 1982. Top executive locus of control, and its relationship to strategy-making, structure, and environment. Academy of Management Journal, 25: 237253. Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. 2000. Psychological contracts: Employee relations for the twenty-first century? In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 15: 1 62. Chichester, England: Wiley. Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. J. 1998. Organizational commitment and the psychological contract. Journal of Social and Applied Psychology, 28: 16 31.
366
June
Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. 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. Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S., & Stepanski, K. M. 1999. Equity sensitivity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 539 560. ONeil, B. S., & Mone, M. A. 1998. Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between selfefficacy and workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 805 816. Phares, E. 1976. Locus of control in personality. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 574 599. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 2000. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 525546. Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 137152. Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent selfimage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg, M. 1979. Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized expectations for internal vs. external reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (whole no. 609). Rousseau, D. M. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2: 121139. Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. 2000. Psychological contract inventory. Technical report no. 2000 02, Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Rousseau, D. M. 2001. Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74: 511541. Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. 1993. The contracts of individuals and organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 15: 1 47. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. 2000. Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26: 885910. 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: 731744. Skarlicki, P. D., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. 1999. Personality as moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 100 108. Spector, P. 1982. Behavior in organizations as a function of employees locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91: 482 497. Spector, P. 1988. Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61: 335340. Stewart, G. L. 1996. Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 619 627. Tharenou, P. 1979. Employee self-esteem: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15: 316 346. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. 1997. Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology: 767793. San Diego: Academic Press.
2004
367
APPENDIX Results of Factor Analysisa

Psychological Contract Items Transactional contracts ( .72) I work only the hours set out in my contract and no more. My commitment to this organization is defined by my contract. My loyalty to the organization is contract specific. I prefer to work a strictly defined set of working hours. I only carry out what is necessary to get the job done. I do not identify with the organizations goals. I work to achieve the purely short-term goals of my job. My job means more to me than just a means of paying the bills. (reverse-coded) It is important to be flexible and to work irregular hours if necessary. (reverse-coded) Relational contracts ( .79) I expect to grow in this organization. I feel part of a team in this organization. I have a reasonable chance of promotion if I work hard. To me working for this organization is like being a member of a family. The organization develops/rewards employees who work hard and exert themselves. I expect to gain promotion in this company with length of service and effort to achieve goals. I feel this company reciprocates the effort put in by its employees. My career path in the organization is clearly mapped out. I am motivated to contribute 100% to this company in return for future employment benefits.
a
Factor Loadings
.61 .59 .51 .51 .47 .45 .41 .35 .33
.71 .71 .67 .56 .55 .47 .47 .43 .41
These items are from Millward and Hopkins (1998).
Usman Raja (uraja@jmsb.concordia.ca) is a Ph.D. candidate in the John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal. He received his MBA from the International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan. His research interests include personality, psychological contracts, job design, and organizational justice. Gary Johns (garyj@vax2.concordia.ca) holds the Concordia University Research Chair in Management in the John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal. He received his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational
psychology from Wayne State University. His research interests include personality, absenteeism, self-serving behavior, research methodology, and the impact of context on organizational behavior. Filotheos Ntalianis (filotheo@vax2.concordia.ca) is a Ph.D. candidate in the John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal. He received his M.Sc. in economics from Florida Atlantic University. His research interests include psychological contracts, personality, and religiosity.

AMJ Raja Johns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMJ Raja Johns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Journal 2004, Vol. 47, No. 3, 350367.

THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

Academy of Management Journal

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

Academy of Management Journal

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

Academy of Management Journal

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilitiesa,

Academy of Management Journal

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

.15 .15 .18** .15*** .07

.03 .14 .02 .09*** .17*

.02 .18* .03 .12

.15 .37*** .09 .17*** .13

.03 .12 .34*** .22*** .07

.02 .25** .17* .18*** .05

.04 .70*** .52 .48***

Academy of Management Journal

TABLE 3 Results of Regression Analyses for Outcomesa

.11 .53*** .18***

.11 .53*** .15*

.23 .35*** .05

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

TABLE 4 Results of Moderator and Mediator Regression Analyses for Violationa

0.08 0.05 0.01 0.69***

0.17** 0.06 0.00 0.68*** 0.77 1.34** 0.13

Academy of Management Journal

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

Academy of Management Journal

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

Academy of Management Journal

Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

APPENDIX Results of Factor Analysisa

.61 .59 .51 .51 .47 .45 .41 .35 .33

.71 .71 .67 .56 .55 .47 .47 .43 .41

These items are from Millward and Hopkins (1998).

You might also like

.15 .15 .18 .15* .07

.15 .37* .09 .17* .13

.03 .12 .34* .22* .07

.04 .70* .52 .48*

.11 .53* .18*

0.17 0.06 0.00 0.68* 0.77 1.34** 0.13