effects of psychological contract - final

8/2/2019 Effects of Psychological Contract - Final

1/78

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1


2/78

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Research on psychological contract breach has referenced social exchange as its dominant

theoretical foundation. In this study, we draw insights from the group value model as a theoretical

extension to explain employees' negative responses to psychological contract breach. According to

the group value model, fair treatment by group members communicates symbolic messages about

the relationship between the organization and the employee, and has implications for whether

employees can take pride in their organizational membership. When people are treated unfairly,

they lose trust in the organization and dis identify from the group. This in turn results in less

willingness on the part of the employees to engage in organizational citizenship behaviours.

We tested these relationships across three studies. In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal test of

the role of trust as a mediator between breach and organizational identification. In Studies 2 (cross-

sectional) and 3 (longitudinal), we tested the complete model in which we examined the role of

trust and identification in mediating the link between breach and OGBs. All three studies provided

support for the mediated model. Furthermore, as predicted by the group value model, the

hypothesized relationships emerged in response to relational but not transactional contract

breaches. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

2


3/78

For Further Details Contact:

+91-9962179698

044-26821138

www.lacrosstechnologies.org

3
http://www.lacrosstechnologies.org/http://www.lacrosstechnologies.org/


4/78

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To examined the mediating role of trust between psychological contract breach and

organizational identification.

To identify whether participants had an overall sense that the organization had fulfilled its

promises.

To find the role of trust and identification in mediating the effects of psychological contract

breach on OCBs will be greater for relational breach than for transactional breach.

To compare the relationship between organizational trust and OCBs

4


5/78

1.3 HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

Hypothesis 1: The relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational

identification is mediated by organizational trust.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between organizational trust and OCBs is mediated by

organizational identification.

Hypothesis 3: The role of trust and identification in mediating the effects of psychological contract

breach on OCBs will be greater for relational breach than for transactional breach.

5


6/78

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Methodology refers to more than a simple set of methods rather it refers to the rationale and the

philosophical assumptions that underlie a particular study relative to the scientific method. This iswhy scholarly literature often includes a section on the methodology of the researchers. This

section does more than outline the researchers methods (as in, We conducted a survey of 50

people over a two-week period and subjected the results to statistical analysis, etc.); it might

explain what the researchersontological orepistemological views are.

Another key (though arguably imprecise) usage for methodology does not refer to research or to

the specific analysis techniques. This often refers to anything and everything that can be

encapsulated for a discipline or a series of processes, activities and tasks. Examples of this arefound in software development, project management and business process fields. This use of the

term is typified by the outline who, what, where, when, and why. In the documentation of the

processes that make up the discipline, that is being supported by "this" methodology, that is where

we would find the "methods" or processes. The processes themselves are only part of the

methodology along with the identification and usage of the standards, policies, rules, etc.

Research Design

We tested these relationships across three studies. Convenience sampling was used as our sampling

approach. This mode of data collection was utilized given its convenience and access to full-time

working participants. Aside from its practicality, questions and clarifications arising from the

survey were addressed on the spot. In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal study using full-time

employees from a public sector organization to test the first part of the model (psychological

contract breach > organizational trust > organizational identification). In Studies 2 (cross-

sectional) and 3 (longitudinal), we tested the complete, 4-component model (psychological

contract breach > organizational trust > organizational identification > OCBs). In order to

minimize common method variance, we collected supervisor ratings of OCBs for Studies 2 and 3.

In Studies 2 and 3, we also used a facet-based measure of contract breach such that we could

distinguish between transactional and relational contract breaches. This allowed us to test

6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology


7/78

Hypothesis 3, drawn from the group value model, stating that the role of trust and identification in

mediating the effects of contract breach on OCBs will be more pronounced in the context of

relational than transactional contract breach. The use of both cross-sectional and longitudinal

designs will help triangulate the findings and enable a stronger test of the proposed model. Finally,

we take steps to minimize same-source variance by obtaining supervisor reports in Studies 2 and 3.

7


8/78

CHAPTER II

REVIEWOF LITERATURE

8


9/78

2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the past decade, the study of employee psychological contracts has attracted a great deal of

attention in the organizational sciences. A psychological contract is generally understood as a set

of beliefs employees hold regarding the terms and conditions of their employment relationship

with their organization. These beliefs transcend the written and explicit provisions of the formal

employment contract. A psychological contract is essentially an employee's mental model of the

mutual obligations of the parties to the employment relationship in which the employees agree to

perform their role in exchange for the fulfillment of the promises they were made by their

organization.

Psychological contract breach takes place when employees perceive that their organization has

failed to deliver satisfactorily on its promises. The belief that a promise or future obligation exists

is based exclusively on the employee's own perception. Such a belief may be intentionally or

unintentionally conveyed via recruitment interviews, performance appraisals, written personnel

policies, or organizational practices. Breach, which is a cognitive assessment involving the

discrepancy between what has been promised and what has been delivered, is empirically and

theoretically distinct from contract violation which refers to an emotional response arising from

perceived contractual transgression.

Unsurprisingly, psychological contract breach has negative consequences for organizations and

employees. One well-documented consequence of psychological contract breach is that employees

are less willing to engage in organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs). Traditionally, the

negative ramifications of psychological contract breach have been explained using the framework

of social exchange theory, part of larger exchange theory According to this perspective, employees

are largely driven by instrumental considerations associated with 'give and take' between the

individual and the group. Upholding contracts will increase OCBs for two reasons: (1) because the

employee feels compelled to reciprocate the positive behaviour of the organization; and (2)

because by engaging in positive behaviour the employee is maximizing his or her chance of being

treated well by the organization in the future.

9


10/78

In this paper, however, we argue that the relationship between psychological contract breach and

OCBs can also be explained by the group value. From this perspective, contract breaches send

symbolic messages about the relationship between the employee and the organization. Fair

treatment signifies that the organization can be trusted, and that it is worthy of pride. Unfair

treatment, on the other hand, erodes trust in the organization, which precipitates dis identification.

The group value model might be particularly useful m explaining responses to contract breach

when these symbolic concerns are heightened; for example, when the nature of the contract breach

is relational rather than transactional, or when the employees have a collectivist rather than an

individualist orientation.

In sum, we argue that the group value model can add theoretical nuance to our understanding of

the link between contract breach and OCBs by (1) introducing the mediating role of identification,

and (2) drawing a stronger theoretical contrast between transactional and relational contract

breaches. Below, we review social exchange theory and the group value model in detail. We then

build a theoretical and empirical case for how insights from the group value model can add to our

understanding of the link between contract breach and OGBs over and above what we know from

social exchange theorey.

The effective functioning of an organization depends on employee efforts that extend

beyond formal role requirements (Barnard, 1938; Katz & Kahn, 1966; Organ, 1988). Organ

(1988) termed these extra efforts organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), and defined them

to include activities that target other individuals in the workplace (e.g., helping coworkers or

communicating changes that affect others) and the organization itself (e.g., actively participating in

group meetings or representing the organization positively to outsiders). A few studies have

shown that OCB are positively related to indicators of individual, unit, and organizational

performance (George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Karambayya, 1990; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter,

1991, 1993; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Walz &

Niehoff, 2000; Werner, 1994). These findings, however, have not yet been replicated with

samples outside of the U.S. While there have been a number of studies applying the construct of

OCB to Eastern cultures (e.g., Farh, Early, & Lin, 1997; Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990), none

10


11/78

have examined whether OCB in such cultures show similar relationships with indicators of

organizational performance.

