Psychological Contract Breach in the Anticipatory Stage of Change

Abstract

This study examined the impact of two types of psychological contract breach (organizational policies and social atmosphere breach) on resistance to change and engagement in the anticipatory phase of change and assessed whether supervisory informational justice mitigated the negative effects of breach. Employees from three departments of a Dutch financial institution (n = 141) who were in the first phase of a change initiative participated in the study. Results showed that social atmosphere breach was positively related to affective resistance to change and negatively related to engagement, while organizational policies breach was positively related to cognitive resistance to change. These findings point to the importance of distinguishing between different types of psychological contract breach. In addition, it was found that supervisory informational justice mitigated the adverse effect of social atmosphere breach on cognitive resistance to change, pointing to the important role of managers in the first phase of change.

Keywords

psychological contract breach organizational policies obligations social atmosphere obligations resistance to change engagement anticipatory phase of change supervisory informational justice

Introduction

It is suggested that if organizations are to successfully implement change initiatives, it is essential that employees have a positive attitude toward change-related activities and are committed to the change (e.g., Van Emmerik, Bakker, & Euwema, 2009). Although the importance of favorable change-related attitudes for the success of a change initiative is not contested, Tummers, Kruyen, Vijverberg, and Voesenek (2015) point out that even when there is an overall willingness to change, the impact of a change initiative on an employee’s daily work situation can still lead to negative employee outcomes. Consequently, it is suggested that organizational change scholars extend their focus beyond change-related attitudes and also consider positive affective-motivational states such as engagement and vitality. For example, Tummers et al. (2015) argue that vitality is particularly important during change initiatives because the high levels of energy possessed by vital employees enables them to “deal with organizational change, especially because changes often have to be implemented next to regular duties” (p. 629). Employee engagement, which is partly related to vitality since engaged employees also possess high levels of energy (Spreitzer, Lam, & Fritz, 2010), likely has similar effects.

Despite the importance of positive change-related attitudes and affective-motivational states, scholars point out that negative attitudes and cognitions, such as resistance to change, are still one of the most significant causes of failed change initiatives (e.g., Georgalis, Samaratunge, Kimberley, & Lu, 2015). Moreover, Kiefer, Hartley, Conway, and Briner (2014) found that increases in cutback-related change efforts negatively affected employee engagement. In this study, we take a psychological contract approach to gain an understanding of the causes of negative employee responses to planned change initiatives.

An organizational change initiative is a complex process that proceeds through different stages (Paulsen et al., 2005). According to Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) organizational change scholars distinguish between two types of models that describe stages of change; models that consider steps that change agents take in implementing changes, and models that describe the stages change targets go through when interpreting change. Since we focus on the experiences of change recipients, the second type is particularly relevant. Drawing from Isabella (1990), Paulsen et al. (2005) discussed three stages change recipients go through when experiencing organizational change: anticipation, implementation, and aftermath. The first phase, the anticipatory stage, is characterized by uncertainty (e.g., Lawrence & Callan, 2011). The planned change has been announced, yet employees have not received detailed information about how the planned initiative will affect them (Fugate, Kinicki, & Scheck, 2002). The second stage describes the implementation of the change initiative. Employees are faced with uncertainties related to their job role and career paths (e.g., Isabella, 1990; Paulsen et al., 2005). In the aftermath stage, the results and after-effects of the change are evaluated (Isabella, 1990). The current study focuses on the anticipatory phase of change. An important reason for this is that employee reactions during the anticipatory phase are likely to influence long-term responses to a change effort (Dhensa-Kahlon & Coyle-Shapiro, 2013; Rafferty & Restubog, 2010). Hence, unfavorable employee responses at the onset of change may have important ramifications for the outcome of a change initiative.

Scholars frequently indicate that organizations are unable to keep their commitments during organizational change initiatives (e.g., Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Zagenczyk, Gibney, Kiewitz, & Restubog, 2009). Yet, although researchers are beginning to conduct more research on the consequences of psychological contract breach (PCB) in the context of change (e.g., Conway, Kiefer, Hartley, & Briner, 2014; Freese, Schalk, & Croon, 2011), in comparison to the large body of knowledge on PCB, the amount of studies conducted in a change environment is relatively small. Moreover, studies carried out in a change setting have generally examined global perceptions of PCB (e.g., López Bohle, Bal, Jansen, Leiva, & Alonso, 2016) or used aggregate measures (e.g., Conway et al., 2014). Yet, De Vos and Meganck (2008) claim that scholars should distinguish between different psychological contract dimensions since fulfillment (or breach) of specific dimensions is likely to differentially affect employee outcomes. De Vos and Meganck (2008) found that fulfillment of different types of obligations differentially affected loyalty, job search behavior, and turnover intentions. Moreover, Freese et al. (2011) found that, within a change context, only job content and organizational policies breach predicted affective commitment. These studies point to the importance of distinguishing between different types of PCB. However, research that considers the effects of specific types of PCB, particularly in a change context (exceptions include Freese et al., 2011), remains rare.

Studies that have examined PCB in the context of change have seldom focused on the anticipatory phase. This is surprising since the uncertain environment with which employees are confronted in this phase (e.g., Paulsen et al., 2005) increases the likelihood that breaches of obligations are perceived (e.g., Chaudhry, Wayne, & Schalk, 2009; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Moreover, Koivisto, Lipponen, and Platow (2013) point out that although supervisors are considered important facilitators of change, research in the field of organizational change management generally does not examine the role of supervisory leaders. However, since an employee’s direct manager is considered an important source of information and fairness during change initiatives (e.g., Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, 2007; Koivisto et al., 2013), examining whether supervisory managers are able to reduce negative employee responses during change initiatives seems of vital importance to organizations.

In this study, we examine to what extent organizational policies and social atmosphere breach affect resistance to change and engagement in the first phase of change and to what extent these relationships are moderated by supervisory informational justice. We aim to make the following contributions to the literature. First, while existing organizational change research has generally focused on the effects of PCB (or fulfillment) on, what Tummers et al. (2015) refer to as “passive” employee outcomes such as commitment and turnover intentions (e.g., Freese et al., 2011) and attitudes toward change (e.g., Van den Heuvel & Schalk, 2009), we extend previous research by assessing the effect of PCB on an affective-motivational state (i.e., engagement) in the anticipatory phase of change. We address calls for more research on the differential effects of breaches of specific types of psychological contract obligations (De Vos & Meganck, 2008) by examining the effects of two dimensions of breach. Moreover, we take a novel approach to explaining the relationship between PCB and engagement by drawing on the tripartite job demands–resources (JD-R) model, thereby contributing to psychological contract theory. Finally, we contribute to both the academic and practitioner literature by examining whether a specific type of manager support (i.e., supervisory informational justice) can mitigate the negative effects of PCB in the first phase of change.

