The effect of organizational change on the
psychological contract
To what extent does organizational change influence the content of the psychological contract of
the employees? And is this relation mediated by the fulfillment of the obligations by the
organization?
Mieke M.F. van Doornmalen
ANR: s570587
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. René Schalk
Period: Spring semester (January 2011 – August 2011)
1
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between organizational change (frequency, type, and
impact) and the content of the psychological contract, and whether this relationship is mediated
by the fulfillment of organizational obligations. This study is conducted at Deloitte and Pasana.
The data is collected by an electronically questionnaire. Result revealed that frequency of change
lead to a change in the content of the psychological contract. The relationship between the
frequency of organizational change and the content of psychological contract is also mediated
through the fulfillment of organizational obligations. Furthermore, we examined the underlying
dimensions of the fulfillment of organizational obligations (work content, career development,
social atmosphere, organizational policies, work life, and rewards) and the content of the
psychological contract (in-role behavior and extra-role behavior). Results for the mediating effect
showed that the founded relations are only declared by the dimensions social atmosphere and
organizational policies
At last, we use two organizations in this study; we found that they have a strong
influence on the results found. It seems that the organization itself is a strong predictor in the
organizational change process.
2
Table of contents
1. Abstract………..……………………………………………………… 1
2. Introduction…………………………………………………………… 3
3. Overview of the literature……………………………………………… 5
4. Method………………………………………………………………… 10
5. Results ……………………………..………………………………….. 16
6. Additional analysis ………………………………………………….… 22
7. Discussion ……………..……………………………………………… 24
8. Limitations……………………………………………………….…….. 27
9. Future research ………………………………………………….…….. 27
10. Implications……………………………………………………………. 28
11. Conclusion………………………………………………………………. 28
12. References………………………………………………………………. 29
13. Appendix A - Questionnaire……………………………………………. 31
14. Appendix B – Factor analysis ………………………………………….. 35
15. Appendix C – Additional analysis……………………………………….. 40
16. Appendix D – Split file ………………………………………………….. 55
3
Introduction
The last decade there has been a considerable increase in studies of how organizational
changes influence the psychological contract. An important cause is that “organizations today are
confronted with many changes in their environment due to growing competition, globalization of
markets, the introduction of new technologies, changing governmental regulations, etcetera”
(Schalk & Freese, 2000, p. 129). This leads to changes in the internal organization (Herriot,
Manning and Kidd, 1997). A decline in mutual loyalty between employee and employer is
expected (Hall & Moss, 1998). Therefore, it is expected to lead to changes in the obligations of
the organization towards the employee (Guest, 2004; Pate, Martin & Staines, 2000; Hall & Moss,
1998; Schalk & Freese, 2000; Herriot et al., 1997). This often means a violation of the
psychological contract, especially a lower score on the content of the psychological contract of
the employee, which refers to the degree to which employees feel that the organizations is
obliged to provide them with certain provisions, such as rewards, security, fairness, job content,
career prospects, etcetera. (Pate et al., 2000). Organizations may benefit when this process is
clarified in order to minimize the negative effects of organizational changes for as well employer
as employee. (Hall & Moss, 1998).
Different authors agree that organizational changes influence the psychological contract
(Hiltrop, 1995; Anderson & Schalk, 1998; Freese 2000; Guest, 2004; Schalk & Freese, 2000;
Pate et al., 2000); however there is no agreement on in which way the psychological contract is
influenced by organizational change. Three characteristics of change are taking into account in
this study; frequency, type and impact. It is expected that when a change occur more frequent the
higher the employee perceived threat, the less the employee is willing to do for the organization;
the employee will lower their own obligations (Freese & Schalk, 1997). It is expected that when
the certain type of change affects the employees’ role and tasks, the employee will adapt to the
new circumstances and adjust his demands towards the employer (Freese, 2007), which indicates
changes in the content of the psychological contract. As regards the impact of change it is
expected that the higher the impact, the more a change is perceived as extensive, the more
adaption in the psychological contract of organizational obligation is expected. Considering that
the psychological contract is a reciprocal agreement between employer and employee; I argue
that fulfillment of the perceived organizational obligations in the psychological contract has a
4
mediating role in this relation. In this paper therefore the focus is to examine if fulfillment of
perceived organizational obligation mediates the relationship between organizational change and
the content of the psychological contract. The aim of this paper is to answer the following
research question:
To what extent does organizational change influence the content of the psychological contract of
the employees? And is this relation mediated by the fulfillment of the obligations by the
organization?
This study is interesting for organizations who struggle with change and who want to
keep the negative unforeseen circumstances of change as little as possible. The will get insight in
how organizational changes affect the content of the psychological contract, this can be translated
to certain policies to diminish the negative effects of organizational change on the content of the
psychological contract. In order to keep the mutual loyalty as optimal as possible. Additional we
included two strongly divers’ organizations within this study as we expect that the culture and
characteristics of a certain organization affects the effect of organizational change on the content
of the psychological contract.
5
Overview of the literature
The effect of organizational change on the content of the psychological contract
Organizations today are confronted with many changes in their environment, which
automatically obligates the employer to adjust in order to compete in his market (Herriot et al.,
1997). This adjustment most likely results in shifting values and organizational change. Besides
communal effects of change we should also take into account that the organization it self has an
influence on the change process as well. It is reasonable to believe that an organization which is
agile and operating in a strong dynamic environment perceive organizational change less
negative that an organization which operate in a stable market. Organizational change can be
defined as the adaption an organization makes driven by changes in its environment such as
growing competition, globalization of markets, the introduction of new technologies and
changing governmental regulations (Schalk & Freese, 2000). In this study we choose three major
characteristics for the concept of organizational change; the frequency of change; type of change
and impact of change. Due to these organizational changes, a conflict of expectation is expected
which affects the content of the psychological contract of employees (Hiltrop, 1995; Rousseau,
1995).
The concept of psychological contract was first introduced by Argyris in 1960, and there
have been many authors who further developed and refined the concept of the psychological
contract. Psychological contract nowadays has several definitions, at the core it defines the
reciprocal obligations between employer i.e. organization and employee. The psychological
contract can be analyzed in several perspectives; employee, employer and both, this reciprocal
relation is based on a mutual acceptance of promises (Hui, Lee & Rousseau, 2004). The
psychological contract is an individual’s belief in terms and conditions (Rousseau,1990,1995)
and emerges when one party belief that a promise of future returns has been made, a contribution
has been given, and thereby, an obligation has been formed to provide future benefits. The
psychological contract can be measured in three ways (Rousseau and Tijoriawala, 1998): content-
oriented, feature-oriented and evaluation-oriented. We are interested in the content-orientation
and evaluation-orientation. The content-orientation indicates the specific terms of the contract
and the evaluation-orientation indicates the degree of fulfillment, change or violation experienced.
6
Employees experience the state of their psychological contract in two way: (1) Under-fulfillment,
refers to the inducements received by the employees are less than what they were promised or
what they were expecting; (2) Fulfillment, in this case the employee perceive that the employer is
successful living up to its obligations, the employee will view the relationship positively and
present positive behavior (Sluss, Klimchak, & Holmes, 2008)
The psychological contract is bilateral; there is an employer and employee belief. Our
focus is how eventually organizational change influence the employees’ side of the psychological
contract. This side can be divided in two dimension: (1) In-role behavior, behavior characterized
by being loyal to the job and not to the organization of boss; (2) Extra-role behavior, behavior
characterized by acting in the interest of the organization (Freese, 2007).
Many studies highlighted the relation between organizational change and the
psychological contract, (Hiltrop, 1995; Rousseau, 1995; Pate et al.,2000; Freese, 2007; Kickul,
Lester & Finkl, 2002); we will focus on the relation between organizational change and the
content of the psychological contract of the employee perspective. As explained the concept of
organizational change encompasses three major characteristics.
The first characteristic is the frequency of organizational change the employees are
confronted with during a certain amount of time. Due to a feelings of vulnerability and the fear of
losing security in time of change, the employee will perceive change as threatening (Saunders &
Thronhill, 2003). As a result it is expected that the more frequent employees are confronted with
organizational changes, the higher the threat, the less employees are willing to do for the
organization; the employee will lower their own obligations (Freese & Schalk, 1997).
1a. The perceived frequency of organizational changes has a negative effect on the content of
the psychological contract of the employee
The second characteristic of organizational change is the type of the change. We can
make a distinction in type of organizational change; accommodative and transformative
(Rousseau, 1995). Accommodative is a change process which makes adjustments in the
framework of the existing psychological contract. Transformation refers to shift in the nature and
7
actually redefine the psychological contract. It is expected that when the change affects the
employees’ role and tasks, the employee will adapt to the new circumstances and adjust his
demands towards the employer (Freese, 2007), which indicates changes in the content of the
psychological contract. Therefore it is expected that a transformational change will lead to
stronger changes in the content of the psychological contract than an accommodative change
(Freese, 2007). From this point on we focus on a certain type of change; transformational change.
The latter also depends on the frequency with which these transformational changes occur. As we
focus on the perceived number of transformational change and no longer the whole concept of
type of organizational change we use from this point ‘the perceived number of transformational
change’ instead of ‘ type of organizational change’.
1b. The perceived number of transformational change has a negative effect on the content of
the psychological contract of the employee
The third characteristic of organizational change is the impact of the organizational change on
the employee. The higher the impact, the more a change is perceived as extensive, the more
adaption in the psychological contract of organizational obligation is expected. When an adaption
takes place in the organizational obligations a change will most likely occur in the psychological
contract.