If these behaviors are significant antecedents to real firm performance, then managers will

need to pay close attention to them and learn to reinforce them appropriately. If their effect is

generalizable to other cultures outside the U.S., then appropriate managerial actions that increase

OCB should be brought to such cultures. With the globalization of business opportunities, it is

critical that U.S. researchers seek to understand the international generalizability of relationships

found in U.S. samples.

In addition to the lack of cross-cultural replications, researchers have not determined which

indicators of organizational effectiveness should be influenced by employee extra efforts. Organs

initial assertion simply noted that OCB should impact the effective functioning of the organization.

Theorists have noted that organizational effectiveness may be assessed using internal or external

measures, and that these indicators often do not correlate with each other (Quinn & Rohrbaugh,

1983). For example, an internal measure such as efficiency, or outputs produced relative to inputs

utilized, may have little relationship with customer satisfaction, an external assessment of

effectiveness.

In his later work, Organ (1988) suggested that high levels of OCB should lead to a more

efficient organization and help bring new resources into the organization. In Organs explanation,

securing needed resources refers not only to the attraction of new members or raw materials, but

also to such intangible factors as company good will, or the external image and reputation of the

organization. Thus, customer perceptions of the organizations products or services could be an

external assessment of effectiveness that is influenced by OCB. Walz and Niehoff (2000) tested

this interpretation and found that dimensions of OCB were indeed significantly related to measures

of restaurant efficiency and customer satisfaction in a study of fast food restaurant workers. These

findings concerning efficiency and customer satisfaction are compelling, suggesting that as

employees help each other and go beyond their prescribed roles for the organization, the

organization experiences both internal and external gains. Operations will be smoother and

customers will perceive enhanced service.

11


12/78

The present study had two goals. First, the study specifically targeted measures of

operational efficiency and customer perceptions of service quality. The present study will provide

some theory base for these effects and test them. Second, the study examined relationships

between OCB and indicators of organizational performance in a different cultural

setting, namely.

A Model of OCB and Organizational Effectiveness

12


13/78

Organ (1988) defined OCB as behaviors that are discretionary, not directly or explicitly

recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promote the effective

functioning of the organization (p. 4). He identified five categories of OCB: (1) altruism -- the

helping of an individual coworker on a task, (2) courtesy -- alerting others in the organization

about changes that may affect their work, (3) conscientiousness -- carrying out ones duties beyond

the minimum requirements, (4) sportsmanship -- refraining from complaining about trivial matters,

and (5) civic virtue -- participating in the governance of the organization. More recent

conceptualizations of OCB offer slightly different categorizations. For example, Podsakoff and

MacKenzie (1994) combined aspects of altruism and courtesy and termed it helping.

Research on the relationship between OCB and organizational effectiveness has progressed

through a variety of interpretations of effectiveness beyond Organs (1988) notions of efficiency

and the ability to secure needed resources. These studies have generally supported relationships

between OCB and individual employee-level performance (MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993; Werner,

1994), aggregated individual performance (George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Podsakoff &

MacKenzie, 1994), and group-level measures of performance (Karambayya, 1990; Podsakoff et

al., 1997). Walz and Niehoff (2000) studied the relationship between aggregated levels of OCB

and a number of store-level performance measures -- including profitability, operating efficiency,

revenue-to-full-time-equivalent, and customer assessments of service quality -- in a chain of 30

fast food restaurants. They found the OCB dimension of helping to be positively related to

operating efficiency, revenue-per-employee, quality performance, and customer satisfaction. They

also found that all three measured dimensions of OCB (helping, sportsmanship, and civic virtue)

were negatively related to customer complaints, while helping and sportsmanship were negatively

associated with a measure of food waste. These findings thus supported Organs assertion that

OCB should be related to some general categories of organizational effectiveness.

13


14/78

Why should OCB influence operational efficiency? Each dimension of OCB offers a

different rationale for this relationship. Altruism or helping coworkers makes the work system

more productive because one worker can utilize his or her slack time to assist another on a more

urgent task. Acts of civic virtue may include offering suggestions for cost improvement or other

resource saving ideas, which may directly influencing efficiency. To a lesser extent,

conscientiousness employees, as well as those who avoid personal gain or other negative

behaviors, demonstrate compliance with company policies and maintain predictable, consistent

work schedules, increasing the reliability of the service. As reliability increases, the costs of

rework are reduced, making the unit more efficient (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991).

Why should the dimensions of OCB impact customer perceptions of service quality?

Altruism encourages teamwork and cooperation, allowing employees to increase the pool of

available knowledge. Such teamwork should facilitate the more complex customer service tasks to

be accomplished more quickly. Altruism promotes teamwork and cooperation among the

employees. Fast service is a valued component in the minds of customers (Stuart, 1994). Case

studies in retail and service organizations have found customer satisfaction to be directly affected

by employee cooperation behaviors (Davis, 1994; Ferrero, 1994).

Excellent customer service also depends on employees being informed with up-to-date knowledge

about changes in products or services offered. When employees act on out-dated information, or

provide customers with the wrong information, the image of the organization is tarnished. In order

to keep all employees knowledgeable and current on products and services, formal training may be

necessary (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991), but in addition, all employees must be willing to share, on

a timely basis, any information regarding changes in procedures, services, or products. Employees

who strongly identify with the company should be interested in maintaining their own and others

base of knowledge. As stated earlier, conscientious employees who maintain predictable work

schedules increase the reliability of the service. Such reliability will help retain customers andincrease word-of-mouth marketing (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991). Finally, taking part in unit

meetings or providing ideas that enhance customer service would qualify as acts of civic virtue, as

long as they are not part of employees' official duties. The quality literature is filled with case

examples of employee involvement enhancing customer perceptions of service (e.g., Banas, 1988;

Ciampa, 1992; Hammer & Champy, 1993).

14


15/78

The study of OCB in Eastern cultures focused initially on leadership and task antecedents

(Farh et al., 1990). This study found that leader fairness was associated with employee exhibition

of OCB. Other studies in the U.S. supported OCB as being strongly related to perceptions of

procedural and distributive justice (Folger & Konovksy, 1989; Moorman, 1991), suggesting that

OCB was a response to a fair exchange between the employee and the supervisor or organization.

Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997) commented that concepts of justice vary by peoples cultural values.

They hypothesized that, for employees who held traditional Chinese collectivistic values,

employees perceptions of justice would not be associated with OCB. In this tradition, a persons

feelings of justice or injustice do not enter into their choice to perform citizenship behaviors. Such

employees would perform OCB as a matter of culture. Their study supported their hypothesis that

traditional values would moderate the relationship between justice perceptions and OCB.

To test their hypotheses, they developed a Chinese version of the OCB measure. The

Chinese version included the dimensions of altruism, conscientiousness, and civic virtue, but

replaced sportsmanship and courtesy with two factors more closely related to the Chinese culture.