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development

Psychological Contract Breach in the Anticipatory Stage of Change

The psychological contract refers to an employee’s perception of the inducements and benefits the organization has promised to provide to him or her and the contributions and behaviors the employee believes he or she owes in return (Robinson, 1996; Rousseau & Greller, 1994). PCB occurs when an employee perceives that the organization has failed to deliver promised inducements (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Drawing on social exchange theory, in short SET, (Blau, 1964), scholars explain that when an employee perceives that the organization has failed to fulfill its obligations, the employee reciprocates by reducing discretionary efforts and engaging in counterproductive behaviors (e.g., Ng, Feldman, & Butts, 2014; Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2007).

Freese, Schalk, and Croon (2008) distinguish between five types of organizational obligations, namely organizational policies, social atmosphere, job content, rewards, and career development obligations. We suggest that organizations are particularly likely to breach obligations related to the first two categories during the anticipatory phase of change.

Organizational policies obligations refer to commitments such as being fair and transparent in procedures, being trustworthy, having open and clear methods of communication, and providing information (Freese et al., 2008). During change initiatives, the quality and amount of information employees receive are often limited. At the same time, employees’ need for information is usually quite high (e.g., Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan, 2004; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999), which is especially true after the announcement of a change initiative (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). As a result, employees often feel that “they are being kept out of the loop and that the organization is not sharing all the information” (Chaudhry et al., 2009, p. 505). Hence, this may signal to employees that the organization is not fulfilling obligations related to providing information and open and clear methods of communication. Moreover, Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) found that employees who experience uncertainty after the announcement of change are more likely to perceive the organization as untrustworthy and dishonest. Since these issues are reflected in the organizational policies dimension (Freese et al., 2008), it is likely that employees perceive organizational policies breach during the early phases of change.

The social atmosphere dimension includes obligations related to having a good atmosphere at work, being able to cooperate with others, feeling appreciated, and being able to express one’s opinions (Freese et al., 2008). Yet, relationships with coworkers are likely to deteriorate during change initiatives (Skogstad, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2007). For example, employees are likely to bluntly criticize their coworkers in an attempt to appear worthier of a job (Marks & De Meuse, 2005). These competitive behaviors are likely to occur during the anticipatory phase of change, when employees do not know who will keep his or her job. Furthermore, when change initiatives are announced from the top down, it is likely that employees perceive that the organization has not allowed them to participate (Kiefer et al., 2014) or voice their concerns. Since these issues are reflected in the social atmosphere dimension, employees likely perceive a breach of these obligations in this stage of change.

Job content, rewards, and career development obligations are certainly important in a change context, but are more likely to be breached during the implementation phase. During this phase, employees begin to experience the altered situation (Isabella, 1990) and learn of its effect on the content of their job and their career opportunities (e.g., Paulsen et al., 2005). Additionally, Turnley and Feldman (1998) found that during more advanced stages of change, managers were likely to experience breaches related to job responsibilities and career advancement opportunities.

PCB and Employee Responses During the Anticipatory Stage of Change

Resistance to Change

Oreg (2006) conceptualized resistance to change as a multifaceted, unfavorable attitude toward organizational change that comprises employees’ thoughts and feelings about change, and their behavioral tendency toward a change effort. Hence, resistance to change consists of an affective (feelings), cognitive (thoughts), and behavioral (intentions to react) component (Oreg, 2006).

A few studies have examined the relationship between the evaluation of the psychological contract and resistance to change (e.g., Van den Heuvel & Schalk, 2009; Van de Heuvel, Schalk, & Van Assen, 2015). Although the results of these studies generally point to a positive relationship between PCB and resistance, these studies did not examine whether some types of breach have a more profound effect on resistance to change than others.

The organizational policies dimension includes organizational obligations such as being trustworthy, fair in implementing procedures, and providing relevant information (Freese et al., 2008). Research shows that when organizations provide adequate information throughout the change process (e.g., Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2008), employees are less likely to resist change. Conversely, when management is vague in relation to the outcome of change, employees are considerably less likely to support the change (Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007). Furthermore, low trust in management resulted in higher resistance to change (Oreg, 2006). Moreover, Kiefer (2005) found that unfair treatment by the organization in an ongoing change context resulted in negative emotions. As previously explained, SET posits that when employees perceive that the organization has failed to fulfill obligations, they are likely to reciprocate by reducing supportive attitudes and behavior toward the organization. Based on the studies discussed above, we suggest that, in a change context, employees are likely to reciprocate unfulfilled organizational policies obligations by resisting the organization’s proposed change initiative:

Hypothesis 1a: Organizational policies breach is positively related to resistance to change.

In the anticipatory phase of change, employees often find themselves in an uncertain work environment (e.g., Paulsen et al., 2005), which may be characterized by deteriorated work relationships (e.g., Skogstad et al., 2007). As a result, organizations are less likely to be able to keep their commitments related to providing a cooperative and enjoyable work environment, in which employees feel appreciated and supported.

Since we are unaware of studies that have examined the relationship between social atmosphere breach and resistance to change, we searched for studies that examined the impact of an important aspect of a cooperative work environment, that is, work relationships, on attitudes toward change. Vakola and Nikolaou (2005) found that bad work relationships most strongly predicted negative change-related attitudes. Moreover, research shows that social relationships positively influence readiness for change (Madsen, Miller, & John, 2005). Conversely, we posit that when social relationships are impaired, employees are likely to resist change. Based on these studies and SET, we claim that when organizations fail to keep commitments related to providing a work environment in which employees can work together and cooperate, employees reciprocate by opposing the change effort:

Hypothesis 1b: Social atmosphere breach is positively related to resistance to change.