1c. The perceived impact of the organizational changes has a negative effect on the content of
the psychological contract of the employee
The effect of organizational change on the fulfillment of the organizational obligations
It is stated by several authors (Freese & Schalk, 1997; Pate et al., 2000; Turnley & Feldman)
that organizational change leads to adoptions of the employers’ obligations. Organizations are
obliged to adjust to their environment in order to compete in its market (Herriot et al., 1997). This
adjustment most likely results in shifting values and organizational change and eventually
influence the employers obligations. This can lead to a violation of these obligations and thereby
influence the employees’ perceived fulfillment of these obligations. Six dimensions of value will
8
be taken into account, which were indicated by Freese (2007) as the core organizational
obligations: work-content (e.g. autonomy on the job), career development (e.g. training and
education provided by the organization), social atmosphere (e.g. receiving support from
supervisor), organizational policies (e.g. open communication), work life (e.g. working at home
as a possibility) and rewards (e.g. receiving an appropriate salary).
2a. The perceived frequency of organizational changes has a negative effect on the perceived
fulfillment of organizational obligations
2b. The perceived number of transformational change has a negative effect on the content of
the perceived fulfillment of organizational obligations
2c. The perceived impact of the organizational changes has a negative effect on the perceived
fulfillment of organizational obligations
The perceived fulfillment of organizational obligations is indicated as a cause of the change
in the content of the psychological contract (Freese & Schalk, 1997). When the employer breach
or modify their obligations, it will influence the role of the employee (Freese & Schalk, 1997). It
is stated by Herriot et al. (1997) that the under-fulfillment of the perceived organizational
obligations results in withdrawing willingness to put in extra effort for the organization by the
employee. We can conclude that under-fulfillment of organizational obligations result eventually
in lower perceptions of the employee obligation in the content of the psychological contract
(Bellou, 2007; Freese, 2007).
3. Perceived fulfillment of the organizational obligations has a positive effect on the content
of the psychological contract of the employee
The relationship of organizational change on the content of the psychological contract, mediated
by the fulfillment of organizational obligations.
We expect that the content of the psychological contract will change when an organizational
change occurs. We assume that the perceived fulfillment of the organizational obligations
9
mediates this relation. It is expected that the employee will change his side of the content of the
psychological contract when he notices a change is applicable to him (Freese, 2007). Therefore
we expect that when the employee perceives the organizational obligations as under-fulfilled, a
negative effect on the level of employee obligations in the content of the psychological contract
will be observed. Several researchers indicated that organizational changes lead to changes in the
organizational obligations which, in turn influences the employee obligations in the content of the
psychological contract (Guest, 2004; Pate et al., 2000; Hall & Moss, 1998; Schalk & Freese,
2000)
4a. The relation between the perceived frequency of organizational changes and the content
of the psychological contract of the employee obligations is mediated by the fulfillment of
organizational obligations of the psychological contract.
4b. The relation between the perceived number of transformational change and the content of
the psychological contract of the employee obligations is mediated by the fulfillment of
organizational obligations of the psychological contract.
4c. The relation between the perceived impact of the organizational changes and the content
of the psychological contract of the employee obligations is mediated by the fulfillment of
organizational obligations of the psychological contract.
Conceptual model
In brief, the aim of this study is to examine how the fulfillment of organizational
obligations mediates the relationship between organizational change and the content of the
psychological contract, the aggregated conceptual model as indicated in Figure 1. The direct
relation between organizational change and the content of the psychological contract is tested.
Finally, the direct relationship of organizational change on the fulfillment of organizational
obligations, and the fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological
contract will be examined.
10
Figure 1
Method
The aim of this study was to explain the effect that organizational change can have on the
content of the psychological contract were fulfillment of the organizational obligations has a
mediating effect. A cross-sectional, quantitative design has been chosen for this research. The
data is collected at one point in time by a questionnaire.
The data is collected by convenience sampling. The sample consists of two organizations,
Deloitte and Stichting Zorggroep Pasana. Deloitte is the world’s largest management consulting
firm and one of the world’s leading professional services provider. Deloitte operates in 140
countries and has approximately 170.000 employees working in the areas of audit, consulting,
financial advisory, risk management, and tax services. The data for this research is collected,
through an online questionnaire, at the consulting department of Deloitte in the Netherlands,
which consists of 550 employees.
Stichting Zorgroep Pasana provides healthcare chain which is specialized in elderly care
and hospital care. Pasana has approximately 1.900 employees working in 8 business units located
in the north of the Netherlands.
All employees, who had an email account, received an online questionnaire. Approximately 300
employees do not own an email account; they received a hardcopy of the questionnaire.
Fulfillment of perceived
organizational obligations –
employer obligations
Content of the
psychological contract –
employee obligations
Frequency of
organizational change
Number of
transformational
organizational change
Impact of
organizational change
11
Furthermore all employees at Pasana did get the opportunity to choose for a hardcopy version
instead of an online version as we distributed hardcopies of the questionnaire to the front desk of
Pasana.
In total 2533 questionnaires were handed out to two organizations. The response rate was
21.4 percent. 35.8 percent of the respondents were male and 63.8 percent were female. Their age
ranged from 15 to 67 with an average age of 39.6 (sd = 10.3). In total 35.8 percent of the
questionnaires was filled in by employees from Deloitte and 64.8 percent was filled in by
employees from Pasana.
Instruments
Organizational Change: Is measured by questions about organizational change (during
the last two years): This scale is drawn from several studies (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006;
Armenakis et al, 2007; Metselaar,1997; Bouckenooghe & Devos, 2007; Lau & Woodman, 1995;
Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997). The scale contains three characteristics:
frequency of change, impact of change and the number of transformational changes.
Frequency - This characteristic measures the frequency of the changes experienced by the
employee by a question “Change frequently occurs in my organization”. A 5-point Likert-type
scale, ranging from “1” (strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree), is used for answering
(Appendix A-II).
Number of transformational changes – This dimension is composed of several types of changes.
The respondents have to select three changes which they experienced in the past two years at
their work. These changes include items that reflect the nature of the change, whether it is
considered accommodative or transformational (Rousseau, 1995). An example of the
accommodative items is “Changes in leadership”. An example of transformational item is
“Change in organizational culture”. We checked the correlation of the items of type of change
with the content scale of organizational obligations. To check which items score negative and can
be considered to be transformative. This corresponds with the existing literature (Freese, 1997)
(Appendix A-III).
12
Impact – This dimension is measured with two items derived from Lau and Woodman (1995).
This scale measures to what extent changes directly impact the employee’s routine activities and
perceived future in the organization. A sample question is “The change(s) had important
consequences for my future at this organization”. A 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “1”
(strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree), is used for answering. Both variables combined gave a
low reliability. We checked which one of the two questions correlate highest with the content
scale of organizational obligations; therefore we chose eventually one question to measure the
impact of organizational change; “The change(s) had important consequences for my future at
this organization”. (Appendix A-IV).
Cronbach’s alpha was measured to examine reliability. The validity for the scale cannot be
checked as the scale for frequency and impact only consists of two items. The scale for type of
change can also not be checked as the employee can only point out whether he experienced the
change or not.
Perceived fulfillment of organizational obligations: This was measured by the employees’
perception of the obligations that the employer has towards their employers (employee-side). The
fulfillment and content of the psychological contract’s items is drawn from the Tilburg
Psychological Contract Questionnaire (Freese, Schalk & Croon, 2008). The scale built by these
scholars includes a comprehensive set of items assigned into six scales, each one measuring
different aspects of the content of the psychological contract. The headline question of every set
of content-items is “In the employment relationship employees have expectations about what the
organization will offer. To what extent is your organization obliged to offer you the following?”
The following scale items refer to employer’s obligations employees believe the employer should
offer them. “Work Content” (WC) contains 6 items (Cronbach’s α 0.78) (e.g. variation in your
work) “Career Development” (CD) contains 6 items (Cronbach’s α 0.85) (e.g. training and
education). “Social Atmosphere” (SA) contains 5 items (founded Cronbach’s α 0.84) (e.g.
appreciation and recognition). “Organizational Policies” (OP) has 8 items (founded Cronbach’s α
0.86) (e.g. feedback on performance). “Work-Life Balance” (WLB) includes 4 items (founded
Cronbach’s α 0.71) (e.g. working at home) and “Rewards” (RW) has 6 items (founded
Cronbach’s α 0.78) (e.g. appropriate salary). All scale items are assessed by a 5-point Likert scale
13
ranging from “1” (no obligation at all) to “5” (very strong obligation). In order to evaluate the
extent to which these employer obligations are fulfilled, after each scale an extra question is
incorporated which asks to “To what extent did your employer fulfill the previous obligations?”.
The fulfillment of the psychological contract is assessed by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
“1” (not at all).to “5” (to a very great extent) (founded Cronbach’s α 0.79). (Appendix A-V).
Cronbach’s alpha was measured to examine reliability. PCA is used to check the reliability of
every scale and whether the scale consist the right items.
The content of the psychological contract: This was measured by the employees’ beliefs of the
obligations of the employee towards the organization. This scale consists of two dimensions, the
in-role and extra-role behavior of the employee. The items are drawn from the Tilburg
Psychological Contract Questionnaire (Freese, Schalk & Croon, 2008). Both scales includes a
comprehensive set of items assigned into two scales, each one measuring different aspects of the
content of the psychological contract. “In-role behavior” contains 11 items (founded Cronbach’s
α 0.86) (e.g. Performing well on tasks you do not like to do). “Extra-role behavior” contains 11
items (founded Cronbach’s α 0.78) (e.g. Working overtime if that is necessary to get the job
done). The content of the psychological contract is assessed by a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from “1” (not at all) to “5” (to a very great extent). (Appendix A-VI).