Interpersonal harmony was one of the new factors, and was described as the avoidance of pursuing

personal power and gain in the organization. The second new factor was termed protecting

company resources, defined as the avoidance of negative behaviors that abuse company policies

and resources for personal use. This five-factor model of OCB was supported and reliabilities for

the factors were all strong.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is a unique aspect of individual activity at work, first

mentioned in the early 1980s. According to Organ's (1988) definition, It represents "individual

behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and

in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization" (p.4). This

special behavior has become a lively research field investigated by organizational sociologists,

psychologists, and management researchers. However, whereas most of the studies appear to deal

with the phenomenon from a behavioral/functional perspective the natural orientation of citizenship to

the political science arena is overlooked.

15


16/78

Two main facets of OCB are mentioned in previous studies: (1) OCB altruistic, and (2) OCB

compliance. Whereas altruism appears to represent the help to specific persons, generalized

compliance is a factor defined by a more impersonal sort of conscientiousness. It implies more of a

"good soldier" or "good citizen" syndrome of doing things that are "right and proper", but doing them

for the sake of the system rather than for specific persons. In the view of Smith et al. (1983), the two

elements represent distinct classes of citizenship. This study tries to identify the main variables that

can explain both dimensions of OCB from the two perspectives mentioned before. It uses studies

mentioned in relevant management literature and also by studies dealing with citizenship from a

political point of view.

The political aspect of citizenship consists of three elements: (1) obedience; (2) loyalty, and; (3)

participation. Only the last two will have a significant implication in this study because they represent

the informal behavior of "good citizens." Furthermore, the integrative model attempts to explain OCB

with the help of additional variables, which to our knowledge, have never been mentioned or

examined empirically in previous studies. Thus, the integrative model puts together two aspects to

explain OCBs: (1) the behavioral/functional aspect, and; (2) the political aspect.

As mentioned before, this study proposes a new integrative model to explain citizenship

behaviors in the organization by pointing out its characteristics and different aspects. The theoretical

approach was based on four sub-models consisting of common meaning: (1) the demographic model;

(2) the environmental/political model; (3) the structural model, and; (4) the situational model. The

direct relationships between the four models and OCBs were examined together with the analysis of

formal behavior expected of employees in the organization. The study also tries to examine the

relative correlations of the four models with each other, trying to asses the contribution of every sub-

model to the explanation of OCBs. The basic argument of the study is that different relationships can

be established between the four sub-models and the dimensions of OCB. The basic hypotheses of the

study are:

Employees acting politically outside the organization will also tend to do so in the

organization;

16


17/78

Employees taking part in the organizational decision-making process will tend to perform

more OCBs as compared with those who do not feel involved in the decision-making process;

Job satisfaction is related positively to different dimensions of OCB;

Organizational commitment is positively related to different dimensions of OCB.

Data was collected from employees in one of the major public health organizations in Israel. A total of

345 questionnaires were distributed in 16 clinics to administrative and medical personnel; 200 usable

questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 58%. About a month after the survey, supervisors in

each of the clinics provided OCBs for each employee who completed a questionnaire. The findings

show significant relationships between job status, participation in decision-making/centralization and

organizational commitment, and the two dimensions of OCB. Job satisfaction was correlated to OCB

compliance.

The environmental/political sub-model appeared to have a significant contribution to the explanation

of OCB compliance. The contribution of the other models to the explanation of OCB is also

significant.

In addition to the theoretical implications of this study, there are also practical ones. The discussion is

closely related to the analysis of the public sector in which the data was collected. The implications of

the study are relevant to other studies regarding employees performances, its assessment and influence

on organizational efficiency, and its effectiveness and success. The generalizability of this study to the

private sector and to different kinds of organizations is also reviewed. Recommendations are made for

further research that could shed more light on OCBs as a unique phenomenon at work.

Social Exchange Theory

According to social exchange theory, a precursor for the development of positive employment

relationships is that parties abide by certain rules of exchange. The content of the exchange process

can be purely economic (e.g. money, goods and services) or more social in nature (e.g.

17


18/78

information, advice and positive regard). If employees feel as though their outcomes are less than

they were promised (or that they are giving more than they are getting from the organization), they

will restore equity by engaging in negative, withdrawn and/or counterproductive behaviours.

There are two assumed mechanisms for why psychological contract breach might influence OCBs.

One explanation is that there exists a universal norm of reciprocity, such that helpful behaviour is

repaid in kind. If the organization engages in unsupportive or unhelpful ways (e.g. by breaching a

psychological contract), then employees are released from their felt obligation to engage in

positive behaviour such as OCBs.

A second explanation favoured by that people are motivated to reciprocate helpful behaviour

because to do so furthers their self-interest. If we repay positive behaviour from the organization

with positive employee behaviour (e.g. OCBs), we maximize our chances of receiving further

positive behaviour in the future. If we fail to repay a benefit, we risk violating the cycle of

positivity, meaning that we lower our chances of receiving further positive behaviour in the future.

Both explanations suggest a somewhat immediate and proximal relationship between contract

breach and OCBs, and for this reason researchers have often been content to identify a direct

relationship between the two, without examining mediating mechanisms.

Others, however, have argued that trust is a critical ingredient in exchange relationships. Trust is

conceptualized as a 'psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based

upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another. The self-interest motive for

engaging in positive employee behaviours rests on the assumption that the organization is just and

has benevolent intentions. Only when this trust exists can employees confidently expect that their

extra-role behaviour will be reciprocated. Non-fulfilment of perceived obligations diminishes trust

by compromising the values of integrity and benevolence which are important building blocks of

trust. Indeed, previous research has found that employee reports of breach resulted in a loss of trust

in the organization, and this erosion of trust explained the reduction in employee contributions to

the organization. Along similar lines, there is evidence to suggest that trust mediates the

relationship between breach and employee attitudes (e.g. turnover intentions) and behaviours (e.g.

OCBs, performance).

18


19/78

Group Value Model

The group value model was originally developed as a critique of the assumption that the effects of

(injustice can be explained entirely by instrumental considerations, as implied by exchange theory.

Drawing from social identity theory, proponents of the group value model argue that the way

employees are treated by organizational authorities is important because it communicates identity-

relevant information. Fair and respectful treatment by authorities indicates that the employee is a

valued group member, whereas unfair treatment communicates their marginal position within the

group. Perhaps more importantly for the current analysis, it is argued that the fairness of decision-

making procedures sends symbolic messages about whether members can take pride in their group.

Authorities act as prototypical representatives of groups; they are seen to express the norms of the

group and are salient indicators of what the broad group membership thinks. If authorities publicly

display fair procedures it helps foster pride and identification within that group. In essence,

individuals become attached to their organizations by integrating perceived attributes of the

organization into their own self-concept. In contrast, if authorities behave unfairly, it signals that

the group is unworthy of respect or pride. The response would be a psychological withdrawal from

the group characterized by negative affect and reduced identification with the organization.

Although identification is considered the most proximal influence on organizational behaviours,

trust is also considered to be critical in shaping the psychological consequences of (injustice.

Employees attempt to discern the intentions of organizational authorities to predict their future

behaviour. Because most employees have the intention of establishing a long-term relationship

with their organization, the strength of their identification depends on their predictions about what

is likely to happen in the long term.