Engagement

Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, and Xanthopoulou (2007) define engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind, that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 274). Vigor refers to feeling highly energetic and resilient when working, having a desire to put effort into one’s work, and persevering when faced with difficult challenges. Dedication is defined as an intense involvement with one’s work and experiencing a sense of gratification, passion, and meaning. Absorption refers to being highly concentrated and completely immersed in one’s work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010).

Several scholars suggest that it is important that employees remain engaged during change efforts (e.g., Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014; Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, Schreurs, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2009). Yet, research shows that cutback-related change (similar to the planned change initiative communicated to the participants in the present study) negatively affects engagement. Sousa and Van Dierendonck (2014) suggest that an increase in job demands during times of change may negatively affect engagement. We build on this argument by drawing on the tripartite JD-R model to explain why PCB is likely to negatively affect engagement during change.

According to the JD-R model, job resources are important predictors of engagement, while job demands significantly influence burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004b). Job demands are defined as “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental efforts” (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001, p. 501). Job resources refer to “any physical, psychological, social and organizational aspects of the job that help and support employees in their work” (Parzefall & Hakanen, 2010, p. 5). Based on these definitions, it can be concluded that when an organization fulfills its obligations toward the employee (i.e., psychological contract fulfillment, PCF), the organization is providing the employee with valuable resources. Parzefall and Hakanen (2010) conceptualized PCF as a job resource and found that PCF positively influenced engagement. However, when an organization fails to deliver on its promises (PCB), the employee perceives a lack of resources. Since a lack of resources requires more effort on behalf of an employee, and the distinctive feature of job demands is the “expenditure of effort,” Schaufeli and Taris (2014, p. 56) argue that a lack of resources be conceptualized as a job demand. Following this line of reasoning, we conceptualize PCB as a job demand.

The JD-R model has generally assumed that job demands are associated with burnout, but not with engagement. Schaufeli and Taris (2014) indicated, “It is an empirical fact that the relation between job demands and engagement is usually not statistically significant, but occasionally it may also be positive or negative” (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014, p. 56). According to Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, and Vansteenkiste (2010), the nonsignificant relationship occurs because two different types of job demands (hindering and challenging demands), which each differentially affect engagement, are collapsed into a single variable. As a result, the positive and negative effects of these variables on engagement cancel each other out, resulting in a nonsignificant association. Van den Broeck et al.’s (2010) claim is supported by the results of a meta-analytic study that showed that hindrance demands negatively affect engagement, whereas challenging demands have the opposite effect (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010). Hindrance demands are perceived as obstacles to personal growth and the attainment of goals. Examples include emotional conflict, resource inadequacies, and organizational politics (Crawford et al., 2010).

As previously indicated, PCB is considered a job demand. However, taking into account the tripartite JD-R model (Crawford et al., 2010; Van den Broeck et al., 2010), we specifically conceptualize PCB as a hindrance job demand. We suggest organizational policies and social atmosphere breaches are experienced by employees as resource inadequacies and thus negatively affect engagement. This leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Organizational policies breach is negatively related to engagement.

Hypothesis 2b: Social atmosphere breach is negatively related to engagement.

The Moderating Role of Supervisory Informational Justice

Koivisto et al. (2013) explain that during organizational change initiatives, employees view the organization as the source of procedural fairness, whereas employees’ direct managers are considered responsible for interactional fairness. Procedural fairness is characterized by “adherence to fair process criteria, such as consistency, lack of bias, correctability, representation, accuracy, and ethicality” (Colquitt, 2001, p. 386). Boyd et al. (2011) link procedural fairness to the fulfillment of obligations related to organizational policies and procedures. Drawing on Boyd et al., we suggest that procedural unfairness is conceptually linked to organizational policies breach.

Supervisory interactional justice in the context of organizational change refers to the treatment an employee receives from his or her manager during the change process (Koivisto et al., 2013) and can be further delineated in interpersonal (e.g. respectful treatment) and informational justice (e.g. honest communication, Colquitt, 2001). Even though organizational procedural justice and supervisory interactional justice are related constructs, Koivisto et al. (2013) point out that during change initiatives, employees view these separately. Thus, while employees may feel the organization has acted procedurally unjust, their manager can still be fair in his or her treatment of employees, thereby mitigating the negative effects of the organization’s unfair treatment. In support of this claim, Koivisto et al. found that under conditions of high leader in-group representativeness, supervisory interactional justice moderated the relationship between organizational procedural justice and perceived threat about change. Since employees often turn to their direct supervisor for information about change initiatives (Allen et al., 2007; Koivisto et al., 2013), we suggest that informational justice is particularly important. We argue that when organizations break their obligations related to organizational policies during the anticipatory phase of change, supervisors are able to mitigate the adverse effects of this perceived unfairness through informational justice. Thus, we suggest that supervisory informational justice moderates the relationship between organizational policies breach and employee outcomes, such that:

Hypothesis 3a: The positive relationship between organizational policies breach and resistance to change is weaker when supervisory informational justice is high.

Hypothesis 3b: The negative relationship between organizational policies breach and engagement is weaker when supervisory informational justice is high.

A few studies found that a positive, high-quality relationship with one’s manager attenuated the adverse effects of PCB on employee outcomes (e.g., Dulac, Coyle-Shapiro, Henderson, & Wayne, 2008; Ng et al., 2014; Zagenczyk et al., 2009). Although these studies point to the important role of the immediate supervisor in mitigating the negative outcomes of PCB, they do not explain why supervisory informational justice attenuates the effects of perceived breaches of social atmosphere obligations. Since this type of breach is characterized by breaches of obligations related to providing a good, cooperative work atmosphere, we consider the results of a study that examined the moderating role of supervisory behaviors in the relationship between coworker relational conflict and employee discretionary effort. Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris, and Noble (2012) found that when employees trust their supervisor to treat them fairly, the negative effects associated with negative coworker relationships are attenuated. Drawing on this study, as well as studies that examined the moderating role of manager variables in the global PCB–outcomes relationship, we suggest that supervisory informational justice moderates the relationship between social atmosphere breach and employee outcomes, such that:

Hypothesis 4a: The positive relationship between social atmosphere breach and resistance to change is weaker when supervisory informational justice is high.

Hypothesis 4b: The negative relationship between social atmosphere breach and engagement is weaker when supervisory informational justice is high.

