Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Psychological contract violation:

Psychological contract defines a form of belief or an expectation that an exchange relationship


between two parties exists (Guest, 1998; Rousseau, 1995).Rousseau (1995) states that,
psychological contracts are based on the perceived agreement of promise based on obligations
between employer and employee within an organization. Flood et al. (2001) explained
psychological contract is entered into when one party perceived to have promised future
dividends, a situation giving rise to an obligation to provide future benefits. Such promises occur
psychologically between both parties. On the part of employer it is a promised agreement to
provide the necessary benefits to his or her workers and on the part on employee it creates
expectation to receive those expectation., for example, with respect to compensation and
benefits, skills-development opportunities and job content and, consequently, staff feel the
employer has fulfilled its obligation only when their expectations are met. (Flood et al., 2001).
With the rapid changing environment of environment, arguably the traditional psychological
contract, long-term job security, employee wellbeing in return for hard work, trust and loyalty,
has come under pressure (Sims, 1994). Further McLean et al. (1994) states that in such an
uncertain situation, organizational changes often make it unclear and difficult for the both
parties, the employee and employer, that what they actually owe each other, thus making
fulfilling obligations more difficult.

Morrison and Robinson (1997) explained that Psychological contract violation has been
described as multi-faceted due to its incorporation with wide range of responses. At one level,
violation is followed with the responses of disappointment, frustration and distress (Robinson
and Morrison, 1995; Pate & Malone, 2000). More extreme emotional responses include anger,
resentment, bitterness and indignation (Rousseau, 1989; Pate and Malone, 2000). Violation has
also been associated with behavioral outcomes such as lower organizational citizenship, reduced
commitment, satisfaction and trust which results negative gossip or cynicism increases
(Robinson and Rousseau, 1994; Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Robinson, 1996; Herriot et al.,
1998; Pate et al., 2000). As a result when an individual’s psychological contract is violated the
relationship becomes more calculated and transactional, but how far it moves along the
continuum is dependent on the strength of the perceived violation (McLean et al. 1994; Pate and
Malone, 2000).

Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) explain that breach or violation has effective relation with
affective reactions which in turn low the work attitude at job place and person will start placing
dysfunctional behavior. Emotion theory suggests that due to breach of his/her expectations,
people show angriness and that anger is associated with an action tendency and this hypothesis
can be supported by Social interactions theory. . The perception of Psychological contract breach
not just prompts negative emotions about the unmet expectations connected with particular
promises, and yet to additional general emotions about the employee-employer relationship as
far as not being esteemed and regarded by the utilizing organizations (Coyle & Conway 2005). It
could be concluded that the employees who are not committed may explain the organization
negatively to others or outsiders, which inhibit the ability of the organization to hire the
employees of high-quality (Mowday et al. 1982). Through violation of Psychological contract
employees’ attitude toward organization is negative. By several studies it is proved the violation
of Psychological Contract influences employee perception of how much they own their
organization (Robinson 1996, Robinson and Morison 1995, Robinson and Rousseau 1994) which
in turn increase the turnover, reduce work performance reduce willingness to engage in
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. From all the arguments it is clear that the higher violation
of psychological contract, higher will be the employee work place negative behaviors toward
organization. When the expectations of employee don’t meet the level of satisfaction then
violation occur which in turn reverse employees’ positive behavior, more importantly it depends
how they perceive such violation. Lawrence (2016) found that approximately 94 percent of
employees perceived their organization as defaulting on agreed upon obligations within their first
two years of work defaulting on agreed upon obligations within their first two years of work

H1: there is a positive relationship between psychological contract violation and workplace
ostracism
H2: there is a positive relationship between psychological contract violation and job related
negative gossip

Abusive supervision:

Tepper (2000) states explains that abusive supervision, refers to subordinates perceptions of the
extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal
behaviors, excluding physical contact. Behavioral descriptors consistent with this definition
include “using derogatory names, engaging in explosive outbursts (e.g., yelling or screaming at
someone for disagreeing), intimidating by use of threats of job loss, withholding needed
information, aggressive eye contact, the silent treatment, and humiliating or ridiculing someone
in front of others” (Keashly, 1998).

The growing body of literature suggests that abused subordinates report greater job and life
dissatisfaction, intentions to quit their jobs, more isolation, role conflict, and psychological
distress, compared with their no abused counterparts (Ashforth, 1997; Duffy et al., 2002;
Keashly et al., 1994), and that subordinates’ perceptions of unfairness explain their responses to
abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000). Hence, abusive supervision represents a source of injustice
that has serious implications for organizations and employees (Bies & Tripp, 1998). Fewer
research studies have investigated the effects of abusive supervision on employee behaviors
Tepper (2000) explains that whenever employees feel that they are being treated unfairly by their
supervisors then their positive behavior suffers. Hence it indicates that abusive supervision leads
poor performance and negative job related gossip. Although abusive supervision is considered a
low based phenomenon but it is notable effects on employee attitudes. Zellas et al. (2002)
Further, abusive supervision also negatively affects how employees perceive the genuineness of
their peers. Interpersonal mistreatment (like abusive supervision) promotes retaliation and
aggression displaced on other targets. (Marie et al. 2007). Interpersonal conflict or mistreatment
is a central component of abusive supervision, and studies indicate that employees perceive
supervisors as a dominant source of interpersonal mistreatment (Bies, 1999). Neuman and
Keashy (2003) states supervisors are reported to be the most prominent source of bullying at
work. Indeed, both theoretical and empirical research suggests abusive supervision is related to
retaliation. For example, Folger (1993) explained that supervisors who fail to meet an acceptable
standard of behaviour promote retaliation. Bies and Tripp (1998) found that victims of abusive
bosses directly undermined their bosses in private as well as openly ridiculed or challenged
them.