If employees believe that the organizational authorities they are dealing with have benevolent

motives (or can be trusted) and have the ability to carry out their obligations to them, then

identification is strengthened. Congruence between what has been promised and what the

employees receive from the organization strengthens trust in the employee-organization

relationship. Based on this relationship, the organization becomes a source of self-validation from

19


20/78

which employees seek emotional support and belongingness. In contrast, when trust is violated, the

foundation on which the employment relationship rests is undermined. This may create a negative

image of the organization in the eyes of employees.

Violations of employee trust may facilitate a sense of decreased self-worth and a corresponding

desire to disassociate from the organization. This in turn should result in less willingness on the

part of the employees to engage in desirable behaviours which may contribute to the organization

(i.e. OCBs). Indeed, in a meta-analysis of the outcomes of organizational identification, found that

identification correlated reliably with OCBs. In sum, we argue on the basis of the group value

model that greater perceptions of psychological contract breach lead to lower trust in the

organization, which in turn will lead to reduced organizational identification, and a reduction in

OCBs.

Clearly, there is a degree of theoretical overlap between the social exchange and group value

model with regard to justice and OCBs. Proponents of both perspectives argue that there will be a

negative relationship between psychological contract breach and OCBs, and both perspectives

implicate trust in this relationship. However, the group value model suggests two further lines of

enquiry that would not be pursued from a social exchange perspective. First, it suggests that

attention should be paid to organizational identification as an outcome of contract breach.

Although psychological contracts have been linked to identification in previous conceptual work,

empirical examination of their inter-relationship is missing. This is surprising, because a large

body of research has documented the utility of organizational identification as a predictor of key

organizational and job outcomes.

Second, the group value model suggests that different types of contract breach will have different

consequences, whereas the social exchange perspective is silent on this point. From a social

exchange perspective, it is implicit that any type of contract breach would damage trust in the

capacity for positive and mutual exchange. Regardless of whether the breach related to economic

or social goods, the outcomes and psychological mechanisms would be the same: an erosion of

trust and a decrease in the perceived benefits to the self of initiating positive organizational

behaviour. In contrast, the group value model maintains that different types of justice have

20


21/78

different psychological and behavioral consequences.

Specifically, proponents of the group value model argue that procedural injustices (related to the

fairness of procedures associated with a decision) can have stronger negative consequences than

distributive injustices (related to the outcomes we receive). This is because the former is more

likely to signal disrespect and so is more likely to influence the relationship between the individual

and the group. Consistent with this, it has been found that the decision as to whether to sue an

organization following a dispute with a supervisor was more influenced by how fairly and

respectfully the victim felt they were treated than by instrumental or self-interest concerns (e.g. the

favourability of the outcome or the probability of winning in court). Similarly, among victims of

job layoffs, instrumental concerns (i.e. outcome negativity) only predicted adverse reactions when

procedural justice was perceived to be low. When procedural justice was perceived to be high,

victims reported relatively few adverse reactions regardless of how negative the outcome of the

layoff was for them.

In this paper, we make a related argument with regard to contract breach. In line with previous

researchers, we distinguish between transactional and relational contract breaches. The

transactional dimension comprises the tangible and task-oriented components of the employment

relationship which involve employees exchanging their competence and task involvement for

monetary rewards. Transactional contracts generally reflect an employee's expectation of specific,

short-term, and economic inducements from the organization.

In contrast, the relational dimension involves the employee's exchange of more abstract and non-

tangible components of the employment relationship, such as opportunities for training and

development, career growth, and a safe and harmonious work environment. In essence, the

relational dimension emphasizes a more long-term and socio-emotional element in the employment

relationship. Where contract breach is transactional in nature, it could reasonably be expected that

this will have instrumental consequences for the individual, consequences that are best explained

through social exchange theory.

However, where the contract breach involves relational dimensions, one might expect that the

21


22/78

long-term, socio-emotional nature of these violations will trigger more symbolic concerns that are

best explained by the group value model. Given our focus on the relational consequences of

contract breaches, we predicted that the mediating role of trust and identification would hold up

more strongly when relational as opposed to transactional contract breaches were taken into

account. In sum, although we would expect that transactional breaches would be related to trust,

identification and OCBs, we expect that relational breach will impact more strongly upon these

relational consequences.

Imagine that you are about to meet with your immediate work supervisor about a recent conflict

with a colleague; that you are about to discuss a grade you have received from a professor; or that

you are about to discuss your taxes with an IRS auditor. What will you care about in such

situations? Will it be most important that the authority gives you the outcome that you want? Or

will it be more important that he or she listens to you and treat you with respect? When people are

asked to imagine these types of situations, they typically report that they think that their personal

outcomes are the most important issue to them and it is their outcomes that will determine how

they react to their experiences with authorities.

However, research shows that people in the actual situation often are more concerned with how

authorities treat them--i.e. with procedural or process issues--than they are with the favorability or

the fairness of the outcomes they receive when dealing with those authorities. When people feel

they have been fairly treated, they are more likely to cooperate in social dilemmas, show greater

organizational commitment, more support for authorities, more voluntary compliance with rules

and regulations and greater acceptance of (unfavorable) decisions. In contrast, people who feel

unfairly treated by authorities are more likely to act aggressively or retaliate in the workplace, are

more likely to steal or sabotage their workplace and are more supportive of sit-ins & strikes.

Justice researchers distinguish between distributive justice (how fair are decision outcomes) and

procedural justice. Procedural justice includes both structural aspects of decision making and

treatment quality by decision-makers. In this chapter, we outline a relational model of authority in

which we link findings about the importance of the quality of the treatment that people experience

from group authorities to their emotional attachment to groups and to their self-categorization as

22


23/78

group members.

The relational model of authority seeks to explain why and when people care about issues of

process, and in particular, why and when they will care about the quality of authority treatment.

We argue that group authorities dont just distribute resources; they also communicate information

about the persons value to the group. Our research shows that people draw such identity relevant

information from the quality of their treatment by authorities during their interactions with key

group authorities.

Further, this information influences both peoples voluntary actions on behalf of the group and

their self-images. The relational model of authority builds upon the insight articulated by social

identity and self-categorization researchers that people incorporate important group memberships

(or social identities) into their self-concept. People strive for positive social identities and they will

be particularly sensitive to information about both their groups value and their value to the group.

The traditional view of authority relations is found within both social exchange and

interdependence theories and realistic group conflict theories. These theories suggest that peoples

interactions with authorities are shaped by their desire to gain benefits and avoid costs when

dealing with others in groups, organizations, or societies. According to this view, people should be

most concerned about the amount and quality of the resources that they receive from group

authorities. If group authorities are successful in securing resources and can dispense those to

group members, and/or if they can wield credible threats of potential sanctioning behavior for

undesirable behavior, people will cooperate with those authorities. This focus on the costs and

benefits of particular authority-subordinate relationships shapes analyses of organizational power

in which power is defined as the capacity that one person has to influence the behavior of another

person. According to the dependency hypothesis, power is linked to the extent that the person

controls important, scarce or non substitionable resources. Similarly, leader-member exchange

theory proposes that leaders relationships to selected ingroup members are qualitatively

different than leaders relationships with other outgroup members. Ingroup members give and

get more attention and more rewards from leaders than do outgroup members.