Method

Research Context, Procedure, and Sample

The study was conducted among employees working within three subdivisions of the mortgage division of a large Dutch financial institution. Three months prior to the start of the study, the organization formally announced its plans for a reorganization. The objective was to reduce costs and simultaneously improve overall quality through automatizing operational activities. The planned restructuring included the relocation of employees from the three subdivisions who were, at the time of the study, on the payroll of one legal entity of the financial institution’s group structure to another, more autonomously operating legal entity that had a separate collective employment agreement. Moreover, the planned computerization of business processes would lead to a decrease in jobs, which entailed that a number of employees would be laid off. The period between the formal announcement and the moment at which the initiative would take effect was approximately 1 year. Thus, at the time of the study, employees were faced with uncertainty. Even though the plans had been formally communicated, it had not been announced which employees would be relocated and the type of work they would have to perform, or which employees would be laid off.

All 364 employees from the three subdivisions received an e-mail invitation to participate in the study. It was explained that the research was carried out in an effort to understand how the announced change initiative affected employees, and how employees had thus far experienced the communication about the planned reorganization. To increase employees’ willingness to participate, it was indicated that 1 euro would be donated to Kanjerketting—a charity for children with cancer—for every completed questionnaire. Moreover, employees were assured that their responses would be handled confidentially.

In total, 146 employees responded to the questionnaire. After cleaning the data set (removing respondents who only filled in demographic data and insufficient effort respondents), 141 respondents remained (39% response rate), of which 10 were partial respondents.¹ Fifty-one percent of respondents were male. The mean age was 39.29 years (SD = 9.7), yet four respondents did not indicate their age. 70.9% of respondents had worked for the mortgage division for at least 6 years, and 6.4% had a supervisory position. The majority of participants (70.9%) had previously experienced an organizational change.

Measures

Psychological Contract Breach

The organizational policies and social atmosphere dimensions of the Tilburg Psychological Contract Questionnaire (Freese et al., 2008) were used to measure PCB. Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the organization had fulfilled its obligations (11 items for organizational policies breach, 9 for social atmosphere breach). Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = received much less than promised to 5 = received much more than promised. All items were reverse scored such that higher scores indicated breach.

According to the results of a pilot study among employees from a different department, the original instructions of the PCB scales were unclear. Consequently, we used more detailed instructions to explain that obligations and agreements are developed between employers and employees and that these obligations can be made explicitly or implicitly (Kickul, Lester, & Finkl, 2002). Because of this and other changes made to the scale (different number of response options and different scale anchors), the validity of the existing scales may have been compromised (e.g., Lozano, Garcia-Cueto, & Muñiz, 2008). We examined the internal consistency and validity of the scales by evaluating item–total correlations, interitem correlations, and performing an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

For each subdimension, we examined the item–total correlations and interitem correlations. Item–total correlations should exceed .50, interitem correlations should exceed .30 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Three items from the social atmosphere breach, and five items from the organizational policies breach scale were removed. In addition, we deleted one item from the latter scale due to conceptual overlap with another item (r > .70). Next, we examined the validity of the scales. Prior to performing the EFA, we examined whether the items were suitable for analysis. The measure of sampling adequacy was good (KMO [Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin] = .90), however, three items had low communalities (< .40) and were removed. An EFA based on principal axis factoring and direct oblimin was performed on the remaining eight items. Based on the a priori two-factor structure, we required two factors to be retained. One item from the social atmosphere dimension did not load on its respective factor and was removed. The remaining items loaded on their theoretical factor and factor loadings were adequate in relation to sample size (Hair et al., 2010), ranging between .47 and .83. Together social atmosphere breach (four items) and organizational policies breach (three items) explained 52.44% of the variance.

Engagement

Engagement was measured with the shortened nine-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004a). Responses could be given on a 7-point frequency scale, whereby 1 = never and 7 = always. Although engagement consists of three dimensions, these dimensions are very highly correlated (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010), and scholars have not always been able to replicate the three-factor structure (e.g., Sonnentag, 2003). Consequently, we combined the items in one overall engagement scale; an approach which has also been used by others (e.g. Bal, Kooij, & De Jong, 2013; Paek, Schuckert, Kim, & Lee, 2015; Sonnentag, 2003).

Resistance to Change

To measure affective, behavioral and cognitive resistance to change, we used the 15-item multi-dimensional scale of Oreg (2006). Answers were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. We phrased the items in the present tense. Positively worded items were reverse coded such that a higher score indicated higher resistance to change.² We performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the multidimensional structure of this scale. We used the following cutoff criteria, comparative fit index (CFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) should be .90 or higher (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) should not exceed .06 (Brown, 2015) and χ²/df should not be greater than 5 (Hair et al., 2010); values less than 2 are indicative of very good fit, values between 2 and 5 are acceptable. In addition, standardized factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) per construct should be at least .50 (Hair et al., 2010).

Based on the results of the initial CFA, we deleted the behavioral dimension scale. Three of the five items of this scale had standardized factor loadings less than .50. Moreover, the AVE of the remaining items did not meet the .50 threshold. Results of the CFA with the remaining 10 items (5 for affective, 5 for cognitive) showed that the standardized factor loadings of all the items met the minimum threshold of .50. Nevertheless, according to the modification indices two affective items cross-loaded on the cognitive dimension and were deleted. The AVE of the remaining three items was above the minimum threshold. The AVE of the cognitive dimension was below .50. After deleting the two items with the lowest loadings, the AVE exceeded the .50 threshold. The remaining two-factor model had an adequate fit with the data, χ²(8, n = 141) = 17.386, p = .026, χ²/df = 2.173, CFI = .97, IFI = .97, SRMR = .0590. This model was compared to a one-factor model, which had a poor fit with the data, χ²(9, n = 141) = 110.749, p < .001, χ²/df = 12.305, CFI = .69, IFI = .69, SRMR = .1396.

Supervisory Informational Justice

We measured supervisory informational justice with Colquitt’s (2001) five-item measure. We phrased the items in the present tense.³ Items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 = to a small extent to 5 = to a large extent.

Control Variable

We included tenure with the mortgage division as a control variable. Van Dam et al. (2008) found that employees with long tenure were more likely to resist change (r = .19, p < .01). Moreover, Bal, De Cooman, and Mol (2013) indicated that the impact of PCF on engagement is contingent on tenure. In accordance with previous research (e.g., Bal et al., 2013), we dummy coded this variable such that 0 = 5 years or less, and 1 = 6 years or more.

