The relationships between job insecurity, psychological contract breach and counterproductive workplace behavior. Does employment status matter?
| Published date | 04 March 2019 |
| Pages | 595-610 |
| Date | 04 March 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2018-0138 |
| Author | Bing Ma,Shanshi Liu,Hermann Lassleben,Guimei Ma |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The relationships between job
insecurity, psychological contract
breach and counterproductive
workplace behavior
Does employment status matter?
Bing Ma
School of Management, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an, China
Shanshi Liu
School of Business Administration,
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Hermann Lassleben
ESB Business School, Reutlingen University, Reutlingen, Germany, and
Guimei Ma
School of Management, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an, China
Abstract
Purpose –The purposeof this paper is to examinethe mediating effectof psychological contractbreach on the
relationshipbetween job insecurityand counterproductive workplacebehavior (CWB)and the moderating effect
of employment status in this relationship.
Design/methodology/approach –Data were collected from 212 supervisor–subordinate dyads in a large
Chinese state-owned air transportation group. AMOS 17.0 software was used to examine the hypothesized
predictions and the theoretical model.
Findings –The results showed that psychological contract breach partially mediates the effect of job
insecurity on CWB, including organizational counterproductive workplace behavior and interpersonal
counterproductive workplace behavior. In addition, the relationships between job insecurity, psychological
contract breach and CWB differ significantly between permanent workers and contract workers.
Originality/value –The present study provides a new insight into explaining the linkage between job
insecurity and negative work behaviors as well as suggestions to managers on minimizing the harmful effects
of job insecurity.
Keywords Quantitative, Psychological contract breach, Job insecurity, Permanent workers,
Contract workers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
With rapid technological change and intense global competition, employment conditions have
changed worldwide, making workers feel increasingly insecure about their jobs and future
careers (Shoss, 2017; Sverke, Hellgren and Näswall, 2002). Job insecurity refers to a person’s
perception of uncertainty about future job continuity in an organization (Kraimer et al., 2005;
Loi et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2015). It is a subjective feeling that may emerge anywhere and
anytime, even in seemingly unthreatened job situations, when actual job loss does not occur
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 2, 2019
pp. 595-610
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-04-2018-0138
Received 17 April 2018
Revised 28 June 2018
30 July 2018
Accepted 23 August 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
This study is supported by the Scientific Research Project of the Ministry of Education of Shaanxi
(16JK1315), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71772067, 71702141), the Research Fund
for the Doctoral Program of Xi’an Polytechnic University (BS15030) and the Philosophy and Social
Science Foundation of Xi’an Polytechnic University (2016ZXSK27).
595
Psychological
contract
breach
(Sverke and Hellgren, 2002). As an important and universal work stressor (Costa and Neves,
2017; Heaney et al., 1994; Reisel et al., 2010), job insecurity may yield negative results to both,
individuals and organizations. On the one hand, it may harm workers by reducing their job
satisfaction, causing strain and damaging healthandwell-being(ChengandChan,2008;
De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; De Witte, 1999; Hellgren and Sverke, 2003). On the other hand,
it may impede an organization’s development by affecting employees’work attitudes and
performance negatively (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Loi et al., 2011; Staufenbiel and König, 2010).
Thus, job insecurity becomes an important issue that requires thorough consideration
(De Cuyper et al.,2014;Loiet al., 2012).
Previous research has shown that job insecurity not only leads to workers’poor health
and well-being, but also damages an organization by bringing about negative behavior
such as counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB) on the workers’side (De Cuyper
et al., 2009; Reisel et al., 2010; Tian et al., 2014). According to Robinson and Bennett (1995),
CWB refers to “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in
so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both”(Robinson and
Bennett, 1995, p. 556). CWB can be directed toward the organization or toward individuals.
The first is referred to as organizational counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB-O),
the latter as interpersonal counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB-I) (Bennett and
Robinson, 2000). Although there is some evidence on the effect of job insecurity on CWB
(Reisel et al., 2010; Tian et al., 2014), little is known about the mechanisms involved. So far,
research mainly tested job satisfaction or affective commitment as mediators of the
relationship between job insecurity and CWB. Reisel et al. (2010) found that job
satisfaction mediates the relationship between job insecurity and deviant behavior, while
Tian et al. (2014) proved that affective commitment mediates the effect of job insecurity on
counterproductive behavior.
In our view, the effects of job insecurity can be better understood when including the
psychological contract (De Witte, 2005), particularly its breach, as an additional variable in
the research design. The concept of the psychological contract refers to employees’beliefs
about mutual obligations between themselves and their organizations (Rousseau, 1995). It
can be explained, theoretically, by social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity (Blau,
1964; Gouldner, 1960). In an employment relationship, employees exchange effort or loyalty
for job security granted by the organization (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006, 2007). Hence,
employees perceiving a high level of job insecurity may consider that the organization does
not fulfill its obligations and promises (Piccoli and De Witte, 2015), which is tantamount to a
breach of the psychological contract. Psychological contract breach is defined as an
employee’s perception concerning the degree to which the organization has failed to fulfill
its promises or obligations (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). When employees experience
psychological contract breach, they are likely to retaliate against their organization by
engaging in harmful behaviors (Chiu and Peng, 2008; Costa and Neves, 2017), such as CWB.
In this vein, we assume psychological contract breach to be a mechanism, which mediates
the relationship between job insecurity and CWB. To our knowledge, this mediation has not
been tested in research, so far.
Research has shown that employment status can moderate the relationship between
job insecurity and its consequences. Compared to permanent workers, temporary workers
show stronger feelings of job insecurity (De Witte and Näswall, 2003; Hartley et al., 1991;
Kinnunen and Nätti, 1994; Klandermans et al., 2010; Klein Hesselink and Van Vuuren,
1999; Parker et al., 2002; Pearce, 1998). At the same time, the psychological consequences
of job insecurity for temporary workers are weaker than for permanent workers
(Beard and Edwards, 1995; De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; De Witte and Näswall, 2003;
Klandermans et al., 2010; Sverke, Gallagher and Hellgren, 2002; Virtanen et al., 2002).
Some studies found that job insecurity affects the work outcomes of permanent workers
596
PR
48,2
To continue reading
Request your trial