23


24/78

In contrast, the relational model of authority argues that the way that authorities behave is

important because the behavior of group authorities tells people about the nature of their

relationship to the group. When people are treated fairly, this fair treatment communicates the

message that they are important and included within the group, organization or society. On the

other hand, when people are treated unfairly, this unfair treatment communicates the message that

they are marginal or excluded from the group, organization or society. It is the self-relevant

implications of procedural treatment that make the behavior of authorities such a powerful

influence on peoples attitudes and behaviors.

In the relational model, fair treatment is defined in terms of three elements: a) evaluations of

whether authorities motives can be trusted (benevolence); b) judgments about whether authorities

actions are based upon the nonbiased examination of facts (neutrality); and c) evaluations of the

degree to which authorities are treating people with the dignity and respect appropriate for full

group members. In addition to our own work, research on interactional justice also strongly

suggests that when reacting to authorities, individuals are attuned to these relational issues.

As a first test of the relational model, we can compare the predictive power of relational judgments

and instrumental judgments when people are making judgments about authorities. Instrumental

judgments include evaluations of the favorability and the fairness of the outcomes received from

the decisions made and policies enacted by the authority. These judgments reflect people's

assessments of the quality and quantity of the resources being received from the group and from

the group's authorities. If treatment by group authorities communicates identity-relevant

information to group members, relational judgments about treatment by those authorities should

predict people's group-related behaviors and their feelings about themselves independent of the

influence of instrumental judgments.

This analysis focuses directly on the influence of the quality of the authority treatment that people

experience from the authorities with whom they are dealing. This influence can be compared to the

influence of instrumental judgments including outcome favorability, outcome fairness and the

structural aspects of the decision-making processes.

24


25/78

Quality of the treatment that the employees studied receive from organizational authorities predicts

a great deal of the variance in a wide variety of dependent measures, ranging from job satisfaction

to employees willingness to go above and beyond their job requirements. For example, 36

percent of the variance in job satisfaction was explained by four judgments: outcome favorability,

outcome fairness, structural aspects of decision-making and quality of treatment received. Of those

four factors, treatment quality is most strongly related to job satisfaction. The same four factors

explain 19% of the variance in extra-role behavior. Again, treatment quality is most strongly

related to extra-role behavior.

This pattern of results supports our argument that people place considerable weight on the quality

of their interpersonal treatment by groups and group authorities (and much less weight on

instrumental judgments). Perhaps most strikingly, people place more weight on quality of their

interpersonal treatment than they do on the quality of the decision-making that they believe is

occurring. These findings support the argument that how authorities treat people is the key to

people's connection to the group and to group authorities.

We find the same pattern of results in interviews with community residents who describe their

encounters with police and the legal system, interviews with community residents about water

regulation authorities, interviews with employees in a public sector work organization in Chennai

and other survey studies of employees in for profit organizations. What is striking about all of

these studies is that the quality of peoples interpersonal treatment not only predicts people's

feelings toward supervisors and other authorities, and their commitment to organizations,

institutions, and communities, but it also influences their actual behavior.

As the relational model of authority predicts, the quality of people's treatment is more important

than are the outcomes they receive for predicting group-oriented behavior. This pattern of results

leads us to view treatment by authorities as the key factor that mediates the relationship between

group members and the groups to which they belong. Such an image contrasts sharply with the

suggestions of the traditional social exchange and interdependence models, which link the

relationship between people and groups to issues of resource exchange. Social categorization

moderates the importance that people place on the quality of their treatment.

25


26/78

An even stronger demonstration of the importance of the relational model would be to show that

people care more strongly about the treatment quality by group authorities when the group the

authority represents is important to their sense of identity and self. Information that you are a

marginal or excluded group member should be less important if you dont care about the group,

but the same information should be very important if the group is central to your self-definition,

and hence to the basis of your feelings of self-esteem and self-worth. As suggested by social

identity theory, group members reactions to particular group memberships and their willingness to

act in terms of group norms depends upon the salience of the group membership and the relative

importance members attach to the membership. For example, group members who identify

closely with the group will support collective improvements even at the expense of their own

personal interests. In the same situation, group members who do not identify with the group will

focus on personal risks and benefits .

To explore whether the salience of particular group memberships shapes reactions to treatment by

group authorities, employees were asked to describe a recent conflict they had in their work setting

and to talk about how their supervisor resolved it. The results showed that when the supervisor

shared the same ethnicity as the employee (i.e., the supervisor was an ingroup authority), relational

judgments shaped their views about the supervisor's legitimacy, as well as their willingness to

cooperate with the supervisors suggestions for how to handle the problem. When the supervisor

was a member of a different ethnicity (i.e., the supervisor was an outgroup authority), instrumental

judgments shaped their judgments about the legitimacy of their supervisor and their willingness to

cooperate. Further, when employees were dealing with an ingroup supervisor, they accepted the

decisions of an authority if they were fairly treated by that authority, whereas if the supervisor

represented an outgroup, employees accepted their decisions if those decisions were favorable to

them.

We tested the same argument using an experimental design in which outcome favorability, quality

of treatment, and the group affiliation of the authority were independently manipulated. In this

experiment, a graduate student responsible for grading a social skills test was presented to students

as either an in-group member (from the students university) or an out-group member (from a rival

26


27/78

university). Later, the graduate student entered the room and treated the student fairly or unfairly

by either carefully grading their work performance, or doing a superficial job. Independently, the

study manipulated whether the student received a favorable outcome (97% correct) or an

unfavorable outcome (43% correct).

Students in the experiment were also asked whether they would be willing to help the graduate

students supervisor in further studies . The results showed that if the test grader and advisor

represented an ingroup (i.e. were from the student's own school), the willingness to help further

was significantly related to how fairly the test grader treated the student, and not to the outcome

the student received. In contrast, if the test grader and advisor represented an outgroup (i.e. were

from another university), the willingness to help those authorities further was significantly related

to favorable outcomes, but not to how fairly the test grader treated the student.

In this research, we find that how ingroup authorities treat people influences their behavior, as we

would predict from the relational model's assumption that treatment by an authority communicates

information about a persons value to the group. Further, outcome favorability does not influence

peoples behavior when the authority represents an ingroup. So, for ingroup authorities the key

issue is quality of interpersonal treatment, not resources. This finding contradicts the key

prediction of traditional social exchange and interdependence models, which suggest that people

should be concerned with the possible costs and benefits associated with their interaction with a

particular authority. This should be true regardless of the authority's group affiliation. Whether the

authority represents an ingroup or an outgroup does not change the material rewards and costs that

an authority can deliver to group members. Group identification moderates the importance of

relational treatment.

Our explanation for this pattern of results assumes that the categorization differences illustrated in

the research described above occur because the differences in group membership served as a proxy

for higher or lower degrees of "identification" with the group whom the authority represented. In

fact, the ingroup/outgroup effects we have outlined are consistent with the relational perspective

only if we assume that people identify more strongly with ingroup authorities than with outgroup

authorities.

27


28/78

It is important to recognize that identification with particular groups or social categories is a

subjective psychological experience that is not necessarily defined by objective membership

characteristics. Although it is natural to assume that people identify with their ingroup more than

with an outgroup, people are potential members of a variety of different groups and social

categories, some of which will be more important to their sense of self. A more direct test of the

argument is to measure how much people identify with the group the authority represents, and to

explore whether quality of treatment is more important when people identify more strongly with a

group.

