RESPONSES TO PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT VIOLATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL INJUSTİCE IN TERMS OF EQUITY SENSITIVITY

Year 2020, Volume: 8 Issue: 16, 267 - 289, 15.10.2020

Seçil Keskin Selim Hovardaoğlu

https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.755119

Abstract

Psychological contract violation, perceptions of organizational justice and employees reactions to problematic events are closely related with organizational outcomes as well as with attitudes, decisions and behaviors of employees; thus they have received considerable interest from researchers in recent years. First aim of this study is to determine the differences in employees’ reactions to problematic events in terms of equity sensitivity and gender. The other aim of this study is to examine the relationship between psychological contract violation, perceptions of organizational justice and employees’ reactions to problematic events in terms of equity sensitivity. Related scales were applied to 276 participants. The age range of participants is 18-55. The study revealed certain differences in related variables regarding gender and type of the relationship. In addition, it has been observed that employees’ reactions to problematic events is predicted by psychological contract violations and organizational justice perception.

Keywords

psychological contract, organizational justice perceptions, equity sensitivity

HAKÇALIK DUYARLILIĞI AÇISINDAN PSİKOLOJİK SÖZLEŞME İHLALLERİ VE ÖRGÜTSEL ADALETSİZLİĞE VERİLEN TEPKİLER

Abstract

Psikolojik sözleşme ihlali, örgütsel adalet algıları ve işyerindeki problemlere verilen tepkiler çalışanların tutum, karar ve davranışlarının yanı sıra örgütsel sonuçlarla da yakından ilgili olduğu için son yıllarda araştırmacılar tarafından oldukça ilgi görmektedir. Bu araştırmanın bir amacı işyerindeki problemlere verilen tepkilerin hakçalık duyarlılığı ve cinsiyet açısından farklarının belirlenmesidir. Bu araştırmanın bir diğer amacı da psikolojik sözleşme ihlali ve algılanan örgütsel adaletin işyerindeki problemlere verilen tepkileri yordama gücü ve bu tepkileri hakçalık duyarlılığı açısından incelemektir. Bu amaçla özel sektörde çalışan 276 katılımcıya Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Psikolojik Sözleşme İhlali Ölçeği, Örgütsel Adalet Algısı Ölçeği, Hakçalık Duyarlılığı Ölçeği ve İşyerindeki Problemlere Verilen Tepkiler Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Katılımcıların yaş aralığı 18-55 arasındadır. Araştırma sonucunda, tüm değişkenler üzerinde cinsiyet ve hakçalık duyarlılığı açısından bazı farklar olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra iş yerindeki problemlere verilen tepkileri psikolojik sözleşme ihlallerinin ve örgütsel adalet algısının yordadığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