Cronbach’s alpha was measured to examine reliability. PCA is used to check the reliability of
every scale and whether the scale consist the right items.
Control variables: In order to rule out distortion for the results and findings different
control variable were incorporated in this study. Several researchers found possible influences of
variables on the organizational change and employee relations. The relationship which we
analyze in this research is a perception of the employee on certain aspects. Age and gender may
have a possible effect on this relationship as they each come with certain psychological
characteristics. Therefore we use age and gender as control variables within this research. The
third control variable is organization. As we argue in the literature review above, the organization
itself can also have an influence on the effect of the change process discussed. Therefore we
choose two diverse organizations for this study. The sample consists of two organizations;
14
Deloitte and Pasana. Both organizations have their own characteristics what makes it reasonable
to believe that the organizations could give an alternative explanation for a certain relationships.
Were Deloitte is an organization with a high educational level, high autonomy, commercial and
operating in a high competitive market, Pasana has a variation of educational levels; form no
formal education to university degrees, diverse levels of autonomy from low to high autonomy as
well, operating in a government sector which is less highly competitive. Considering that this
research is all about the perception of the employee it is plausible to expect that the organization
has an influence. In this study we use the control variable organization as a dummy variable.
(Appendix A-I)
Research model
Figure 2 shows the disaggregated research model, all variables are listed in the boxes that refer to the underlying dimensions.
Figure 2
Frequency of organizational change
Impact of organizational change
No. of transformational organizational change
Work content
Career Development
Social Atmosphere
Organizational policies
Work life
Rewards
In-role behavior
Extra-role behavior
Fulfillment of perceived
organizational
obligations
Content of the
psychological contract
-
employee obligations
15
Procedure
In May 2011 questionnaires were distributed to a convenience sample of 2.200 employees
of Deloitte consulting and Stichting zorggroep Pasana. Approximately 500 questionnaires which
were distributed to Pasana were handed out through hardcopy since these employees did not use a
computer on daily basis. The remaining sample received an online questionnaire. Both
questionnaires were guided with a cover letter, for the hard-copy an answering envelope was
enclosed, for the digital questionnaire the answers were emailed by using the program ‘Spits’.
Participation was anonymous.
Statistical analysis
In order to analyze and test all hypotheses the data is first checked for missing data and
outliers, secondly the control variables Gender and Organization are recoded in dummy variables.
After checking the reliability of the scales we checked for normality, linearity and
homoscedasticity. Next the variables of the conceptual model were checked for their correlation;
the direction, strength, and significance of the relations were checked.
For hypothesis 1 to 3, hierarchical multiple regressions are needed. Two regressions were
computed, one with the content of the psychological contract as dependent variable and the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, frequency, number of transformational and impact of
organizational change as independent variables and age, gender and organization as control
variables. The other regression with the fulfillment of the organizational obligations as dependent
variable and frequency, number of transformational and impact of organizational change as
independent variables and age, gender and organization as control variables.
The first step of the regression is to add the independent variables for the gross effect in the first
model. The second step is to add the control variables in the second model to compute the net
effect to check for apparent cohesion.
The 4th hypothesis suggested a mediating effect, to test this first joint significance was
checked, this information was given by previous analyses. When there is a joint significance a
Sobel test was computed to test the significance of the mediating effect.
Additional analyses were performed since the variable Fulfillment of organizational
obligations consists of six dimensions (1) Work content, (2) Career development, (3) Social
16
Atmosphere, (4) Organizational Policies, (5)Work life and (6)Rewards. And the variable
Psychological contract consists of two dimensions (1) In-role behavior and (2) Extra-role
behavior. Same statistically analyses were used except now the dimensions are taken into account
when the variable is analyzed as a dependent variable. Secondly, all regressions were conducted
for both organizations separately (Appendix D).
17
Results
Table 1 depicts the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables included
in this study. The linear relationship between the variables is indicated by Pearson’s correlation
and indicates the strength and direction (Pallant, 2005). The applied significance level used in
Table 1 is p <.01 and p < .05. When checking the correlation for the relationship between
organizational change, fulfillment of organizational change and the content of the psychological
contract several relationships were significant. The control variables (Age, Gender, and
Organization) also show significant correlations with transformational change and the fulfillment
of organizational change. Further does impact of change shows a significant correlation with
organization.
Table 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables N=542
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Frequency_OC 4.05 0.64 1 2. Trans._OC 2.83 1.41 .310** 1 3. Impact_OC 3.38 0.91 .101* .113* 1 4. FF employer 3.24 0.56 -.179** -.225** .019 1 5. Content of PC 3.76 0.39 .154** .083 .084 .103* 1 6. Age 39.64 10.32 .047 .201** -.010 -.172** .031 7. Gender 0.64 0.48 .011 .147** .064 -.212** .024 .116** 1 8. Organization 0.64 0.48 .040 .302* .121** -.356* .009 .416** .517** 1 Note: *P<0.05, **P<0.001 Note: Gender, male = 0, female = 1 Note: Organization, Deloitte = 0, Pasana = 1
Hypothesis 1: Organizational change and the content of the psychological contract
From Table 2, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 4,9% of the variance in the
content of the psychological contract. After entry of the control variables age, gender and
organization at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 5,2% , F (7,484) = 3.760, p
< .001. The three control variables explained an additional 0.3% of the variance in the content of
the psychological contract, ∆R2 = .003, F change (3,484) = 0.510, p > .001. In the second and
18
final model only Frequency of Organizational change (β = .159, p < .001) and the fulfillment of
organizational obligations (β = .157, p < .001) were statistically significant.
Hypothesis 1 is divided in three hypotheses as we separated organizational change in
three characteristics, frequency, number of transformational changes and impact. The results for
the regression analyses of hypothesis 1 are shown in Table 2. It was expected for hypothesis 1a
that the frequency of organizational change has a negative effect on the content of the
psychological contract. Therefore hypothesis 1a was not supported as the relation we found was a
positive relation instead of a negative as we would expected (β = .159, p < .001). Hypothesis 1b,
were we expected a negative relationship between the number of transformational changes and
the content of the psychological contract, cannot be supported as the founded relation was not
significant (β = 0.049, p > .05). Hypothesis 1c, were we expected a negative effect of the impact
of organizational change and the content of the psychological contract, cannot be supported as the
relation was not significant (β = 0.057, p > .05). Table 2
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC .094 .155 .001 .096 .159 .001 Trans. OC .017 .060 .013 .049 Impact OC .025 .059 .024 .057 Fulfillment .099 .143 .002 .108 .157 .001 Age .001 .036 Gender .032 .040 Organization .001 .001 R2 .049 .052 F 6.217 .000 3.760 .001 ∆R2 .049 .003 ∆F 6.217 .000 0.510 .676 Dependent variable: Content of the Psychological contract
Hypothesis 2: Organizational change and the fulfillment of organizational obligations
From Table 2, the following can be deduced. Frequency, type, and impact were entered at
Step 1, explaining 6,7% of the variance in the fulfillment of the organizational obligations. After
entry of the control variables age, gender and organization at step 2 the total variance explained
19
by the model was 16,8% , F (6,485) = 16.287, p < .001. The three control variables explained an
additional 10,1% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .101, F
change (3,484) = 19.624, p > .001. In the second and final model Frequency of organizational
change (β = -.147, p < .001), Impact of organizational change (β = ,083 p < .05), control variable
organization (β = -.304, p < .001) were statistically significant. The relationship between the
number of transformational change and the content of the psychological contract (β = -,088
p > .05) is not statistically significant; however it is interesting to look at this relations as the
significant level is exceeded with only 0.07.
Hypothesis 2 is divided in three hypotheses as we separated organizational change in
three characteristic, frequency, number of transformational changes and impact. The results for
the regression analyses of hypothesis 2 are shown in Table 3.
It was expected for hypothesis 2a that the frequency of organizational change has a negative
effect on the fulfillment of organizational obligations. From Table 3, it can be deduced that
hypothesis 2a can be supported as the relationship was a significant negative relationship, (β = -
.147, p < .01). Hypothesis 2b, were we expected a negative relationship between the number of
transformational changes and the fulfillment of the organizational obligations, cannot be
supported as the founded relation was not significant (β = -.088, p > .05). Hypothesis 2c, were we
expected a negative effect of the impact of change and the fulfillment of organizational
obligations, can be supported as it is a significant negative relationship (β = 0.083, p < .05).
Table 3
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.109 -.125 .007 -.129 -.147 .001 Trans. OC -.077 -.192 .000 -.035 -.088 .057 Impact OC .033 .054 .051 .083 .048 Age -.001 -.015 Gender -.052 -.044 Organization -.357 -.304 .000 R2 .067 .168 F 11.619 .000 16.287 .000 ∆R2 .067 .101 ∆F 11.619 .000 19.624 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of the organizational obligations
20
Fulfillment of perceived
organizational obligations
Content of the
psychological contract –
employee obligations
β =.159
β =.157 β =-.147
β =.083
Hypothesis 3: Fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological
contract
In Table 2 the results for the regression analysis for hypothesis 3 are presented. It was
hypothesized that the fulfillment of organizational obligations a positive effect has on the content
of the psychological contract. From Table 2 can be deduced that a significant positive
relationship (β = 0.157, p < .01) was found and thereby confirms hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4: Organizational change on the content of the psychological contract mediated by
the fulfillment of organizational obligations
In Table 2 the statistically significantly are presented for the relationship between the
independent variables frequency of organizational change, number of transformational, impact of
organizational change, and the fulfillment of organizational obligations and the dependent
variable the content of the psychological contract. In Table 3 the effects are presented for the
relationship between the independent variable frequency of organizational change, number of
transformational, and impact of organizational change and the dependent variable the fulfillment
of organizational obligations. In Figure 3 the statically significantly relationships from Table 2
and 3 are stated with the standardized effect.