To test this idea, we divided a sample of Chicago employees into two groups based upon the

degree to which they indicated that their work organization was central to their sense of self. We

then examined the degree to which employees were willing to accept their supervisor's decisions

because: (a) the outcome of the decision favored them or (b) they were fairly treated by their

supervisor during the process in which the decision was made. For employees who identified more

strongly with their work organization, their acceptance of their supervisors decision was more

closely related to the quality of their supervisors treatment of them than by the favorability of their

outcomes. In contrast, outcome favorability and not quality of treatment, shaped the opinions of

those who identified less strongly with the organization.

As a second test of this idea, we focused on 205 employees of a public university who worked with

supervisors from a different ethnic background. Our earlier research suggests that in this cross-

ethnicity management context, there is considerable likelihood that employees will focus on the

instrumental implications of their supervisors behavior. This occurs because from an ethnic group

perspective the supervisor is an outgroup member.

Our concern was with whether identification with the larger organization could encourage

employees to focus on how a supervisor from a different ethnic background treats them rather than

on the outcomes they receive. As predicted by the relational model, employees who identified

more strongly with the overall work organization focused on the quality of their treatment by their

supervisor when evaluating the fairness of their experience and when determining whether or not

28


29/78

to accept their supervisors decision. In contrast, instrumental judgments were much more

important to acceptance decisions among employees who did not identify as strongly with the

organization.

These results suggest that, even in cross-ethnic interactions, employees cared about how fairly

supervisors treated them, and that concern was greater when they identified more strongly with the

organization that the supervisor represented. Hence, if we consider subjective identification with a

group, rather than simple group membership, we continue to find results consistent with the

predictions of the relational model. The quality of the treatment received from authorities shapes

whether a person feels respected in their group.

Why do people place greater emphasis on the quality of their treatment by authorities when those

authorities represent a group with whom they identify? We believe that people care about

relational issues because these aspects of their experience communicate information about their

self-worth. Initial evidence for a link between procedural fairness and the self-concept occurs in a

set of experiments conducted by Koper and her colleagues. In two different experiments, treatment

quality (defined as how an experimenter graded a test) influenced participants self-esteem. .

However, the relational model of authority predicts that if the source of this information does not

represent an important reference group, the treatment quality by authorities will be less important

as a source of information about identity. In other words, the argument that people learn identity

relevant information from authorities can predict when people will care how authorities treat them.

However, the next step of our argument requires us to specify more completely the information

that we believe ingroup authorities communicate to group members by their treatment.

We propose that the enactment of procedures, particularly by group authorities, tells people

whether they are valued by the group represented by the procedures or authorities, Respect is a

psychological construct that captures people's views of their value to the group. Feelings of respect

represent an entire groups opinions rather than the sum of idiosyncratic interpersonal relationships

with a variety of people.

Because authorities represent the group, people typically see their behavior as representing the

29


30/78

views of the group. We view feeling respected by an important reference group as being a central

part of peoples social identity. According to social identity and self-categorization theories, both

personal or idiosyncratic attributes and the groups and categories to which we belong shape our

self-concepts. However, most social identity and self-categorization research focuses on peoples

knowledge, attachment and evaluations of the entire group to which they belong. Whether people

view the group as valuable is clearly important. However, we also believe that peoples beliefs

about whether the group values them can be equally, if not more, important. The possibility that

one might be demoted or excluded from an important group can be as threatening to ones social

identity as stigmatizing or challenging the entire groups status.

We summarize the results from a number of different studies in which peoples feelings of respect

from a reference group and personal self-esteem were measured. Both social identity theory and

other recent models of self-esteem suggest that feeling included or excluded from an important

group should influence personal self-esteem. For example, propose that personal self-esteem is

best defined as an internal monitor of the possible social exclusion by other people.

There is also recent experimental evidence that shows a direct influence of feeling respected by

other group members on self-evaluations and behavior (in contrast to a single group authority). For

example, in three different experiments, directly manipulate respectful treatment from other group

members independently of how negative or positive the actual feedback is. Across three

experiments, respectful treatment by other group members increased collective self-esteem and

participants willingness to engage in group serving behavior. In a different set of experiments,

Ellemers and her colleagues (2001) also directly manipulate respect from other group members

(operationalized as other group members evaluations of the participants descriptions of their

personal behavior).

They find that high respect from the ingroup leads to more self-esteem than low respect,

particularly if respondents identify more closely with the ingroup. Moreover, the respect

manipulation also influenced participants willingness to help the group and discriminate against

an outgroup. Further, Ellemers and her colleagues (2001) show that the influence of respect

depends upon the source of the information. The same positive information from an outgroup

30


31/78

made participants feel worse rather than better. More importantly, this information was

communicated by an entire team of individuals rather than single identifiable individuals,

supporting that respect represents a group level variable.

Having shown that feeling respected by other group members is related to self-evaluations and

group-oriented behavior, the next question is whether the quality of the treatment that people

receive influences their judgments of how respected they are by the group. Earlier we showed that

treatment by ingroup authorities, and/or by authorities representing a group with whom a person

identifies, is more closely related to the willingness to help and the acceptance of supervisors

decisions than are measures of outcome favorability. Now the question is whether feeling

respected is more closely related to the quality of the treatment that people receive or to the

favorability of their outcomes.

In two different laboratory experiments, we manipulated the group affiliation of an authority

responsible for peoples treatment and outcomes. In the first experiment (described earlier),

participants who were treated unfairly by the test grader from the participants own university

reported feeling significantly less respected by other people than participants who were treated

fairly, regardless of the outcome. In a second experiment, students completed three timed tasks for

which they could earn points toward participation in a subject payment lottery. However, as

sometimes is the case in the real world, the computer that students were using would

unexpectedly freeze and the students would lose time for their task of earning points. Afterwards,

students could email an unseen supervisor (presented as either from their university or from a rival

university) about the computer problems. This supervisor responded to the participants email

messages with either three very polite and considerate messages or an initially polite message

followed by two rude and insensitive messages (a manipulation of treatment quality). As predicted,

unfair treatment by an ingroup authority led to feeling less respected by other people, particularly

when outcomes were negative.

Having shown that when the authority represents an ingroup, the quality of treatment by an

authority shapes feelings respected by other,, we can test the complete pattern of relational model

predictions (see Figure 1). According to the relational model of authority, identification with the

31


32/78

group or organization the authority represents determines whether people will pay more attention

to relational or instrumental justice concerns. When people identify with the organization, how key

organizational authorities treat them influences their feelings of respect from the organization as a

whole, and consequently their personal self-evaluations and their willingness to help the

organization.

To test the full model, we asked university students to describe a recent conflict with a faculty or

staff member. As the relational model predicts, how fairly students felt the staff treated them or

faculty member was related to lower feelings of respect from the community. If they did not

identify with the university, unfair treatment by the faculty member was actually associated with

feeling more respected.