Psikolojik sözleşme, Örgütsel adalet algısı, Hakçalık duyarlılığı

References

• Allen, R. S., ve White, C. S. (2002). Equity sensitivity theory: A test of responses to two types of under-reward situations. Journal Of Managerial İssues, 435-451.
• Angle, H.L., ve Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
• Babin, B. J., ve Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service environment: A model and test of potential differences between men and women. Journal Of Marketing, 62(2), 77-91.
• Bekaroğlu, M.A. (2011). The moderating effect of organizational justice on reactions to psychological contract breach (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Bies, R. J., ve Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional communication criteria of fairness. Research İn Organizational Behavior, 9, 289-319.
• Cohen, R. L. (1987). Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research, 1(1), 19-40.
• Cohen-Charash, Y. ve Spector, P.E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321.
• Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
• Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., ve Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
• Conway, N., ve Coyle‐Shapiro, J. A. M. (2012). The reciprocal relationship between psychological contract fulfilment and employee performance and the moderating role of perceived organizational support and tenure. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(2), 277-299.
• Daileyl, R. C., ve Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45(3), 305-317.
• Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of management journal,26(4), 596-607.
• Farrell, D. ve Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5(3), 201-218.
• Folger, R. ve Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3, 141-183.
• Greenberg, J. (1987), A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1) , 9-22.
• Hagedoorn, M., Yperen, N. ve Vliert, E. (1999). Emplyoees' reaction to problematic event: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 309-321.
• Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N. W., Van de Vliert, E., ve Buunk, B. P. (1999). Employees' reactions to problematic events: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 20(3), 309-321.
• Hammer, T.H., Landau, J.C. ve Stern, R. N. (1981). Absenteeism when workers have a voice: The case of employee ownership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 561-573. Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc M. M. ve Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228-238.
• Hirschfeld, R. R. (2000). Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference?. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 255-270.
• Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. USA: The President and Fellows of Harvard College.
• Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. ve Miles, E.W. (1985). Test For Individual Perceptions of Job Equity: Some Preliminary Finding. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055-1064.
• Jensen, J. M., Opland, R. A., ve Ryan, A. M. (2010). Psychological contracts and counterproductive work behaviors: Employee responses to transactional and relational breach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 555-568.
• Keskin, S. (2016). İşyerindeki Problemlere Verilen Tepkiler Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Nesne-Psikoloji Dergisi, 4(7), 21-39.
• Kickul, J., ve Lester, S. W. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of business and psychology, 16(2), 191-217.
• King, W.C. ve Miles, E.W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(2), 133-142.
• King, W.C., Miles, E.W. ve Day, D.D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior,14(4), 301-317.
• Leck, J. D. ve Saunders, D. M. (1992). `Hirschman's loyalty: Attitude or behavior?' Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 219-230.
• Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J. ve Fry, W.R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. Justice and Social Interaction, 3(1), 167-218.
• Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., ve Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 59(5), 952.
• Lopez, P. Y. (2008). Re-Defining Psychological Contracts: A network of Relationships. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Texas A&M University, Texas.
• Macneil, I.R. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wis. L. Rev. 483.
• Miles, E.W., Hatfield, J.D. ve Huseman R.C. (1989). The Equity Sensitivity Construct: Potential Implications For Worker Performance. Journal of Management, 15(4), 581-588.
• Millward, L.J. ve Hopkins, L.J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(16), 1530-1556.
• Montes, S. D., ve Irving, P. G. (2008). Disentangling the effects of promised and delivered inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the mediating role of trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1367.
• Morrison, E. W., ve Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy Of Management Review, 22(1), 226-256.
• Nadiri, H., ve Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal Of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33-41.
• Özmen, Ö. N.T., Arbak, Y., ve Özer, P.S. (2007). Adalete verilen değerin adalet algıları üzerindeki etkisinin sorgulanmasına ilişkin bir araştırma. Ege Akademik Bakış, 7, 17-33.
• Petty, M. M., ve Bruning, N. S. (1980). A comparison of the relationships between subordinates' perceptions of supervisory behavior and measures of subordinates' job satisfaction for male and female leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 717-725.
• Pulkkinen, L. (1996). Female and male personality styles: A typological and developmental analysis. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 70(6), 1288.
• Robinson, S.L. ve Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.
• Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P. ve Bordia, S. (2011). Investigating the role of psychological contract breach on career success: Convergent evidence from two longitudinal studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 428-437.
• Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 574-599.
• Robinson, S.L. ve Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.
• Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities And Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139.
• Rousseau, D.M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 389-400.
• Rusbult, C., Farrell, D., Rogers, G. ve Mainous A. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: an integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599-627.
• Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J. ve Minton, J.W. (1992). Organizational justice: the search for fairness in the workplace, Lexington Books, New York.
• Shore, L.M. ve Tetrick, L.E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 91-109.
• Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H., ve Mai-Dalton, R. R. (2008). Characteristics of the supervisor-subordinate relationship as predictors of psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Issues, 295-312.
• Thibaut, J.W. ve Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.
• Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., ve Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206.
• Turnley, W. H., ve Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52(7), 895-922.
• Tyler, T.R. ve Bies, R.J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings, 77, 98.