Common Method Variance

Since the data were single source and cross-sectional in nature, common method variance (CMV) may influence the results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). We performed several CFAs in AMOS 23 using full information maximum likelihood (due to missing data) to determine whether CMV posed a serious problem in our data. First, we performed a CFA with the 6 variables and 27 items in our study. We used similar cut-off criteria as with the resistance to change scales (for which full data was available), however, since AMOS does not provide SRMR values when there is missing data, we examined the RMSEA (< .08, Byrne, 2010). The six-factor model had an adequate fit with the data, χ²(309, n = 141) = 515.585, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.669, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .069. Moreover, standardized factor loadings ranged from .57 to .93, and AVEs were at least .50. The items used in this study and their standardized factor loadings are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Constructs, Retained Items, and Standardized Factor Loadings.

	Constructs
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Being able to trust management	.78
Fairness and transparency of measures and procedures	.67
Communication channels are open, clear and direct	.68
Good atmosphere at work		.70
Receiving support from coworkers and supervisors		.73
Being appreciated		.73
Being able to voice one’s opinion		.73
Is your manager candid in his or her communications with you?			.68
Does your manager explain the procedures regarding the change thoroughly?			.83
Are your manager’s explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?			.82
Does your manager communicate details in a timely manner?			.85
Does your manager tailor his or her communications to individuals’ specific needs?			.76
I was quite worked up about the change^a				.57
I am stressed by the change				.91
The changes makes me upset				.82
I think that it’s a negative thing that we are going through this change					.90
I believe that the change will harm the way things are done in the organization					.75
I believe that the change will benefit the organization (reverse-scored)					.59
At my work, I feel that I am bursting with energy						.82
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous						.85
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work						.89
I am enthusiastic about my job						.93
My job inspires me						.92
I am proud on the work that I do						.86
I feel happy when I am working intensely						.81
I am immersed in my work						.85
I get carried away when I am working						.82

Note. N ranges from 131 to 141. 1 = organizational policies breach; 2 = social atmosphere breach; 3 = supervisory informational justice; 4 = affective resistance to change; 5 = cognitive resistance to change; 6 = engagement.

This item differs from the item in the original scale, please see Note 2 in the Notes section.

We compared the fit of our six-factor model to a one-factor model. Results showed that this model had a poor fit with the data, χ²(324, n = 141) = 1390.301, p < .001, χ²/df = 4.291, CFI = .57, IFI = .58, RMSEA = .153, and fit significantly worse than the six-factor model, Δχ²(15) = 874.716, p < .05. Next, we performed a CFA in which all items were allowed to load on their respective theoretical factor and on a latent CMV factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results showed that the addition of the CMV factor improved the fit of the model, Δχ²(27) = 181.41, p < .05. This improvement is not unexpected since the model with a CMV factor has fewer degrees of freedom and more parameters (Ng & Feldman, 2013). Yet, to rule out CMV, it is important that items load more than .50 on their respective factor when the CMV factor is included and that loadings on the CMV factor are either nonsignificant or considerably smaller than those on the respective theoretical factor (Brammer, He, & Mellahi, 2015). When the CMV factor was included, all items still loaded significantly on their respective factor with standardized factor loadings above .50. Moreover, 17 items loaded nonsignificantly on the CMV factor, and the remaining 10 loaded considerably lower on the CMV factor than on their own factor. Additionally, based on the average of the squared standardized factor loadings, 5.54% of the variance was accounted for by CMV. Together, these results imply that CMV was not a major concern.

Analysis Strategy

We used multiple regression analyses in SPSS 24 to test our hypotheses. In Step 1, we entered the control variable. We entered the predictors and moderator in Step 2, followed by the two-way interaction terms in Step 3. The predictor and moderator variables were centered before creating the interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991).

Results

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations among the study variables.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Tenure	0.71	0.46
2. Social atmosphere breach	2.81	0.69	.23**	(.81)
3. Organizational pol. breach	3.17	0.68	.26**	.65**	(.75)
4. Engagement	4.83	1.30	−.12	−.49**	−.38**	(.96)
5. Affective resistance to change	2.53	1.04	.29**	.34**	.23**	−.19*	(.80)
6. Cognitive resistance to change	3.07	1.05	.18*	.19*	.34**	−.16	.43**	(.79)
7. Supervisor info. justice	3.29	0.72	−.20*	−.52**	−.49**	.36**	−.32**	−.23**	(.89)

Note. N ranges from 131 to 141 due to pairwise deletion. Cronbach’s alphas are reported on the diagonal in parentheses. Tenure: 0 = 5 years or less, 1 = 6 years or more.

p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed).

The results of the multiple regression analyses are presented in Table 3. Organizational policies breach was not significantly related to affective resistance to change (β = −.09, p > .05), but was significantly positively related to cognitive resistance to change (β = .33, p < .01), therefore we found partial support for Hypothesis 1a. We also found partial support for Hypothesis 1b. Social atmosphere breach was significantly positively related to affective resistance to change (β = .26, p < .05), but not significantly related to cognitive resistance to change (β = −.10, p > .05). Hypothesis 2a was not supported, organizational policies breach was not significantly related to engagement (β = −.08, p > .05). Social atmosphere breach was significantly negatively related to engagement (β = −.37, p < .01), providing support for Hypothesis 2b.

Table 3.

Results Multiple Regression Analyses Including Interaction Terms.