In this survey, we also asked students how they felt about themselves (personal self-esteem) and

whether they put in a great deal of effort beyond what is expected to make university successful,

make innovative suggestions, and volunteered to do things for university that are not required

(extra-role or discretionary behaviors). For students who identified closely with the university, the

quality of the treatment received from an authority was related to both personal self-esteem and to

discretionary behavior helping the group. Given the relationship among treatment quality, respect

and personal self-esteem, we could explore whether feeling respected by other members of the

university community mediated the relationship between authority treatment quality and personal

self-esteem or discretionary behavior. However, this pattern should only occur for students who

identified closely with the university. For students who do not identify with the university,

authority treatment quality should not predict self-evaluations or group-oriented behavior. When

we included feeling respected in the regression equation for personal self-esteem and extra-role

behavior for high identifiers, the original relationship between quality of treatment and personal

self-esteem/extra-role is reduced significantly. In contrast, there is no relationship between the

quality of the treatment received, feeling respected and the two outcome variables for low

identifiers.

Thus far, we have focused on studies that examine the quality of people's treatment by authorities

within hierarchical conflicts, but in a recent study of housing cooperative members, we find the

32


33/78

same pattern among general evaluations of procedural fairness, feeling respected by group

members and personal self-esteem. These results suggest that the relationships we are describing

apply more generally to procedures (not just a single enactment of procedures by an authority) and

even to cooperative groups with clearly nonhierarchical group structures. We also find the same

pattern of relationships in a questionnaire study of concrete construction workers experiences with

their immediate work supervisors. What about multiple group memberships?

The evidence we have described supports our argument that people can be relationally oriented

when responding to group authorities, but only if these authorities represent a group with whom

people identify. Further, we show that fair treatment shapes whether people feel respected by

group members, and it is feeling respected that shapes personal self-esteem and group-oriented

behavior. However, one could argue that this research is based on an overly simplified conception

of group and organizational life in which individuals and authorities are either members of the

same group or they are organized into separate groups through the process of social categorization.

In fact, most people belong to a variety of different groups and social categories (i.e., a member of

the work organization may also perceive herself as being a woman, an ethnic minority, and a

member of the management team). Given the complexity of group identities, it is worth

considering how multiple group memberships might shape the relationship between treatment

quality and peoples self-evaluations and group-oriented cooperative behavior. Moreover, a

multiple-group framework provides an opportunity for us to consider whether and to what extent

social and cultural diversity will disrupt social relations within an organization or other structured

groups.

We have studied this question by evaluating the influence of social identification on relational

justice concerns in contexts where people may experience tension between loyalty to two different

groups (e.g., the larger society and ones ethnic group).

A typology of acculturation orientations developed by Berry (1984) offers a framework from

which to consider the influence of multiple group identities. In Berrys typology, attachment or

identification with a superordinate group (e.g., society or work organization) is crossed with

33


34/78

identification with a subgroup (e.g., ethnic group membership) to produce four categories of

people each with a different acculturation orientation: a) assimilators (strong superordinate

identification, weak subgroup identification); b) separatists (weak superordinate identification,

strong subgroup identification); c) biculturalists (strong identification with both the superordinate

and the subgroup); and d) alienated (weak identification with both the superordinate and the

subgroup).

A relational model of authority suggests how individuals within each of these categories will

respond to interactions with authorities who share his or her group membership at the

superordinate level but not at the subgroup level (e.g., a white employee responding to interactions

with a Latino supervisor). We predict that assimilators will emphasize quality of treatment in this

situation because his or her primary form of identification is with an overarching category that

includes the authority. In contrast, we predict that separatists will emphasize instrumental issues in

a similar situation because his or her primary form of identification is with the subgroup that

excludes the authority.

Biculturalists identify strongly with both the superordinate group and the subgroup. This group

provides an interesting test of the effects of multiple group memberships. The relational model

does not make an a priori prediction of how biculturalists would respond to an authority in the

situation we described. However, the response of this group is likely to generate potentially

important insight into the dynamics of culturally and ethnically diverse organizations. If a person

with dual identities evaluate authorities primarily in terms of their instrumental interest, then one

of the likely costs of valuing and acknowledging diversity is the inevitability of subgroup conflicts

that may threaten organizational cohesion.

On the other hand, if a person with dual identities evaluate authorities and policies primarily in

terms of how he or she is treated, then it may be possible for authorities to smooth over internal

conflicts and maintain organizational cohesion. It is important to recognize that while the relational

approach may benefit the organization by maintaining positive relations between subgroups, it may

be costly for individuals who relinquish their pursuit of self or subgroup interest for the good of the

collective.

34


35/78

Work place employees were asked to recount a recent encounter with their supervisor. Individuals

were organized into one of the three categories based on their self-reports of how much they

identified with the university and their ethnic group. Analyses were conducted separately for each

group to determine whether outcome favorability or treatment quality best predicted willingness to

cooperate with the decisions of the supervisors.

The findings show that decision acceptance was closely related to the belief that the outcome was

favorable (e.g., receiving a promotion or a raise) for separatists. In contrast, decision acceptance

was closely related to perceptions of fair treatment among both assimilators and biculturalists. This

pattern of results offers an interesting insight into the dynamics of diverse groups. It suggests that

diversity will not necessarily hinder authorities ability to gain cooperation. Diversity disrupts the

relational processes we described only when individuals attachment to their subgroup outweighs

their attachment to a more inclusive category that they share with the authority .

In this project, we assumed subordinate and superordinate identification are independent

constructs. In other words, greater identification with a superordinate category does not mean less

identification with a subordinate category. Although this assumption seems reasonable in light of

theories of acculturation, we recently acknowledged that this view may be inconsistent with other

theoretical perspectives.

The strongest challenge comes from self-categorization al theory. According to the principle of

functional antagonism derived from self-categorization theory, simultaneous superordinate and

subgroup identifications are inherently incompatible. When a superordinate category is made

salient, subgroup boundaries become blurred and perceptions of differences among subgroup

members dissipate and are replaced by perceptions of similarity. A second challenge is suggested

by social dominance theorists who propose that superordinate and subgroup identities should be

negatively related for subordinate (i.e., minority) groups in diverse societies. According to the

instrumental perspective of social dominance theory, members of subordinate groups should either

place their loyalty to their subgroup or to the dominant group but not both.

35


36/78

Factor analyses revealed that the two types of identification were empirically distinct, and further,

the two types of identification were positively (as opposed to negatively) related for each of the

three ethnic groups. Together, these findings support our prior assumption that superordinate and

subgroup identification are distinct constructs rather than two ends of a single dimension. We

sought to replicate the earlier findings by entering interaction terms comprised of the appropriate

group identification measures and fair treatment into a regression analysis. In support of the

relational prediction, greater identification with the greater emphasis on treatment quality than

instrumental judgments when people decide whether to accept an authoritys decisions. Further,

subgroup identification did not influence the way individuals respond to superordinate authorities.

These results bolster our original conclusion that the operation of relational processes is dependent

upon the individual and the authority experiencing a common group membership but that this

process is not disrupted by subgroup identification.

Although the evidence that subgroup and superordinate identification are independent constructs

appears to contradict the social categorization theory principle of functional antagonism, this may

be a context in which the superordinate category represents what has termed an organic social

identity. In a group characterized by organic solidarity, each member or subgroup contributes

toward building a sense of shared identification through their uniqueness. We argue that the

premise underlying an organic social identity is consistent with the multicultural celebration of

difference which asserts that distinct ethnic loyalties can not only co-exist but they, in fact,

function to promote a common national identity through their ethnic identity (Berry, 1991; de la

Garza, Flacon & Garcia, 1996). This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that to the extent that

the shared superordinate identity is defined in terms of all relevant subgroup identities, dual

identification is not only possible by is easily sustainable. Conclusions.