We also expect that abusive supervision will be related to other types of negative behavior. That
is, in addition to targeting the source of the abuse, employees will react toward other targets.
They will be involved in negative gossip or behavior which is directed toward the organization
or individuals other than the supervisor. Dollard et al. (1939) found that research on displaced
aggression suggests that individuals who become angry and frustrated by a harm doer may
displace their aggression on individuals or groups who are not the source of the harm beside the
immediate supervisor. Counter-normative behavior, unfair supervisory abuse, sexual harassment
all of them are somehow linked with the workforce ostracism. (Ferris et al., 2013; Robinson et
al., 2013). Excluding an employee from a group interaction would be a subtle gesture compared
to publically reprimanding him or her for failing to meet a deadline.

H3: Abusive supervision has positive relationship with the workforce ostracism

H4: Abusive supervision has positive relationship with the job related negative gossip

Mediating role of job related negative gossip:

Difonzo and Bordia (207) explain that Workplace gossip, defined as exchanges of personal
information and judgmental opinions about other people in their absence which is frequently
observed in the workplace .Workplace gossip is a part of the social interaction process, can
provide employees an escape from work for social immobility. To explore the nature of
workplace gossip can improve the understanding of informal communication within
organization. In general, managers possess negative attitude towards gossips in work place and
make gossips account for distrust among employees and decline of organizational morale
(Akande & Funmilayo, 1994; Baker & Jones, 1996). Danziger (1988) found that gossips have
negative impacts in work place resulting in decreasing moral value, uncomfortable personal
interactions, and damaging organization reputation.

Dunbar (2004) state that negative gossipI will result in to an increase in conflict and decrease
morale. It may result in strained relationships and further break down the trust level within
project teams, which indicates more toward more selfishness and isolation which results in
employees second-guessing each other and ultimately running to the supervisor to clarify the
directions or instructions, or to settle the differences that will arise (Dunbar, 2004).
LAWRENCE (2016) considered that gossip as a road to emotional ventilation. It is in the
analysis of group dynamics that gossip's role is perhaps particularly significant, for gossip
performs important collective functions, not the least of which is the contribution it makes to
group cohesiveness and the transmission of group mores and values which clarifies that gossip
can be a road map to cohesiveness when positive on the on the other hand it can be the reason of
isolation of individuals with a group when approached negatively.

Esposito and Rosnow (1983) states that the long term result of gossip is always viewed as
mistrust by the organization and management, no matter positive or negative, , although in short
term it may very beneficial but Unfortunately, gossips are often destructive and sometimes out of
control. They have consequences such as key employees waste their energy, employee morality,
talented employees leave their positions or jobs, costs go up for fighting the gossips, the
organization loses face, productivity decreases and employees of different departments do not
tend to cooperate with each other. The person who is behind spreading gossip may spread the
information in order to gain a better status or social position. Gaining power and social status are
the products of gossip for the person who spreads it; he or she raises his position by lowering
those of the others. Gossip can act as social controlling tools to influence others. It means the
person who originates gossips provides some information to influence people who are prone to
believe gossips (Niederhoffer & Swann, 2006).

H5: job related negative gossip has positive relationship with workforce ostracism

H6: job related negative gossip mediates between psychological contract violation and
workforce ostracism

H7: job related negative gossip mediates between abusive supervision and workforce ostracism

Moderation role of emotional stability:

Several studies of proved the violation of contract will produce job related negative behavior and
emotional stability helps to overcome it, depending how the violation is perceived. Such that
Robinson and Morison (1995) state that higher violation of psychological contract, higher will be
the employee work place negative behaviors toward organization. When the expectations of
employee don’t meet the level of satisfaction then violation will occur which in turn reverse
employees’ positive behavior, more importantly it depends upon how they perceive such
violation.

H8: Emotional stability moderate between psychological contract violation and job related
negative gossip

H9: Emotional stability moderate between abusive supervision and job related negative gossip
Workforce ostracism:

Fox and stallworth (2005) stated being isolated by others and excluded from group interactions at
work is a very painful experience. Williams (1997) found in the United States alone, most of the
employees reported facing some form of social exclusion. Theoretical work in this domain has
noted that such outcomes originate from thwarting a person’s basic psychological needs of
control, self-esteem, meaningfulness, and belongingness. In workplace ostracism one’s
wellbeing is not taken care of, being prohibited from invitation, when one wants to communicate
while other kept silent and the like. Ostracism is defined as a group or individual omitting to take
steps that engage another organizational members appropriate and customary to act, summed up
by (Robinson et al., 2013). Furthermore Hobfoll (1989) ostracism is also considered an
interpersonal problem or stressor that will put pressure on the social resources of the target,
which are capital that can be stressed in order to solve a problem and to overcome the
challenging situations. Many studies have proved the workforce ostracism researches refers to a
series of psychological unpleasant reactions, like anger (Chow et al., 2008).organizational
studies had exposed that workplace ostracism is similar to an immense level of depression,
anxiety and turnover intention and similarly low level of satisfaction and mentally health,
facilitated by (Ferris et al., 2008; Hitlan et al., 2006).Researchers revealed that painful and
negative experience leads to ostracism (Gruter & Masters, 1986).