	Affective resistance to change					Cognitive resistance to change					Engagement
	R ²	ΔR²	F	β	B	R ²	ΔR²	F	β	B	R ²	ΔR²	F	β	B
Step 1	.08		11.676**			.03		4.102*			.01		1.827
Tenure				.29**	.66**				.18*	.40*				−.12	−.34
Step 2	.19	.11**	7.353***			.13	.10**	4.824**			.26	.25***	11.041***
Tenure				.21*	.49*				.09	.21				.02	.05
SAB				.26*	.39*				−.10	−.15				−.37**	−.71**
OPB				−.09	−.13				.33**	.51**				−.08	−.15
SUPJUS				−.19^†	−.27^†				−.10	−.15				.13	.24
Step 3	.21	.03	5.632***			.17	.04^†	4.214**			.27	.01	7.475***
Tenure				.22**	.50**				.11	.24				.02	.05
SAB				.24*	.36*				−.10	−.15				−.38**	−.73**
OPB				−.12	−.18				.29*	.45*				−.09	−.18
SUPJUS				−.18^†	−.26^†				−.10	−.14				.13	.24
SAB × JUS				−.10	−.16				−.29*	−.46*				.01	.01
OPB × JUS				−.07	−.12				.14	.23				−.09	−.18

Note. N ranges from 131-141 due to pairwise deletion. Tenure: 0 = 5 years or less, 1 = 6 years or more. SAB = social atmosphere breach; OPB = organizational policies breach. SUPJUS = supervisory informational justice. SAB × JUS = two-way interaction term social atmosphere breach and supervisory informational justice; OPB × JUS two-way interaction term organizational policies breach and supervisory informational justice.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

According to Hypothesis 3, supervisory informational justice moderates the relationship between organizational policies breach and (a) resistance to change and (b) engagement. Results did not support this hypothesis. Hypothesis 4a indicated that supervisory informational justice moderates the relationship between social atmosphere breach and resistance to change. We found partial support for this hypothesis. While supervisory informational justice did not moderate the relationship between social atmosphere breach and affective resistance to change (B = −.16, p > .05), supervisory informational justice significantly moderated the relationship between social atmosphere breach and cognitive resistance to change (B = −.46, p < .05). To interpret the nature of the effect, we plotted the interaction term in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The moderating role of supervisory informational justice.

Although Figure 1 illustrates that when employees perceive a breach of social atmosphere obligations, the influence on cognitive resistance to change is less at higher levels of supervisory informational justice, the plot does not tell us at what level of the moderator this occurs (Dawson, 2014). Based on the Johnson–Neyman technique, we examined at which value of the moderator the relationship between social atmosphere breach and cognitive resistance to change became significant. Results showed that at a centered score of .62 (which corresponds to a score of 3.91) or higher, the relationship between social atmosphere breach and cognitive resistance became significantly negative (gradient = −.44, t = −1.989, p < .05). There was no significant relationship between social atmosphere breach and cognitive resistance to change at centered scores of .61 (p > .05) and lower on the supervisory informational justice scale. Overall, we found support for our assumption that when employees perceive that their managers score considerably high on supervisory informational justice (between 3.91 and 5.00), the adverse effects of social atmosphere breach on cognitive resistance to change are mitigated. The results, however, did not support the moderating role of supervisory informational justice in the relationship between social atmosphere breach and engagement (B = .01, p > .05).

Discussion

The results of this study showed that breach of social atmosphere obligations positively influenced affective but not cognitive resistance to change. In contrast, organizational policies breach was positively related to cognitive but not affective resistance to change. Thus far, research has provided a mixed picture of the effects of PCB on the different dimensions of resistance to change. Van den Heuvel and Schalk (2009) found that the evaluation of one’s psychological contract influenced affective but not cognitive or behavioral resistance to change, while Van den Heuvel et al. (2015) found that all three dimensions were influenced. A reason for this discrepancy might be the reliance on aggregate measures to evaluate the state of the psychological contract. Since we focused on specific dimensions of PCB, we were able to provide a more nuanced view of the effects on resistance to change. Our results seem to suggest that breaches related to the more social aspects of an employee’s exchange agreement (i.e., good atmosphere, receiving support, being appreciated) are more likely to influence affective outcomes. On the other hand, more instrumental obligations related to organizational policies (i.e., clear, open communication channels, transparency of procedures) may be more likely to influence cognitions. Nevertheless, Freese et al. (2011) found that breaches of organizational policies obligations were negatively related to affective commitment, while breach of social atmosphere obligations did not affect this outcome. Yet, according to Freese et al. (2011), context effects likely influenced the results since employees in their study did not work in an office setting, but usually worked in the homes of clients. Nevertheless, these discrepancies call for more research on the effects of specific types of PCB in certain contexts and occupational groups.

We found support for the moderating role of informational justice in the relationship between social atmosphere breach and cognitive resistance to change. The results are partly consistent with related research on the role of an employee’s manager in reducing the adverse effects of PCB. More specifically, previous research has shown that having a supportive relationship with one’s manager mitigates the negative effects of PCB (Dulac et al., 2008; Ng et al., 2014; Zagenczyk et al., 2009). In contrast, some scholars found opposite effects, showing that supportive managers intensify rather than mitigate the negative consequences of PCB (e.g., López Bohle et al., 2016; Restubog, Bordia, Tang, & Krebs, 2010). An important reason why we found a mitigating as opposed to an intensifying effect might be related to the type of breach examined. Most research that examined the moderating role of manager support has included global measures of breach (e.g., Dulac et al., 2008; López Bohle et al., 2016). Since managers might be held responsible for some but not all types of breach (e.g., Dulac et al., 2008; Ng et al., 2014), it might be that managers are only able to mitigate the effects of breaches for which they are not held responsible. Conversely, when managers are held (partly) responsible for a breach, feelings of betrayal may arise, which intensifies negative reactions to perceived breaches (e.g., López Bohle et al., 2016; Restubog et al., 2010). This difference in attributions for breach might be the reason why supervisory informational justice only mitigated the effect of social atmosphere breach and not the effect of organizational policies breach. However, since previous research has not focused on different dimensions of PCB, more research is needed on the moderating role of supportive manager practices, such as supervisory justice, in the relationship between specific types of PCB and employee outcomes.

Although supervisory informational justice moderated the relationship between social atmosphere breach and cognitive resistance to change, it did not moderate the relationship between this type of breach and affective resistance to change and engagement. A possible reason for this might be that the justice measure we included, which focused mainly on fairness in terms of communication practices, is capable of reducing the negative effects on cognitions but not on more affective outcomes such as affective resistance to change and engagement. Vander Elst, Baillien, De Cuyper, and De Witte, (2010) found that organizational communication did not moderate the negative relationship between job insecurity and engagement, while participation did mitigate the negative effect of job insecurity on engagement. Consequently, it might be that while communication behaviors mitigate the negative effects of PCB on cognitions, other types of supervisor behaviors, such as providing opportunities to voice concerns or being emphatic and listening to concerns, may buffer the negative effects of PCB on affective outcomes during change initiatives.