Our research shows that people care about receiving fair treatment by group authorities because it

communicates how much the group or organization respects them. People who feel respected by

groups that are important to them enjoy higher personal self-esteem and will pursue creative ways

to help the group. However, if people do not identify with the group or authority the authority

represents, they appear to care more about the favorability of their outcomes than about the

respectfulness of their treatment. When people dont care about the organization the authority

36


37/78

represents, relational justice does not communicate any self-relevant information, and

consequently, does not shape peoples behavior. In fact, there is recent experimental evidence that

people define procedural fairness differently in intergroup contexts than they do in intragroup

contexts. Participants in intergroup and intragroup contexts viewed the same leadership behavior as

equally neutral, trustworthy and respectful, but rated the intergroup leader as significantly less

procedurally fair than the intragroup leader.

On the one hand, fair treatment by organizational authorities can encourage employees to accept

less than favorable outcomes or decisions when resources are scarce. On the other hand, fair

treatment can draw attention away from structural inequities and problems. Group members might

tolerate great inequities in resources because they feel valued by their organization. Further,

unfair treatment by an important group representative can diminish or threaten peoples self-

esteem and lead to passivity, or in some cases, increased interpersonal violence. Baumeister and

his colleagues (1996) argue that feeling disrespected provokes aggressive reactions among people

with high (but perhaps unstable) personal self-esteem. Procedures and how they are enacted are

often an afterthought in many organizations. Our research illustrates the potential costs of ignoring

what procedures and authorities who enact them communicate to people.

37


38/78

2.2 COMPANY PROFILE

Arul Das Industries was established in 1995 with intension of designing & manufacturing of press

tools, press components and material handling system on turnkey basis. Company also provides

consultancy in designing press tools.

Company has intents to grow the business by continuously upgrading the quality, widening the

costumer base and exploring the possibility of exports market. As an initial step company has

opted for implementing ISO 9001 2000 quality management system.

Company understands changing global market scenario and plan to invest in new systems to

improve product variation and increase production capacity by improving efficiency &

productivity.

The company has built up a strong capability in engineering and execution excellence.

The company works closely with customers to meet and surpass their expectation and ensuring

Total Customer Satisfaction through excellence in product quality, response time and price

competitiveness.

In an industry where Precision, Pricing and People are of paramount importance, the company has

set stringent benchmarks and works consistently in achieving and improving on it.

The company is engaged in the engineering works related to Designing and manufacturing of sheet

metal, press tool, plastic moulds, Multi cavity plastic moulds, die casting dies, extrusion dies,

Vacuum forming machine and so on. With our technical expertise and vast experience in the field,

we have been able to establish ourselves a reliable entity in the market.

Ours is an ISO 9001: 2000 certified company. The company endeavors at providing maximum

satisfaction to its esteemed clients through its range of products and services. Consequently, we are

reckoned as one of the most credible Die Casting Products Manufacturers and Suppliers in the

38


39/78

market.

Arul Das Industries was set up with a mission to manufacture quality Forging and Forming Tools.

Within a short period, the company has made rapid strides in growth and excellence. And the

company incorporates Quality Assurance Program (QAP), to ensure that the systems and processes

are constantly monitored and thus improvements may accelerate the growth of client's business.

The Company has a wide product range that caters to various industries ranging from General

Engineering, Fasteners, Chain Industry, Brakes, etc.

Infrastructure and Capability the Company has invested in a state of the art shop floor which are

equipped with:

Grinding Machines

Tool & Cutter Grinders

Lathes

Milling Machines

Drilling Machines

39


40/78

EDM Spark Machines

Hydraulic Press

Support base of EDM wire cut, VMC, JIG boring, CNC Machines, Heat treatment and

surface Engineering.

The shop floor is also equipped with metrology lab, a dedicated quality assurance section which

constantly and consistently focuses on strict adherence to quality norms. Having qualified and

dedicated team, who can undertake design and development of Jigs, Fixtures, Moulds and Special

Tools based on the applications, supported with customized CAD/CAM programmmes.

Quality is a process at Arul Das Industries. To ensure that, the company delivers nothing but the

best, the company has a Quality Assurance Program (QAP) in place. This ensures that the systems

and processes are constantly monitored and improvement brought in to ensure total satisfaction to

customers.

The company is guided by a set of quality control policy adopted by the management. All our

products have to be tested on different parameters with the latest non contact measuring

equipment. According to the said policy, we also adhere to the timely delivery of the booked

products. Subsequently, we are counted among the major Plastic Moulds Manufacturers and

Suppliers in the country.

Quality Policy

We, at Arul Das Industries, shall aim to achieve and sustain excellence in all our activities.

We are committed to Total Customer Satisfaction by providing products and serviceswhich meet or exceed the Customers expectations.

Modernization of the manufacturing facilities, Stress on technological innovation and

training of employees at all levels shall be continuous process in Arul Das Industries.

40


41/78

A motivated workforce with a sense of pride in the organization shall lead us towards Total

Quality.

Products

We are one of the well reckoned names in the genre of tools that are widely used in various

industries. We manufacture precision press tools and precision stamped components. These

products manufactured by us are engineered using years of experience and expertise.

The acme quality raw materials used in manufacturing these products are processed as per

international standards. The services offered by us include designing and manufacture of simple,

compound and progressive tools.

In addition to this, we also undertake job work in optical profile grinding, jig grinding, vacuum

heat treatment, etc. Besides, we also offer customized solution of press tools as per the

requirements and specifications of the clients.

A.Press Components Division

1. Designing & Manufacturing of Press Tools & Press Components.

B. Material Handling Division

1. Belt Conveyor for Bulk Material Handling.

2. Bag Handling System.

3. Ash Handling System.

4. Screw Conveyor.

5. EnMass Conveyor.

6. Bucket Elevator.

7. RBC.

8. Bagasse Bale Breaker.

9. Slat Conveyor.

10. All types of chains & slats.

11. Spares for all conveyors.

41
http://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htmhttp://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htmhttp://www.rebellindia.com/material_handling_equipment.htmhttp://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htmhttp://www.rebellindia.com/material_handling_equipment.htm


42/78

2. Specially Press Components applicable for

a. Control Panel.

b. Molded Luggage.

c. Power Tools.

d. Precision Machinery Spares

3. Walkways and Gratings.

C.Heat Exchangers.

Bag Handling Equipments :

Tool Room Facility

Press Components

Material Handling Equipments

Control Pannels

Moulded Luggage Fitting

Automobile Press Parts

Power Tool Accessories & Fittings

Tool Room Facility

42
http://www.rebellindia.com/heat_exchanger.htmhttp://www.rebellindia.com/heat_exchanger.htmhttp://www.rebellindia.com/heat_exchanger.htmhttp://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htm#2http://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htm#1http://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htm#3http://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htm#4http://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htm#5http://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htm#5http://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htm#6http://www.rebellindia.com/press_component_division.htm#7http://www.re

effects of psychological contract - final

Documents