Figure 3
Frequency of
organizational change
No. of transformational
organizational change
Impact of
organizational change
21
Using the Sobel test we can deduce that, besides the significant direct relations, there is a
significant mediating effect. It was expected for hypothesis 4a that there is a partly mediating
effect between the frequency of organizational change and the content of the psychological
contract through the fulfillment of organizational obligations. From Table 4 it can be deduced
that there is a statistically significant partial mediating effect (β = -.014, p < 0.05) for the relation
for this relationship and thereby confirms hypothesis 4a.
Table 4
Hypothesis 4a
B-Value
-.014
Z-value
Sobel -2.319, p< 0.05
Hypothesis 4b expected that the relation between transformational change and the content
of the psychological contract of the employee obligations is partly mediated by the fulfillment of
organizational obligations. A Sobel test is in this case not necessary because there is no
significant direct effect between the number of transformational change and the fulfillment of
organizational obligations therefore hypothesis 4b cannot be supported.
Hypothesis 4c expected a partial mediating effect for the fulfillment of organizational
obligations on the relation between the number of transformational change and the content of the
psychological contract. From Table 5 it can be deduced that there is no statistically significant
mediating effect founded therefore hypothesis 4c cannot be supported.
Table 5
Hypothesis 4c
B-Value
0.006
Z-value
Sobel 1.669, p>0.05
22
Additional analyses
Additional analyses were done as the fulfillment of organizational obligations can be
divided in six dimensions (1) Work content, (2) Career development, (3) Social Atmosphere, (4)
Organizational Policies, (5)Work life and (6)Rewards. And the content of the psychological
contract can be divided in two dimensions (1) In-role behavior and (2) Extra-role behavior.
Table 6 depicts the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables and there
sub dimensions included in this study. The linear relationship between the variables is indicated
by Pearson’s correlation and indicates the strength and direction (Pallant, 2005). Additional
tables which are discussed in this section are included in Appendix C.
Table 6
Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables and there sub dimensions N=542
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Freq_OC 4.05 0.64 1 2. Trans._OC 2.83 1.41 .310** 1 3. Impact_OC 3.38 0.91 .101* .113* 1 4. FF WC 3.47 0.71 -.111* -.131** .023 1 5. FF CD 3.20 0.87 -.116** -.153** .048 .468** 1 6. FF SA 3.24 0.83 -.192** -.246** .022 .452** .216** 1 7. FF OP 3.12 0.74 -.191** -.253** -.026 .437** .416** .634** 1 8. FF WL 3.45 0.79 -104* -.127** .035 .293** .259** .304** .338** 1 9. FF RW 2.96 0.89 -.046 -.053 -.024 .308** .402** .323** .342** .348** 1 10. Content of PC in-r 4.19 0.41 .200** .143** .041 .013 -.032 -.017 .037 .044 -.022 1 11. Content of PC extra-r 3.2 0.56 .060 .002 .094* .095* .152** .119** .110* .112** .107* .323** 1 12. Age 39.64 10.32 .047 .201** -.010 -.152** -.176** -.216** -.186** -.041 .040 .145** -0.79 1 13. Gender 0.64 0.48 .011 .147** .064 -.060 -.189** -.153** -.142** -.137** -.187** .168** .111* .116** 1 14. Organization 0.64 0.48 .040 .302** .121** -.187** -.298** -.297** -.314** -.178** -.210** .224** -.181** .416** .517** 1 Note: *P<0.05, **P<0.001 Note: Gender, man = 0, female = 1 Note: Organization, Deloitte =0, Pasana = 1
The sub dimensions social atmosphere and organization policies are highly correlated in
the relation with the frequency of organizational change and the number of transformational
change, therefore these dimensions will be taken into account as control variables as they can
indicate a possible apparent cohesion.
23
Hypothesis 1: Organizational change and the content of the psychological contract
The dependent variable of hypothesis 1, the content of the psychological contract, is
divided in two dimensions (1) In-role behavior and (2) Extra-role behavior. The result for the
analysis with in-role behavior as dependent variable are showed is Table 7, the results for the
analysis with extra-role behavior as dependent variable are showed in Table 8.
Additional analyses shows that the relationship between frequency of organizational
change and the content of the psychological contract is mainly influenced by the relation that
organizational change has on the content of the psychological contract for the dimension in-role
behavior (β = .204, p <.001). However the relationship between impact of organizational change
and the content of the psychological contract is mainly influenced by the relation that
organizational change has on the content of the psychological contract for the dimension extra-
role behavior (β = .099, p <.05).
Hypothesis 2: Organizational change and the fulfillment of organizational obligations
The dependent variable for hypothesis 2, the fulfillment of the organizational obligations
is based on six dimensions (1) Work content, (2) Career development, (3) Social Atmosphere, (4)
Organizational Policies, (5)Work life and (6)Rewards. The result for the analysis with work
content as dependent variable are showed is Table 9, career development in Table 10, social
atmosphere in Table 11, organizational policies in Table 12, work life in Table 13, rewards in
Table 14. Additional analyses show that four dimension ((WC: β =-.092, p <.05) (CD: β = -.100,
p <.05) (SA: β = -.149, p <.001) (OP: β = -.143, p <.001) explain a part of the construct of
frequency of organizational change. For the number of transformational change we found
significant results for the dimension career development (β = .095, p <.05). For the number of
transformational change we found significant result for the dimensions social atmosphere (β = -
.122, p <.05) and organizational policies (β = -.122, p <.05).
Considering that there is a high correlation for the dimensions social atmosphere and
organizational policies could indicates a high underlying correlation, with result that the
dimension has a too small unique effect which makes it impossible to analyze this dimension as a
separate variable. It could indicate an indirect effect what eventually influence the credibility of
24
previous analyses. Therefore another set of analyses were computed, this time with two extra
control variable; social atmosphere and organizational policies. No significant results were found.
Hypothesis 3: Fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological
contract
The result for the analysis with in-role behavior as dependent variable are showed is
Table 7, the results for the analysis with extra-role behavior as dependent variable are showed in
Table 8.
Additional analyses shows that there is no strong different between the relationship of the
fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological contract in-role (β
= .125, p <.05) or the content of the psychological contract extra-role (β = .130, p <.05).
Hypothesis 4: Organizational change on the content of the psychological contract mediated by
the fulfillment of organizational obligations
Additional Sobel tests were executed to find more specific mediating effect. The results
for all Sobel tests are included in appendix C. In figure 4 the statically significantly relationships
from Table 8 to 23 are stated with the standardized effect. To make the model more clearly we
left out the relations which were not significant.
Figure 4
β=-.092
β=-.100
β=-.149
β=-.143
β=-.122
β=-.126
β=.095
Frequency of
organizational change
No. of
transformational
organizational change
Impact of
organizational change
FF Work content
FF Career development
FF Social atmosphere
FF Organizational
policies
FF Work life
FF Rewards
CPC
In-role behavior
CPC
Extra-role behavior
β=.125
β=.130
25
Table 23
Frequency of organizational change
Social atmosphere – In-role
B-Value
-0.018
Z-value
Sobel -2.100, p< 0.05
Table 24
Frequency of organizational change
Organizational policies – In-role
B-Value
-0.015
Z-value
Sobel -2.494, p< 0.05
Table 29
Frequency of organizational change
Social atmosphere – Extra-role
B-Value
-0.025
Z-value
Sobel -2.115, p< 0.05
Table 30
Frequency of organizational change
Organizational policies – Extra-role
B-Value
-0.021
Z-value
Sobel -2.077, p< 0.05
Using the Sobel test it can be deduced that, besides the significance direct relations, there
is a mediating effect for the frequency of organizational change and the content of the
psychological contract for both in-role and extra-role behavior, through social atmosphere and
organizational policies.
Finally, we perform the analyses separately per organization considering the divers
characteristics of the organizations. (Appendix D). We found that there were some strong
differences between the two organizations. Deloitte has a culture with mainly male employees
which are highly educated. The average age was also 9 years younger than at Pasana. Pasana was
characterized by mainly female employees with a lower education. From Appendix D we can
deduce that results are strongly different for both organizations what makes it interesting to test
the hypothesis separately by organization.
Discussion
The following research question was examined: To what extent does organizational
change influence the content of the psychological contract of the employees? And is this relation
mediated by the fulfillment of the obligations of the organization? The results show that the
hypotheses were partially confirmed. There is a positive relationship between the fulfillment of
organizational obligations and the content of the psychological contract; this hypothesis can
therefore be confirmed. The mediating effect of the fulfillment of organizational obligations is
partly consistent with the founded literature; the stated hypothesis for frequency of organizational
change can be confirmed. The hypothesis stated for the number of transformational change and
the impact of organizational change cannot be supported. Furthermore, the relationships between
organizational change and the fulfillment of the organizational obligations can partially be
accepted. The hypotheses concerning the relationships between the different characteristics of
organizational change and the content of the psychological contract were not confirmed. Even
though we did find some statically significantly results, they contradict with the loading of the
relationship founded in the theory. However we did not found support for all hypotheses, there
are plausible reasons why these hypotheses were not confirmed. Therefore, the results will be
discussed.
