Raising voice: Effect of psychological contract breach on employee voice through organizational cynicism

2.1 Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory [31] is based on the notion of reciprocity [44]. Individuals build social relationships based on exchanges. For example, if one person greets another person with respect and dignity, the other person, in turn, will also greet the focal person with respect and dignity [45]. If employees perceive positive attitudes and behaviors from their employer (e.g., fairness, rewards, support) [46], they will likely reciprocate the favor [47]. In a similar vein, if employees believe that their employer has failed to meet certain obligations, they will perceive this as a PCB, leading them to adopt a cynical attitude, leading to low engagement in constructive suggestions high engagement in aggressive voice.

2.2 PCB

A psychological contract breach occurs when organizational agents fail to fulfill contractual obligations or promises made to employees, resulting in an imbalanced social exchange relationship [48]. This breach is conceptualized as a cognitive evaluation and can result in negative emotions due to contract violations [49, 50]. Empirical work on the psychological contract has found that PCB is associated with negative consequences for both employees and organizations. Three meta-analyses [2, 51] evaluated more than 100 empirical studies on PCB and its associated outcomes and revealed important implications concerning PCB’s effect on employees’ thoughts, behaviors, and even well-being. For example, a PCB can lessen the mutual respect and trust between employees and organizational agents [52], in turn, triggering employees to reciprocate with negative behaviors [53, 54]. Coyle-Shapiro et al. [55] provided a more detailed past, present, and future review of the psychological contract literature.

Included among the studied consequences of PCB are employee cynicism, turnover, counterproductive work behavior [24, 56–60], in-role performance [61–64], citizenship behaviors [40, 65–67], absenteeism [68], reduced engagement an turnover intention [69], and poor customer service [70]. Although a few studies have explored the relationship between PCB and Hirschman’s [42] “exit, voice and loyalty” model [39–41,i.e., 71], the relationship between PCB and voice behavior, particularly voice toward top management, is rather unclear. Therefore, this study explores the impact of PCB managers’ perceptions on both voice behaviors directed to top management.

2.3 Employee voice behavior

Hirschman [42] defined voice as employees’ discretionary behavior toward unsatisfying working environments or conditions. By contrast, other studies [72, 73] defined voice as employees’ other-oriented and discretionary but pro-social behaviors toward improving its overall workings. It is also suggested that voice is a theoretically and empirically distinct phenomenon from in-role and extra-role behaviors of employees and does not reconcile with these behaviors. Van Dyne and LePine [74] also suggested that voice is associated with “making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures even when others disagree” (p. 109).

Hagedoorn et al. [11] argued that voice could be more or less constructive, which they call considerate and aggressive voice, respectively. A considerate voice aims to solve a problem by considering one’s concerns and the organization’s interests. Aggressive voice can be less constructive, as it turns employees’ efforts into attempts to “win” without considering the consequences to supervisors and colleagues. Examples of aggressive voices include quarreling with others until they agree to fulfill the personal demand, deliberately over-stating grievances so that more attention is paid to them, and involving external sources to exert more pressure on supervisors or colleagues, who are viewed as competitors. Therefore, an aggressive voice is more likely to result in a hostile work environment and interfere with managers’ strategic decision-making and operational efficiency.

Chamberlin et al.’s [6] meta-analysis shed empirical light on the antecedents of voice. Although voice can be risky in general, it is also associated with various positive workplace outcomes, such as team learning [75], in-role performance [58], managerial efficiency [33], innovation in team dynamics and safety [76], and overall performance [77]. However, the decision to withhold voice and remain silent may negatively affect the organization, such as poor organizational learning, organizational failure [78, 79], and workplace crises [80]. The organization’s significant impact has raised questions about the factors motivating employees to engage in voice behavior, and as such, a great deal of research exists on voice [6]. In this study, we investigate the effect of employees’ perception of PCB on their considerate and aggressive voice behavior to further contribute to this stream.

As employee voice is a type of organizational citizenship behavior [81], we expect that PCB can influence it. Social exchange theory can help explain this relationship. This theory suggests that when parties enter an exchange relationship, they try to benefit each other [31], based on reciprocity norms [44]. Norms of reciprocity mean offering favorable treatment in return for favorable treatment, and vice versa. That is, individuals’ perceptions of unfavorable treatment by another party may compel them to reciprocate in the same way with negative or poor behavior [82, 83].