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations. First, the data for this study were collected within one organization, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Second, since the data were collected at one point in time, we cannot draw causal inferences. Relatedly, since our study focused solely on the first stage of change, we cannot speak to the long-term mitigating effects of supervisory informational justice. Furthermore, although we included two subdimensions of PCB, we drew on previous research and conceptual work to determine which types of PCB are most important in the anticipatory phase of change. In future studies, scholars should include all five dimensions of the psychological contract (Freese et al., 2008) to statistically determine which types of PCB are most important in this phase of change. Finally, we did not include supervisory interpersonal justice. Future research could include measures of interpersonal justice to determine whether this type of behavior can mitigate the negative effect of PCB on affective outcomes.

Practical Implications

The results of our study showed that perceptions that the organization has (partly) failed to fulfill obligations related to clear communication, transparency and fairness of procedures, and being trustworthy, increases cognitive resistance to change in the anticipatory phase of change. Since resistance to change can hamper the successful implementation of a change initiative (Van Dam et al., 2008), it is important that change agents try to limit the perceptions of organizational policies breach. For example, shortly after the announcement of a change initiative, change agents should offer a realistic preview of the proposed changes (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). In some instances, however, it may not be possible for organizations to provide detailed information at the outset. In those circumstance it is essential that change agents provide an indication of when the information will become available (Jimmieson et al., 2004). By providing a realistic change preview or by indicating when employees can expect to receive new information, employees are less likely to perceive that the organization is purposefully keeping employees in the dark and reneging on its promise to be fair and transparent in procedures, communicate clearly and openly, and being trustworthy.

It has been suggested that engagement is important to the success of a change initiative (e.g., Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014; Van den Heuvel et al., 2009). Yet, according to the results of our study, engagement is negatively affected by perceptions of social atmosphere breach during the first phase of change. This is in accordance with results from a recent longitudinal study, which indicated that cutback-related change efforts negatively affected engagement (Kiefer et al., 2014). Since employees who possess a great deal of energy (i.e., an important component of engagement) are able to effectively deal with organizational change (Tummers et al., 2015), it is essential that organizations focus on employee engagement levels throughout a change initiative. As perceptions of social atmosphere breach negatively affect engagement, organizations should try to limit the perception of breaches of these types of obligations. More specifically, organizational representatives must be aware that the uncertainty that is caused by anticipated change may cause good, cooperative work environments to deteriorate. Organizations can address this issue by giving human resource employees or managers counselor training (Baillien & De Witte, 2009). As counselors, these organizational agents can act as an important support system for employees during change initiatives.

Finally, it is important that organizations understand the essential role of immediate managers in the change process. Koivisto et al. (2013) point out that the role of an employee’s direct supervisor during change initiatives has not received enough attention. Our study shows that when employees perceive that the organization is failing to keep commitments, immediate managers can reduce the negative effects of this unfair treatment by being honest in communications, by providing timely information, and by providing adequate explanations of the change procedures.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen

Jimmieson

N. L.

Bordia

Irmer

B. E.

(2007). Uncertainty during organizational change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Management, 7, 187-210.

Armenakis

A. A.

Bedeian

A. G.

(1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315.

Baillien

De Witte

(2009). Why is organizational change related to workplace bullying? Role conflict and job insecurity as mediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30, 348-371.

Bakker

A. B.

Hakanen

J. J.

Demerouti

Xanthopoulou

(2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274-284.

Bal

P. M.

De Cooman

Mol

S. T.

(2013). Dynamics of psychological contracts with work engagement and turnover intention: The influence of organizational tenure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 107-122.

Bal

P. M.

Kooij

D. T. A. M.

De Jong

S. B.

(2013). How do developmental and accommodative HRM enhance employee engagement and commitment? The role of psychological contract and SOC strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 545-572.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Boyd

C. M.

Bakker

A. B.

Pignata

Winefield

A. H.

Gillepsie

Stough

(2011). A longitudinal test of the job demands-resources model among Australian university academics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 112-140.

10.

Brammer

Mellahi

(2015). Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: The moderating impact of corporate ability. Group & Organization Management, 40, 323-352.

11.

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

12.

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Chaudhry

Wayne

S. J.

Schalk

(2009). A sensemaking model of employee evaluation of psychological contract fulfillment: When and how do employees respond to change? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45, 498-520.

14.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

15.

Conway

Kiefer

Hartley

Briner

R. B.

(2014). Doing more with less? Employee reactions to psychological contract breach via target similarity or spillover during public sector organizational change. British Journal of Management, 25, 737-754.

16.

Crawford

E. R.

LePine

J. A.

Rich

B. L.

(2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834-848.

17.

Dawson

J. F.

(2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business Psychology, 29, 1-19.

18.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.

19.

Devos

Buelens

Bouckenooghe

(2007). Contribution of content, context, and process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental simulation studies. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 607-629.

20.

De Vos

Meganck

(2008). What HR managers do versus what employees value? Personnel Review, 38(1), 45-60.

21.

Dhensa-Kahlon

R. K.

Coyle-Shapiro

J. A. M.

(2013). Anticipatory (in)justice and organizational change: understanding employee reactions to change. In Oreg

Michel

R.T.

(Eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp. 173-194). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Dulac

Coyle-Shapiro

Henderson

D. J.

Wayne

(2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1079-1098.

23.

Freese

Schalk

Croon

(2008). De Tilburgse Psychologisch Contract Vragenlijst [Tilburg Psychological Contract Questionnaire]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 21, 278-294.

24.

Freese

Schalk

Croon

(2011). The impact of organizational changes on psychological contracts: A longitudinal study. Personnel Review, 40, 404-422.

25.

Fugate

Kinicki

A. J.

Scheck

C. L.

(2002). Coping with an organizational change merger over four stages. Personnel Psychology, 55, 905-928.

26.

Georgalis

Samaratunge

Kimberley

(2015). Change process characteristics and resistance to organizational change: The role of employee perceptions of justice. Australian Journal of Management, 40, 89-113.

27.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

28.

Isabella

L. A.

(1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events, Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7-41.

29.

Jimmieson

N. L.

Terry

D. J.

Callan

V. J.

(2004). A longitudinal study of employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 11-27.

30.