Organizational change
First of all the effect of the frequency of change on the content of the psychological
contract was tested. A positive relation was founded instead of a negative relation as we would
expect. Theory suggests that when organizational change increases, the employee will lower their
obligations towards the employer (Freese, 2007). However, it is also reasonable to believe that in
time of a change, due to the uncertainty, the employee will get more motivated to secure its
occupation, according to Rousseau (1995) the response of an employee during time of change
depends on the personality, structure, and situation. A counterproductive behavior is not likely
but it is possible (Rousseau, 1995) and could explain the positive relation between the frequency
of change and the content of the psychological contract.
25
The relationship between the number of transformational change, impact of change and
the content of the psychological contract was not significant. It seems that they do not lead to a
direct change in the content of the psychological contract. This is remarkable considering
frequency has an effect, it is reasonable to believe that when a change occurs it is attended with a
certain impact and can also be characterized as a certain type. These inconclusive results are an
indication for further examination of the concept of organizational change and the division of the
three characteristics. Possible explanation is that the frequency is easier and more objective to
measure than impact or type. As an organizational change can be complex and consistent of
different assets of change what makes it difficult for the employee to assess the impact and type
of the change itself.
Partial confirmation on the relationship between organizational change and the fulfillment of
organizational obligations was found. A negative relationship was expected which was founded
for frequency of change and number of transformational change. However, the relationship
between the number of transformational change and the fulfillment of organizational obligations
was not significant, it is reasonable to believe that this relation nevertheless does exist. The
significantly level is just (p = .057) exceeding the critical region; the narrow sample size could be
influencing this relation. A significant result can be expected when we increase the sample size.
Furthermore, a possible apparent cohesion was founded from organization on the relationship
between the number of transformational change and the fulfillment of organizational obligations,
which makes the causal relationship questionable. Freese (1997) discusses the fact that some
people perceive certain events as an organizational change and are affected by them, while other
experience these events as organizational life as normal. This could also be an explanation for the
results as it is reasonable to believe that Deloitte is less affected by change due to the strong
competitive market they operate in where an event in de change process is more likely to be
experienced as organizational life then the same event at Pasana. Considering Pasana is operating
in a more stable market where a change can be considered more rapidly as a threat. To confirm
this assumption we did additional analyses where we split the file for the organization (Appendix
D). In this case no significant results were found which implies that the sample size which is
remnant is not sufficient to measure the effects.. A larger sample which also consists of a higher
number of organizations and respondents could give us more inside in this relation. This
26
indication makes the relationship between the number of transformational change and fulfillment
of organizational obligations interesting for further examination.
The relationship between the frequency of change and the fulfillment of organizational
obligations confirms theory (Freese & Schalk, 1997; Pate et al., 2000; Turnley & Feldman), when
the frequency of change increases, the perceived fulfillment of organization obligations of the
employee will decrease.
The results for the relation between the impact of organizational change and the
fulfillment of organizational obligations were significant. However, it was not consistent with the
hypothesis. A negative relation was expected instead a positive relation was found. It is
reasonable to believe that when the impact of an organizational change is strong, employees will
understand the situation and see it as reasonable that the organization cannot fulfill all their
obligations. Due to the understanding of the employee this will not immediately lead to a
negative effect on their perception of fulfillment of organizational obligations. This theory is
supported by Rousseau (1995) which explains that every employee response different when a
violation of obligations occur. One of the responses is neglect/destruction a counterproductive
behavior is then expected, which could explain the founded positive relation.
Fulfillment of organizational obligations
Existing literature argues that when the employer breach or modify their obligations, it
will influence the role of the employee and thereby the content of the psychological contract
(Freese & Schalk, 2007). A withdrawing of willingness to put in extra effort for the organization
is expected (Herriot et al., 1997). In the first place we should be cautious for reverse causality.
Theory indicates a certain direction in the relation. However, it is reasonable to believe that when
the employee is not willing to put in extra effort for the organization, the organization will in turn
change its obligations towards the employee. With this in mind we discuss the results. The results
founded a positive relationship between the fulfillment of the organizational obligations and the
content of the psychological contract; the hypothesis can be confirmed. Secondly, the relation
organizational changes and the content of the psychological contract mediated by fulfillment of
organizational obligations was analyzed (Guest, 2004; Pate et al., 2000; Hall & Moss, 1998;
Schalk & Freese, 2000;). Results revealed that the relation frequency of organizational change
and the content of the psychological contract is mediated by fulfillment of organizational
27
obligations. For the other two characteristics, number of transformational changes and impact,
the result showed no mediation. For number of transformational change this is in line with our
expectations since the relation between number of transformational change and the mediator was
previously not confirmed. Therefore a mediating effect was in advance unfeasible.
For impact a plausible explanation lies in the relation between impact and fulfillment of
organizational obligations, the found relations were weak which makes the mediating effect even
weaker. Increasing the sample size could influence this relationship and give a possible
significant result. Or as earlier discussed an explanation for this result is the theory of Rousseau
(1995) about counterproductive behavior of the employee.
Additional analyses
Additional analyses showed relations on a disaggregated level. We were able to get more
information about the underlying relations. It showed that there is distinction between the
characteristics of organization change and the effect on the content of the psychological contract.
Frequency of organizational change had only a significant effect on the dimension in-role of the
content of the psychological contract where impact of organizational change only on extra-role
behavior. As regards the relation of fulfillment on the two dimensions of the content of the
psychological contract we did not find remarkable results, both were influenced by the fulfillment
of organizational obligations.
Noteworthy result was found in the mediating relation of the fulfillment of organizational
obligations. This showed that the mediating effect in the aggregative model is declared by the
dimensions social atmosphere and organizational policies. This effect is significant for both in-
role as extra-role behavior. Considering that organization as a control variable had a strong
influence on the result, it is reasonable to believe that the environment or culture has a strong
influence on how employees perceive the organizational change. However secondary analyses
where we controlled the effect of those two dimensions showed no significantly results anymore.
This could indicate that the unique effect of the dimensions is too small to test for, at least for this
sample size.
28
Limitations
This study is not without limitations. First of all, the sample is small and the data is
collected at just two organizations, two organizations with strongly divers’ characteristics which
limit the power of statistical tests. Drawing conclusions about the population from which the data
is sampled is for that reason very limited. Another consequence is that organization had an
apparent cohesion on some of the relationships and thereby influences the significant results in
this sample. Furthermore, we were primarily interested in the perspective of the employee on the
change process and their employment relationship. However it is preferable to use not only the
perception of the employee but also from the employer. The employer as a representative for the
organization, in order to obtain objective data, concerning the frequency of organizational change,
the number of transformational change and what the organization offers the employee. However,
it is questionable if you can use employer as representative of the organization, considering the
employer does also bring a subjective perspective to the table.
Another shortcoming of this study is a possible reverse causality; literature confirmed an
effect from fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological contract
(Bellou, 2007; Freese, 2007). However it is interesting to study the relation where the content of
the psychological contract precede the fulfillment of organizational obligations. For it is
reasonable to believe that when the employee is not willing to put in extra effort for the
organization, the organization will change what they offer.
In this study one of the focuses is on the different characteristics of organization change
and what eventually has the strongest effect on the content of the psychological contract.
Eventually we found the strongest effects from the frequency of organizational change. However,
this could also be a result of the way impact is tested; measured by a single question. Considering
this is a subjective construct it is preferable to measure this construct with several underlying
questions.
29
Future research
In our research we found evidence that organizational change has a negative effect on the
fulfillment of organization obligations. Though we found little effect, this can be explained by
several causes discussed in the discussion. More research on this topic is necessary to strengthen
the found results. This could be established through several adjustments. More organizations
should be admitted to the sample and the scale to test the impact of the organizational change
should be elaborated. Furthermore we divided organizational change in three characteristics,
frequency, number of transformational change and impact in our research. Results showed strong
effect for only frequency. It is reasonable to believe that when changes occur it is attended with a
certain impact and can also be characterizing with a certain type. It is interesting to further
examine this relation since it is plausible that some organizational changes processes have a
stronger influence on the content of the psychological contract and fulfillment of organization
obligations than others.
Implications
Next to the limitations and suggestions for future research, there are some practical
implications as well. Due to the additional analyses it became clear that the social atmosphere
and organizational policies had a strong mediating effect on the relation frequency of change and
the content of the psychological contract. It is first not realistic to give a practical implication
based on this research. Although, it does give an indication of at what point the organizations
should invest, in order to keep the employee willingly to put in extra effort for the organization.
Even though they perceived an organizational change which is applicable for them. Secondly, it
became clear that the organization itself had a strong influence and it is reasonable that social
atmosphere and organizational policies is organization related. This makes it difficult to give a
general implication. The best way to act is to analyze the organization culture and to get clear
what is important for the employees and in time of organizational change anticipate on the
priorities of the employee in order to keep the negative effect of the change as small as possible.
30
Conclusion
The relation between organizational change and the content of the psychological contract
has been examined; gradually the influence of organizational change on the content of the
psychological contract becomes more transparent. In this study we focused on the different
characteristics of organizational change and what could be a possible mediating effect in this
change process. According to this study the characteristic frequency of organizational change has
the strongest effect on as well the content of the psychological contract as the fulfillment of
organizational obligations and the mediating effect of fulfillment of organizational obligations.
Additional analyses though show that the mediating effect is clarified by underlying dimensions,
social atmosphere and organizational policies. Revealing this relationship needs more research in
the future. At last, this study can be perceived as an attribution in clarifying of organization
change process and its effect on the content of the psychological contract.
31
References
Anderson, N. & Schalk, R. (1998) The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect
(editorial). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 637-647.
Bellou, V. (2007). Psychological contract assessment after a major organizational change: The
case of mergers and acquisitions. Employee Relations, 29 (1), 68-88.