Similarly, when employers violate psychological contracts with their employees, the social exchange theory indicates that employees will respond more aggressively. Ng et al. [10] showed that PCB is positively associated with aggressive voice and negatively related to constructive voice. Turnley and Feldman [40] also found a link between PCB and the higher intensity of negative voice (also conceptualized as voicing one’s displeasure to overcome personal issues or concerns). Building on this discussion of the norms of reciprocity, we thus predict the following:

H1a: PCB is negatively related to considerate voice behavior

H1b: PCB is positively related to aggressive voice behavior.

2.4 The mediating role of organizational cynicism

When employees have negative experiences in the workplace, such as PCB [see 84], they may develop cynicism toward the organization [12, 85]. When PCB occurs, employees may feel a negative shock and believe that they lack integrity [4, 86]. They may also believe that the organization has failed to fulfill one or more of its responsibilities [3]. This perception of a breach then generates negative feelings toward the employer in the form of organizational cynicism [12, 84]. Violations of implicit promises often break employees’ trust in the employer. Feelings of betrayal can also trigger anxiety and stress and result in reduced performance [61]. It may happen for two reasons: a desire to reciprocate negatively to balance the exchange relationship [21, 85] and as a self-defense mechanism to protect oneself from further disappointments [87–89].

Research has also found that employees engage in negative word of mouth to other stakeholders, such as customers, to damage organizational reputation [90]. Sometimes, this can develop into a vicious cycle, in which a contract breach in the form of disrespect from the employer results in cynical employee beliefs and disrespect for others [91]. Low-quality relationships and identification help trigger employees’ cynical beliefs [92], but this may also happen the other way around. That is, cynical employees may not develop a high-quality relationship with their supervisor and, thus, will be less loyal [93].

Studies have shown that cynical employees often believe that top management does not want or value their opinions, leading to withholding important ideas [94–96]. Conversely, less cynical employees are more willing to suggest changes and improvements to the organization [95]. Recently, Pfrombeck et al. [97] found that PCB positively predicts organizational cynicism.

Building on this discussion and social exchange theory, we expect that PCB perceptions may lead to cynicism and employees’ willingness to reciprocate with an aggressive voice. We, therefore, hypothesize the following:

H2a: Organizational cynicism mediates the relationship between PCB and considerate voice.

H2b: Organizational cynicism mediates the relationship between PCB and aggressive voice.

Figure 1, representing the research model, is incorporated here.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.1

Research Model.

3.1. Sample and data collection

We sent an online survey to a sample of 515 in-company employees with managerial responsibilities. The database used comprises all the personal and professional contacts of one of the authors, who is in charge of an executive MBA program at a major French university. A large number of the respondents (45%) are alumni of the same institute. This convenience sample included potential respondents who were all consistent with the study, i.e., employed in a company and had a managerial position, like project managers, middle managers, executives, in-charge of functional or operational functions. However, to ensure sample consistency, we added filter questions to exclude respondents who would not be relevant (like independent consultants or self-employed people). To obtain a high response rate, the author sent a personal message to each contact, reminding them that their participation was voluntary but explaining the study’s importance and assuring them that all responses would be anonymous. She also sent a reminder email to those who did not answer the first time. The method yielded a 67% response rate (N = 345) and covered a wide range of occupations. In this study, the chosen sample represents the French population in a managerial position, mainly based on three characteristics, nationality, age, and status. The sample comprises alumni of the executive MBA program, working at managerial positions in France. Thus 90% of the respondents were French nationals, while 8% were European from other countries, and 2% were Asian. Moreover, the average age of respondents was 39 years with an experience of three to six years. Of the respondents, 58% were male. Thus the demographic information of the respondents increases the confidence in the chosen sample representativeness of the population.

There were no missing values in the data. We used Cook’s [98] leverage method to check for any multivariate outliers, which resulted in the removal of 9 observations (N = 336).

3.2 Measures

First, to measure PCB, we used the 5-item scale of Robinson and Morrison [99]. A sample item is “I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions”. The alpha reliability of the scale is 0.94.

Second, we measured organizational cynicism with 11 items comprising cognitive, affective, and behavioral cynicism developed by Brandes et al. [100] and based on Dean et al.’s [101] study scales. The reliability of the scale in the current study is 0.92.