Kacmar

K. M.

Bachrach

D. G.

Harris

K. J.

Noble

(2012). Exploring the role of supervisor trust in the associations between multiple sources of relationship conflict and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 43-54.

31.

Kickul

Lester

S. W.

Finkl

(2002). Promise breaking during radical organizational change: Do justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 469-488.

32.

Kiefer

(2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 875-897.

33.

Kiefer

Hartley

Conway

Briner

R. B.

(2014). Feeling the squeeze: Public employees’ experiences of cutback- and innovation-related organizational changes following a national announcement of budget reductions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 1279-1305.

34.

Koivisto

Lipponen

Platow

M. J.

(2013). Organizational and supervisory justice effects on experienced threat during change: The moderating role of leader in-group representativeness. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 595-607.

35.

Lawrence

S. A.

Callan

V. J.

(2011). The role of social support in coping during the anticipatory stage of organizational change: A test of an integrative model. British Journal of Management, 22, 567-585.

36.

López Bohle

Bal

P. M.

Jansen

P. G.

Leiva

P. I.

Alonso

A. M.

(2016). How mass layoffs are related to lower job performance and OCB among surviving employees in Chile: An investigation of the essential role of psychological contract. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016

37.

Lozano

L. M.

Garcia-Cueto

Muñiz

(2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4, 73-79.

38.

Madsen

S. R.

Miller

John

C. R.

(2005). Readiness for organizational change: Do organizational commitments and social relationships in the workplace make a difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 213-233.

39.

Marks

M. L.

De Meuse

K. P.

(2005). Resizing the organization: Maximizing the gain while minimizing the pain of layoffs, divestitures, and closings. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 19-35.

40.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.

41.

Morrison

E. W.

Robinson

S. L.

(1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation occurs. Academy of Management Review, 22, 525-546.

42.

Newman

D. A.

(2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 372-411.

43.

T. W.

Feldman

D. C.

(2013). Age and innovation-related behavior: The joint moderating effects of supervising undermining and proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 583-606.

44.

T. W. H.

Feldman

D. C.

Butts

M. M.

(2014). Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behavior: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 537-553.

45.

Oreg

(2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73-101.

46.

Paek

Schuckert

Kim

T. T.

Lee

(2015). Why is hospitality employees’ psychological capital important? The effects of psychological capital on work engagement and employee morale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 9-26.

47.

Parzefall

M. J.

Hakanen

(2010). Psychological contract and its motivational and health enhancing properties. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(1), 4-21.

48.

Paulsen

Callan

V. J.

Grice

T. A.

Rooney

Gallois

Jones

Jimmieson

N. L.

Bordia

(2005). Job uncertainty and personal control during downsizing: A comparison of survivors and victims. Human Relations, 58, 463-496.

49.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

50.

Rafferty

A. E.

Restubog

S. L. D.

(2010). The impact of change process and context on change reactions and turnover during a merger. Journal of Management, 36, 1309-1338.

51.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Bordia

Tang

R. L.

(2007). Behavioural outcomes of psychological contract breach in a non-Western culture: The moderating role of equity sensitivity. British Journal of Management, 18, 376-386.

52.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Bordia

Tang

R. L.

Krebs

S. A.

(2010). Investigating the moderating effects of leader–member exchange in the psychological contract breach–employee performance relationship: A test of two competing perspectives. British Journal of Management, 21, 422-437.

53.

Robinson

S. L.

(1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.

54.

Rousseau

D. M.

Greller

(1994). Human resource practices: Administrative contract makers. Human Resource Management, 33, 385-401.

55.

Rousseau

D. M.

Tijoriwala

S. A.

(1999). What’s a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 514-528.

56.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2004a). Bevlogenheid: Een begrip gemeten [Work engagement: The measurement of a concept]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 17(2), 89-112.

57.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2004b). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.

58.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: bringing clarity to the concept. In Bakker

A. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10-24). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

59.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

T. W.

(2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bauer

G. F.

Hämmig

(Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 43-68). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

60.

Schweiger

D. M.

DeNisi

A. S.

(1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110-135.

61.

Skogstad

Matthiesen

S. B.

Einarsen

(2007). Organizational changes: A precursor of bullying at work? International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior, 10, 58-94.

62.

Sonnentag

(2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 518-528.

63.

Sousa

Van Dierendonck

(2014). Servant leadership and engagement in a merge process under high uncertainty. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27, 877-899.

64.

Spreitzer

G. M.

Lam

C. F.

Fritz

(2010). Engagement and human thriving: Complementary perspectives on energy and connections to work. In Bakker

A. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 132-146). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

65.

Tummers

Kruyen

P. M.

Vijverberg

D. M.

Voesenek

T. J.

(2015). Connecting HRM and change management: The importance of proactivity and vitality. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28, 627-640.

66.

Turnley

W. H.

Feldman

D. C.

(1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37, 71-83.

67.

Vakola

Nikolaou

(2005). Attitudes toward organizational change: What is the role of employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27, 160-174.

68.

Van Dam

Oreg

Schyns

(2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to organizational change: The role of leader-member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 313-334.

69.

Van den Broeck

De Cuyper

De Witte

Vansteenkiste

(2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands–Resources Model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 735-759.

70.

Van den Heuvel

Demerouti

Schreurs

B. H. J.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Does meaning-making help during organizational change? Development and validation of a new scale. Career Development International, 14, 508-533.

71.

Van den Heuvel

Schalk

(2009). The relationship between fulfillment of the psychological contract and resistance to change during organizational transformations. Social Science Information, 48, 283-313.

72.

Van den Heuvel

Schalk

Van Assen

M. A. L. M.

(2015). Does a well-informed employee have a more positive attitude toward change? The mediating role of psychological contract fulfillment, trust, and perceived need for change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51, 401-422. doi:10.1177/0021886315569507

73.

Van Emmerik

I. J. H.

Bakker

A. B.

Euwema

M. C.

(2009). Explaining employees’ evaluations of organizational change with the job-demands resources model. Career Development International, 14, 594-613.

74.

Vander Elst

Baillien

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2010). The role of organizational communication and participation in reducing job insecurity and its negative association with work-related well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 249-264.

75.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

Gibney

Kiewitz

Restubog

S. L. D.

(2009). Mentors, supervisors and role models: Do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 237-259.