Boselie, P. (2010) Strategic human resource management: a balanced approach, p. 86-87.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education: Berkshire
Bouchkenooghe, D., Devos., G., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational changes
questionnaire-climate of changes, processes and readiness: Development of a new
instrument. The Journal of Psychology, 143 (6), 559-599.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82 (5), 812-
820.
Freese, C., Schalk, R., & Croon, M. (2008) De Tilburgse Psychologisch Contract Vragenlijst.
Gedrag en Organisatie, 21 (3),278-294.
Freese (2007) Organizational change and the dynamics of psychological contract: A longitudinal
study. Ridderprint Offsetdrukkerij: Ridderkerk.
Guest, D. (2004) The psychology of the employment relationship: an analysis based on the
psychological contract. Applied Psychology, 53, 541-555.
Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. (1998). The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and
employees adapt. Organizational dynamics, 26, 22-37.
Herriot, P., Manning, W.E.G. & Kidd, J.M. (1997) The content of the psychological contract.
British journal of management, 8, 151-162
Hiltrop, J (1995). The changing psychological contract: The human resource challenge of the
1990s. European Management Journal, 13, 286-294
Hogstedt, C. Eriksson & T. Theorell. Health effects of the new labor market, p. 129-143. Kluwer
Academic: New York
Hui, C., Rousseau, D.M., Lee, C. (2004) Psychological contract and organization citizenship
behavior in Chine: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied
32
Psychology, 89, 311-321.
Kickul, Lester & Finkel (2002) Promise breaking during radical organizational change: do
justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 469-488.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
Windows (version 12). Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Pate, J., Martin, G. & Staines, H. (2000). Exploring the relationship between psychological
contracts and organizational change: a process model and case study evidence. Strategic
Change, 8, 481-493.
Rafferty, A.E., & Griffin, MA. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress coping
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5), 1154-1162.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990). New hire perspectives of their own and their employer’s obligations: A
study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11 (5), 679-400.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995) Psychological contract in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rousseau, D.M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues,
alternatives and types of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19 (0), 679-695.
Saunders, M.N.K., & Thronhill, A. (2003) Organisational justice, trust and management of
change: An exploration. Personnel review, 32, 360-375.
Schalk, R. & Freese, C. (2000) The impact of organizational changes on the psychological
contract and attitudes towards work in four health care organizations. In: Isaksson,
Sluss, D.M., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J.J. (2008). Perceived organizational support as a
mediator between relational exchange and orga nizatiorial identification. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 73 (3), 457-464.
Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate
restructuring. Human Resources Management, 37(1), 71-83.
Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (1999). A discrepancy model of psychological contract
violations. Human Resource Management Review, 9 (3), 367—386
Turnley, W. H. & Feldman, 0. C. (2000). Reexaming the effects of psychological contract
violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21 (1), 25-42.
33
Appendix A - Questionnaire Appendix A- I - Control variables
151 What is your gender?
152 What is your age (in years)?
164 What is the name of your organization?
Appendix A- II - Frequency of change
1 Change frequently occurs in my organization
Appendix A-III – Type of change
5
Please choose the three most important changes that you were you confronted with during the last two years.
Change in leadership (Accomodative)
Change in technology (Accomodative)
Change in organizational policies (Accomodative)
Change in plant, machinery or equipment (Accomodative)
Change in the strategy and or mission of the organization (Transformative)
Change in structure (Transformative)
Downsizing (Transformative)
Changes in work design and tasks ( Accomodative)
Cost cutting (Transformative)
Change in organizational culture (Transformative)
Correlations
consequences altered FREQ_Scale change1 change2 change3 change4 change5 change6 change7 change8 change9 change10
consequences Pearson Correlation 1 ,367** ,101* ,042 ,069 -,037 ,117** ,054 ,112* ,047 -,052 ,103* ,020
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,025 ,352 ,123 ,414 ,009 ,232 ,012 ,299 ,250 ,021 ,654
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
altered Pearson Correlation ,367** 1 ,143** ,141** ,066 -,008 ,205** ,082 -,006 ,068 ,004 ,009 ,011
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,001 ,002 ,145 ,851 ,000 ,069 ,885 ,131 ,932 ,834 ,800
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
FREQ_Scale Pearson Correlation ,101* ,143** 1 ,065 ,120** ,087 ,179** ,171** ,183** ,241** ,097* ,198** ,128**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,025 ,001 ,150 ,007 ,053 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,032 ,000 ,004
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change1 Pearson Correlation ,042 ,141** ,065 1 ,289** ,208** ,183** ,181** ,064 ,131** ,244** ,157** ,167**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,352 ,002 ,150 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,154 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change2 Pearson Correlation ,069 ,066 ,120** ,289** 1 ,104* ,258** ,211** ,133** ,114* ,162** ,215** ,120**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,123 ,145 ,007 ,000 ,020 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,011 ,000 ,000 ,008
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change3 Pearson Correlation -,037 -,008 ,087 ,208** ,104* 1 ,077 ,136** ,066 ,047 ,140** ,170** ,062
Sig. (2-tailed) ,414 ,851 ,053 ,000 ,020 ,085 ,002 ,142 ,295 ,002 ,000 ,165
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change4 Pearson Correlation ,117** ,205** ,179** ,183** ,258** ,077 1 ,262** ,112* ,210** ,099* ,132** ,169**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,009 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,085 ,000 ,013 ,000 ,028 ,003 ,000
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change5 Pearson Correlation ,054 ,082 ,171** ,181** ,211** ,136** ,262** 1 ,154** ,212** ,172** ,232** ,153**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,232 ,069 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change6 Pearson Correlation ,112* -,006 ,183** ,064 ,133** ,066 ,112* ,154** 1 ,174** ,100* ,160** ,104*
Sig. (2-tailed) ,012 ,885 ,000 ,154 ,003 ,142 ,013 ,001 ,000 ,026 ,000 ,020
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change7 Pearson Correlation ,047 ,068 ,241** ,131** ,114* ,047 ,210** ,212** ,174** 1 ,182** ,176** ,264**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,299 ,131 ,000 ,004 ,011 ,295 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change8 Pearson Correlation -,052 ,004 ,097* ,244** ,162** ,140** ,099* ,172** ,100* ,182** 1 ,182** ,141**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,250 ,932 ,032 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,028 ,000 ,026 ,000 ,000 ,002
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change9 Pearson Correlation ,103* ,009 ,198** ,157** ,215** ,170** ,132** ,232** ,160** ,176** ,182** 1 ,270**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,021 ,834 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
change10 Pearson Correlation ,020 ,011 ,128** ,167** ,120** ,062 ,169** ,153** ,104* ,264** ,141** ,270** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,654 ,800 ,004 ,000 ,008 ,165 ,000 ,001 ,020 ,000 ,002 ,000
N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Appendix A- IV - Impact of change
8 The change(s) have(had) important consequences for my future at this organization.
9 The change(s) altered my way of doing things.
Appendix A-V – Fulfillment of organizational obligations (employer)
In the employment relationship you have expectations about what your employer will offer. To what extent is your employer obliged to offer you the following?
Work content
71 Variation in your work
72 Challenging work
73 Balanced workload
74 Interesting work
75 Autonomy
76 The opportunity to deliver quality goods/services
77 To what extent did your employer fulfill previous obligations?
78 How important are these previous obligations for you?
Career
development
79 Career opportunities
80 Training and education
81 Coaching on the job
82 Professional development opportunities
83 Learning on the job
84 Opportunity to fully utilize knowledge and skills
85 To what extent did your employer fulfill previous obligations?
86 How important are these previous obligations for you?
Social
atmosphere 87 Good working atmosphere
88 Opportunity to pleasantly cooperate with colleagues
89 Support from colleagues.
90 Appreciation and recognition
91 Support from supervisor
92 To what extent did your employer fulfill previous obligations?
93 How important are these previous obligations for you?
25
Organizational
policies 94 Participation in important decisions
95 A fair supervisor
96 Feedback on performance
97 Clear and fair rueles and regulations
98 Keeping you informed of developments
99 Open communication.
100 Ethical policy towards society and environment
101 Being able to have confidence in the organization
102 To what extent did your employer fulfill previous obligations?
103 How important are these previous obligations for you?
Work life
104 Acknowledgement of personal circumstances
105 Opportunity to schedule your own holidays
106 Working at home
107 Adjust working hours to private life
108 To what extent did your employer fulfill previous obligations?
109 How important are these previous obligations for you?
Rewards
110 Job security
111 Appropriate salary
112 Rewards for exceptional performance
113 Reimbursement of training costs
114 Good benefits package
115 Pay for performance
116 To what extent did your employer fulfill previous obligations?
117 How important are these previous obligations for you?
26
Appendix A-VI – Content of the psychological contract (employee)
In the employment relationship you have opinions on what you should offer the organization. To what extent do you feel obliged to offer your organization the following?
Obligations of the employee, in role obligations
125 Good cooperation.
126 Helping colleagues.
127 Provide good service to customers
128 Performing well on tasks you do not like to do
129 Working with integrity
130 Carrying out your work with dedication
131 Being cost-conscious when dealing with organizational properties
132 Dealing with private mather at home
133 Complying with organizational rules and regulations
134 Protect the organization's image
135 Contributing to a pleasant work atmosphere
136 To what extent did you fulfill previous obligations?
137 How important are these obligations for your own and the organization's performance?
Obligations of the employee, extra role obligations
138 Keeping Knowledge and skills up to date to be able to deal with changing requirements
139 Participating in trainin outside working hours that is important to do your job properly
140 Making suggestion for improvement
141 Volunteering to do additional tasks
142 Working overtime if that is necessary to get the job done
143 Working weekends
144 Participation in training to enhance employability
145 Willingness to work in different positions
146 The flexibility to change positions
147 Willingness to work in another region
148 Stary with the organization for several years
149 To what extent did you fulfill previous obligations?
150 How important are these obligations for your own and the organization's performance?
27
Appendix B – Factor analyses
28
29
30
Appendix C – Additional analyses
From table 7, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 4,9% of the variance in the
content of the psychological contract, in-role behavior. After entry of the control variables age,
gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 10.8% , F (9,482) = 8.334, p
< .001. The five control variables explained an additional 5.8% of the variance in the content of
the psychological contract, ∆R2 = .058, F change (5,482) = 10.575, p < .001. In the second and
final model only Frequency of Organizational change (β = .204, p < .001), Fulfillment (β = .125,
p < .05), and the control variable organization (β = .179, p < .05) were statistically significant.