Third, we measured the considerate voice with the 5-item scale of Naus et al. [21]. A sample item is “I discuss the problem with my superior and try to work out a solution together.” The alpha reliability of the scale is 0.86. We measured aggressive voice with the 7-item scale of Hagedöorn et al. [11]. A sample item is “I am persistent with my supervisor to get what I want.” The alpha reliability of the scale is 0.74.

Finally, for the control variables, we included age, gender, and hierarchical position, category of manager, and experience in the current organization to test the variation in our study’s dependent variables. In other words, we included these demographic variables to control for their effects on the main variables [e.g., 10, 102].

5.1 Managerial implications

This study shows that employees speak out against a PCB in voice behavior to balance the social exchange relationship. Given the importance of the roles of the psychological contract and voice in organizational life, this study highlights the importance of contract breach and managers’ voice directed at top management members, who are the organization’s key representatives. As such, organizations need to work on mitigating breaches through different trust-repairing tactics [117]. For example, organizations could offer tangible benefits such as a pay increase and apology or offer an excuse to show that the breach happened because of external factors beyond their control.

Considering the detrimental effects and high cost of PCB for both employees and employers, it is highly important for organizations to be aware of the situations that can damage employment relationships. Individuals’ reactions to PCB are not necessarily based on objective criteria such as pay or promotions, but rather on the subjective perception of the quality of relationships at work and how fairly employees are treated in the organization. According to prior research, employees tend to react less negatively to breaches when they have a high-quality (vs. low-quality) relationship with their supervisors and coworkers at work [118]. Therefore, organizations should strive to develop and maintain high-quality relationships among organizational members, especially in times of growth and limited resources, to minimize the negative effects of PCB. Organizations should set and communicate realistic and achievable goals to employees rather than setting unrealistic ones.

Besides, management needs to understand that interpersonal relationships and interactions should be based on truth and fair principles. If a breach occurs, it should be recognized and justified to the employees. In this way, PCB is unlikely to cause employees to develop cynical feelings toward top management. Both managers and employees could better understand the reasoning behind the breach and work toward better organizational functioning.

Although cynical employees are often labeled as rotten apples due to their negative cognitive, affective, and behavioral attitudes, management should realize that it spoiled those fruits through PCB. Thus, top management should avoid PCB so that employees do not delve into cynicism and, consequently, engage in aggressive voice behaviors. Employees’ ideas, suggestions, and opinions should also be encouraged to feel free to achieve organizational goals through their voice. An organization’s current practices need evaluation to see if such practices foster or hinder employees’ performance. When employees believe to be heard, they may perceive the breach and unfair treatment as corrected.

5.2 Limitations and future research directions

This study has several limitations, which provide avenues for future research. First, we conducted a cross-sectional study, which does not account for causal relationships. However, a longitudinal study could investigate whether causal relationships can be drawn or not. Second, our data come from only managers; thus, future research could use multi-source data to develop more concrete results about managers’ voice in response to PCB, such as that from first-line or middle managers and top management. Third, our findings show that managers who perceive a PCB were cynical and engaged in a passive form of aggressive voice behavior (i.e., negativity). Despite their power and a certain number of employees working under them, managers expressed their aggression through negativity. Still, they did not opt for an extreme form of aggressive voice (i.e., fight). A possible reason is that top management could take action against them because first-line and middle managers are also employees of the organization and must report to and respect top management. These findings show that managerial reaction to PCB is not so different from that of non-managerial staff. However, we recommend that future research validate these findings for generalizability.

Furthermore, the research could analyze the moderating effects of individual characteristics, such as age and gender, on the PCB–voice relationship to determine whether they make a difference in the perception of PCB and outcomes. Research indicates that the perception of a breach differs depending on individual personality characteristics [i.e 109,119]; however, we did not account for any individual characteristics in our study. Thus, future research could explore how these affect this relationship.

Moreover, we did not measure the effect of social context on PCB and outcomes. However, as Ho [120] argued, other people’s perceived PCB or fulfillment shapes how employees perceive their breach or fulfillment. Thus, we call for research to investigate how coworkers’ PCB affects a focal employee’s PCB and related outcomes. Finally, we examined the bi-dimensionality of aggressive voice (“negativity” and “fight”) and recommend further study on the re-evaluation of this scale to ensure its generalizability.