Table 7
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β P B β P Frequency OC .113 .177 .000 .130 .204 .000 Trans. OC .028 .096 .044 .008 .029 Impact OC .005 .011 -.005 -.012 Fulfillment .029 .040 .091 .125 .008 Age .003 .066 Gender .076 .089 Organization .153 .179 .002 R2 0.049 0.108 F 6.282 .000 8.334 .000 ∆R2 0.049 0.058 ∆F 6.282 .000 10.575 .000 Dependent variable: Content of the Psychological contract, In-role behavior
31
From table 8, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 4,3% of the variance in the
content of the psychological contract, extra-role behavior. After entry of the control variables age,
gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 6.5% , F (9,482) = 4.824, p < .001.
The five control variables explained an additional 2.2% of the variance in the content of the
psychological contract, ∆R2 = .022, F change (5,482) = 3.754, p < .05. In the second and final
model only Impact of Organizational change (β = .099, p < .05), fulfillment (β = .130, p < .05),
and the control variable organization (β = -.154, p < .05) were statistically significant.
Table 8
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β P B β P Frequency OC .072 .082 .057 .065 Trans. OC .003 .008 .020 .049 Impact OC .050 .081 .061 .099 .028 Fulfillment .183 .183 .000 .130 .130 .007 Age .000 -.002 Gender -.020 -.017 Organization -.181 -.154 .010 R2 0.043 0.065 F 5.533 .000 4.824 .000 ∆R2 0.043 0.022 ∆F 5.533 .000 3.754 0.011 Dependent variable: Content of the Psychological contract, Extra-role behavior
32
From table 9, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 2,5% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, work content. After entry of the control variables age,
gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 5.8% , F (8,483) = 4.943, p < .001.
The five control variables explained an additional 3.3% of the variance in the fulfillment of
organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .033, F change (5,483) = 5.663, p < .05. In the second and final
model only frequency of change (β = -.092, p < .05) and organization (β = -.164, p < .05) were
statistically significant.
Table 9
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.090 -.081 -.101 -.092 .050 Trans. OC -.055 -.111 .019 -.025 -.050 Impact OC .034 .044 .043 .055 Age -.005 -.074 Gender .055 .038 Organization -.241 -.164 .005 R2 0.025 0.058 F 4.105 .007 4.943 .000 ∆R2 0.025 0.033 ∆F 4.105 .007 5.663 .001 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Work content
From table 10, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 3,4% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, career development. After entry of the control variables
age, gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 11.5% , F (8,483) = 10.474, p
< .001. The five control variables explained an additional 8.1% of the variance in the fulfillment
of organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .081, F change (5,483) = 14.819, p < .001. In the second and
final model only the frequency of organizational change (β = -.100 p < .05), the impact of
organizational change (β = .095, p < .05) and organization (β = -.214 p < .001) were statistically
significant.
33
Table 10
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.109 -.081 -.135 -.100 .027 Trans. OC -.084 -.136 .004 .025 -.040 Impact OC 0.68 .071 .090 .095 .030 Age -.005 -.056 Gender -.103 -.057 Organization -.436 -.214 .000 R2 0.034 0.115 F 5.650 .001 10.474 .000 ∆R2 0.034 0.081 ∆F 5.650 .001 14.819 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Career development
From table 11, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 7,9% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, social atmosphere. After entry of the control variables
age, gender, organization, and the fulfillment of organizational policies at step 2 the total variance
explained by the model was 14.7% , F (7,484) = 8.327, p < .001. The four control variables
explained an additional 6.8% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational obligations, ∆R2
= .068, F change (4,484) = 12.886, p < .001. In the second and final model only the frequency of
organizational change (β = -.149 p < .001), the number of transformational organizational change
(β = .-.122, p < .05) and organization (β = -.217 p < .001) were statistically significant.
Table 11
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.172 -.133 .004 -.193 -.149 .001 Trans. OC -.125 -.211 .000 -.072 -.122 .009 Impact OC .054 .059 .070 .077 Age -.007 -.092 .051 Gender -.026 -.015 Organization -.377 -.217 .000 R2 0.079 0.147 F 13.887 .000 8.327 .000 ∆R2 0.079 0.068 ∆F 13.887 .000 12.886 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Social atmosphere
34
From table 12, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 7,8% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, organizational policies. After entry of the control
variables age, gender, organization, and the fulfillment of social atmosphere at step 2 the total
variance explained by the model was 14.7% , F (7,484) = 13.941, p < .001. The four control
variables explained an additional 6.9% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational
obligations, ∆R2 = .35, F change (4,484) = 13.109, p < .001. In the second and final model the
frequency of organizational change (β = -.143 p < .001), the number of transformational
organizational change (β = .-.126, p < .05) and organization (β = -.264 p < .001) were statistically
significant.
Table 12
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p Frequency OC -.145 -.125 .006 -.165 -.143 .001 Trans. OC -.113 -.215 .000 .066 -.126 .007 Impact OC .009 .011 .027 .033 Age -.003 -.046 Gender .027 .018 Organization -.409 -.264 .000 R2 0.078 0.147 F 13.750 .000 13.941 .000 ∆R2 0.078 0.69 ∆F 13.750 .000 13.109 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Organizational policies
From table 13, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 2,4% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, career development. After entry of the control variables
age, gender, organization, fulfillment of social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 5.3% , F (8,483) = 3.938, p < .001.
The five control variables explained an additional 2.9% of the variance in the fulfillment of
organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .029, F change (5,483) = 5.011, p < .05. In the second and final
model only the control variables organization (β = .154, p < .001) is statistically significant.
35
Table 13
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.093 -.076 -.107 -.088 .061 Trans. OC -.061 -.109 .021 .035 -.062 Impact OC .047 .055 .063 .073 Age .004 .047 Gender -.094 -.058 Organization -.253 -.154 .009 R2 0.024 .053 F 3.938 .009 3.938 .000 ∆R2 0.024 .029 ∆F 3.938 .009 5.011 .002 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Work life
From table 14, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 0,4% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, career development. After entry of the control variables
age, gender, organization, fulfillment of social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 7.1% , F (8,483) = 6.221, p < .001.
The five control variables explained an additional 6.7% of the variance in the fulfillment of
organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .067, F change (5,483) = 11.739, p < .001. In the second and
final model the control variables age (β = ,146 p < .05) and organization (β = -.228 p < .001)
were statistically significant. Table 14
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β P
Frequency OC -0.43 -.031 -0.65 -.047 Trans. OC -.026 -.042 .008 .012 Impact OC -.016 -.016 .014 .014 Age .012 .146 .003 Gender -.162 -.088 Organization -.421 -.228 .000 R2 0.004 0.071 F 0.659 .577 6.221 .000 ∆R2 0.004 0.067 ∆F 0.659 .577 11.739 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Rewards
36
From table 15, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 2,5% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, work content. After entry of the control variables age,
gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 24.6% , F (8,483) = 19.714, p
< .001. The five control variables explained an additional 22.2% of the variance in the fulfillment
of organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .22, F change (5,483) = 28.389, p < .001. In the second and
final model only the control variables the fulfillment of Social atmosphere (β = .283, p < .001)
and the fulfillment of organizational policies (β = .247, p < .001) were statistically significant. Table 15
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.090 -.081 -.016 -.014 Trans. OC -.055 -.111 .019 .008 .015 Impact OC .034 .044 .020 .025 Age -.003 -.037 Gender .055 .038 Organization -.055 -.037 FF SA .240 .283 .000 FF OP .236 .247 .000 R2 0.025 0.246 F 4.105 .007 19.714 .000 ∆R2 0.025 0.222 ∆F 4.105 .007 28.389 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Work content
From table 16, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 3,4% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, career development. After entry of the control variables
age, gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 30.4% , F (8,483) = 26.424, p
< .001. The five control variables explained an additional 27.1% of the variance in the fulfillment
of organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .27, F change (5,483) = 37.616, p < .001. In the second and
final model only the control variables the fulfillment of Social atmosphere (β = ,391 p < .001),
37
the fulfillment of organizational policies (β = .122, p < .05) and organization (β = -.124 p < .05)
were statistically significant.
Table 16
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.109 -.081 -.033 -.024 Trans. OC -.084 -.136 .004 .014 .023 Impact OC 0.68 .071 .058 .061 Age -.001 -.014 Gender -.096 -.053 Organization -.224 -.124 .017 FF SA .407 .391 .000 FF OP .143 .122 .015 R2 0.034 0.304 F 5.650 .001 26.424 .000 ∆R2 0.034 0.271 ∆F 5.650 .001 37.616 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Career development
From table 17, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 7,9% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, social atmosphere. After entry of the control variables
age, gender, organization, and the fulfillment of organizational policies at step 2 the total variance
explained by the model was 42.7% , F (7,484) = 51.531, p < .001. The four control variables
explained an additional 34.8% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational obligations,
∆R2 = .35, F change (4,484) = 73.570, p < .001. In the second and final model only the control
variable the fulfillment of organizational policies (β = .573, p < .05) is statistically significant.
38
Table 17 Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.172 -.133 .004 -.087 -.067 .068 Trans. OC -.125 -.211 .000 -.029 -.050 Impact OC .054 .059 .053 .058 Age -.005 -.065 Gender -.044 -.025 Organization -.144 -.066 FF OP .644 .573 .000 R2 0.079 0.427 F 13.887 .000 51.531 .000 ∆R2 0.079 0.348 ∆F 13.887 .000 73.570 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Social atmosphere
From table 18, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 7,8% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, organizational policies. After entry of the control
variables age, gender, organization, and the fulfillment of social atmosphere at step 2 the total
variance explained by the model was 42.7%, F (7,484) = 51.592, p < .001. The four control
variables explained an additional 34.9% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational
obligations, ∆R2 = .35, F change (4,484) = 73.818, p < .001. In the second and final model only
the control variables the fulfillment of social atmosphere (β = ,573 p < .001) and organization (β
= -.140, p < .05) is statistically significant.
39
Table 18
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.145 -.125 .006 -.066 -.057 Trans. OC -.113 -.215 .000 -.029 -.056 Impact OC .009 .011 -.009 -.011 Age .000 .007 Gender .041 .026 Organization -.216 -.140 .003 FF SA .510 .573 .000 R2 0.078 0.427 F 13.750 .000 51.592 .000 ∆R2 0.078 0.349 ∆F 13.750 .000 73.818 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Organizational policies
From table 19, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 2,4% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, career development. After entry of the control variables
age, gender, organization, fulfillment of social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 14.2% , F (8,483) = 10.017, p
< .001. The five control variables explained an additional 11.9% of the variance in the fulfillment
of organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .12, F change (5,483) = 13.366, p < .001. In the second and
final model only the control variables the fulfillment of Social atmosphere (β = ,135 p < .05) and
the fulfillment of organizational policies (β = .226, p < .001) were statistically significant.
40
Table 19
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -.093 -.076 -.043 -.035 Trans. OC -.061 -.109 .021 -.010 -.017 Impact OC .047 .055 .048 .055 Age .005 .070 Gender -.098 -.060 Organization -.106 -.065 FF SA .128 .135 .015 FF OP .240 .226 .000 R2 0.024 0.142 F 3.938 .009 10.017 .000 ∆R2 0.024 0.119 ∆F 3.938 .009 13.366 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Work life
From table 20, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational
change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 0,4% of the variance in the
fulfillment of organizational obligations, career development. After entry of the control variables
age, gender, organization, fulfillment of social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational
policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 18.3% , F (8,483) = 13.524, p
< .001. The five control variables explained an additional 17.9% of the variance in the fulfillment
of organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .18, F change (5,483) = 21.161, p < .001. In the second and
final model only the control variables age (β = ,173 p < .001), Organization (β = -.103 p < .05),
the fulfillment of Social atmosphere (β = ,187 p < .05) and the fulfillment of organizational
policies (β = .220, p < .001) were statistically significant.
41
Table 20
Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change
Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p
Frequency OC -0.43 -.031 .016 .012 Trans. OC -.026 -.042 .039 .063 Impact OC -.016 -.016 -.007 -.008 Age .015 .173 .000 Gender -.164 -.089 Organization -.239 -.130 .021 FF SA .199 .187 .001 FF OP .263 .220 .000 R2 0.004 0.183 F 0.659 .577 13.524 .000 ∆R2 0.004 0.179 ∆F 0.659 .577 21.161 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Rewards
42
Table 21
Frequency of organizational change
Work content – In- role
B-Value -.0.009 Z-value Sobel -1.592, p< 0.05
Table 22
Frequency of organizational change
Career development – In-role
B-Value -0.012 Z-value Sobel -1.706, p< 0.05
Table 23
Frequency of organizational change
Social atmosphere – In-role
B-Value -0.018 Z-value Sobel -2.100, p< 0.05
Table 24
Frequency of organizational change
Organizational policies – In-role
B-Value -0.015 Z-value Sobel -2.494, p< 0.05 Table 25
Number of transformational change
Social atmosphere– In –role
B-Value -0.007 Z-value Sobel -1.889, p< 0.05
Table 25
Number of transformational change
Organizational policies – In –role
B-Value 0.006 Z-value Sobel 1.918, p< 0.05 Table 26
Impact of organizational change
Career development – In –role
B-Value 0.008 Z-value Sobel 1.697, p< 0.05
Table 27
Frequency of organizational change
Work content – Extra- role
B-Value -.0.013 Z-value Sobel -1.599, p< 0.05
Table 28
Frequency of organizational change
Career development – Extra-role
B-Value -0.018 Z-value Sobel -1.714, p< 0.05
Table 29
Frequency of organizational change
Social atmosphere – Extra-role
B-Value -0.025 Z-value Sobel -2.115, p< 0.05
43
Table 30
Frequency of organizational change
Organizational policies – Extra-role
B-Value -0.021 Z-value Sobel -2.077, p< 0.05 Table 31
Number of transformational change
Social atmosphere– Extra –role
B-Value -0.009 Z-value Sobel -1.900, p< 0.05
Table 32
Number of transformational change
Organizational policies – In –role B-Value 0.009 Z-value Sobel 1.930, p< 0.05
Table 26
Impact of organizational change
Career development – In –role
B-Value 0.012 Z-value Sobel 1.904, p< 0.05
44
Appendix D – Split file
Model Summarye
Case source is
M:\02_Master_Semester_
2\Questionnaire\05_Mergr
ed data
new\lijst1443_1444_14.7.1
1.sav Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
0 1 ,110a ,012 -,006 ,44565 ,012 ,665 3 162 ,575
2 ,123b ,015 -,016 ,44777 ,003 ,235 2 160 ,791
1 1 ,302c ,091 ,083 ,54413 ,091 10,755 3 322 ,000
2 ,305d ,093 ,079 ,54533 ,002 ,293 2 320 ,746
a. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Freq_oc, Type_oc
b. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Freq_oc, Type_oc, Gender_new, Age
c. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Type_oc, Freq_oc
d. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Type_oc, Freq_oc, Gender_new, Age
e. Dependent Variable: FF_total
45
ANOVAe
Case source is
M:\02_Master_Semester_2\Ques
tionnaire\05_Mergred data
new\lijst1443_1444_14.7.11.sav Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
0 1 Regression ,396 3 ,132 ,665 ,575a
Residual 32,174 162 ,199
Total 32,570 165
2 Regression ,490 5 ,098 ,489 ,784b
Residual 32,080 160 ,200
Total 32,570 165 1 1 Regression 9,553 3 3,184 10,755 ,000
c
Residual 95,336 322 ,296
Total 104,888 325
2 Regression 9,727 5 1,945 6,542 ,000d
Residual 95,162 320 ,297
Total 104,888 325
a. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Freq_oc, Type_oc
b. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Freq_oc, Type_oc, Gender_new, Age
c. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Type_oc, Freq_oc
d. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Type_oc, Freq_oc, Gender_new, Age
e. Dependent Variable: FF_total
Coefficientsa
46
Case source is
M:\02_Master_Sem
ester_2\Questionnai
re\05_Mergred data
new\lijst1443_1444
_14.7.11.sav Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardize
d
Coefficients
t Sig.
Correlations
Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta
Zero-
order Partial Part
Toleranc
e VIF
0 1 (Constant) 3,354 ,246 13,613 ,000
Freq_oc ,048 ,057 ,071 ,856 ,394 ,034 ,067 ,067 ,887 1,127
Type_oc -,035 ,026 -,113 -1,341 ,182 -,085 -,105 -,105 ,860 1,163
consequenc
es
,011 ,038 ,024 ,302 ,763 ,007 ,024 ,024 ,967 1,034
2 (Constant) 3,431 ,297 11,553 ,000
Freq_oc ,046 ,057 ,067 ,802 ,424 ,034 ,063 ,063 ,881 1,135
Type_oc -,032 ,026 -,104 -1,200 ,232 -,085 -,094 -,094 ,827 1,209
consequenc
es
,011 ,038 ,022 ,276 ,783 ,007 ,022 ,022 ,961 1,040
Age -,002 ,005 -,028 -,353 ,725 -,041 -,028 -,028 ,958 1,043
Gender_new -,047 ,076 -,049 -,616 ,539 -,055 -,049 -,048 ,984 1,017
1 1 (Constant) 3,836 ,217 17,692 ,000
Freq_oc -,230 ,050 -,259 -4,609 ,000 -,263 -,249 -,245 ,896 1,116
Type_oc -,030 ,024 -,069 -1,247 ,213 -,144 -,069 -,066 ,910 1,099
consequenc
es
,083 ,034 ,132 2,459 ,014 ,098 ,136 ,131 ,985 1,016
2 (Constant) 3,882 ,267 14,513 ,000
Freq_oc -,230 ,050 -,259 -4,593 ,000 -,263 -,249 -,245 ,894 1,119
Type_oc -,032 ,025 -,072 -1,289 ,198 -,144 -,072 -,069 ,905 1,105
47
consequenc
es
,085 ,034 ,133 2,466 ,014 ,098 ,137 ,131 ,968 1,033
Age 8,244E-5 ,003 ,001 ,027 ,978 -,026 ,002 ,001 ,955 1,047
Gender_new -,061 ,081 -,041 -,751 ,453 -,028 -,042 -,040 ,971 1,030
a. Dependent Variable: FF_total
Top Related