Journal of Health Organization and Management Psychological contract breach among allied health professionals: Fairness, individual differences and an aggravated breach effect John Rodwell Andre Gulyas

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: John Rodwell Andre Gulyas , (2015),"Psychological contract breach among allied health professionals", Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 29 Iss 3 pp. 393 - 412 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-05-2013-0107 Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 16:35 (PT) References: this document contains references to 62 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 286 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Vincent Cassar, Sandra C. Buttigieg, (2015),"Psychological contract breach, organizational justice and emotional well-being", Personnel Review, Vol. 44 Iss 2 pp. 217-235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ PR-04-2013-0061 Marjo-Riitta Parzefall, Jacqueline A-M. Coyle-Shapiro, (2011),"Making sense of psychological contract breach", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 12-27 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111099592 P. Matthijs Bal, Dan S. Chiaburu, Paul G.W. Jansen, (2010),"Psychological contract breach and work performance: Is social exchange a buffer or an intensifier?", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 Iss 3 pp. 252-273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011023730

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:115318 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7266.htm

Psychological contract breach among allied health professionals Fairness, individual differences and an aggravated breach effect Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

John Rodwell and Andre Gulyas Faculty of Business, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia

PC breach among allied health professionals 393 Received 24 May 2013 Revised 8 January 2014 Accepted 8 January 2014

Abstract Purpose – Allied health professionals are vital for effective healthcare yet there are continuing shortages of these employees. Building on work with other healthcare professionals, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of psychological contract (PC) breach and types of organisational justice on variables important to retention among allied health professionals: mental health and organisational commitment. The potential effects of justice on the negative outcomes of breach were examined. Design/methodology/approach – Multiple regressions analysed data from 113 allied health professionals working in a medium-large Australian healthcare organisation. Findings – The main negative impacts on respondents’ mental health and commitment were from high PC breach, low procedural and distributive justice and less respectful treatment from organisational representatives. The interaction between procedural justice and breach illustrates that breach may be forgivable if processes are fair. Surprisingly, a betrayal or “aggravated breach effect” may occur after a breach when interpersonal justice is high. Further, negative affectivity was negatively related to respondents’ mental health (affective outcomes) but not commitment (work-related attitude). Practical implications – Healthcare organisations should ensure the fairness of decisions and avoid breaking promises within their control. If promises cannot reasonably be kept, transparency of processes behind the breach may allow allied health professionals to understand that the organisation did not purposefully fail to fulfil expectations. Originality/value – This study offers insights into how breach and four types of justice interact to influence employee mental health and work attitudes among allied health professionals. Keywords Mental health, Psychological contracts, Employee attitudes Paper type Research paper

Counteracting the worsening healthcare workforce shortage around the developed world requires the examination of predictors of retention and recruitment among several types of healthcare workers, with research mostly centred on nurses and physicians (Currie and Carr-Hill, 2012; Cooper-Thomas and Poutasi, 2011; Hayhurst et al., 2005). The retention and shortage problems are particularly bad among allied health, comprising several specialised professions including, but not limited to, social workers, occupational therapists, podiatrists and chiropractors, these professions are relatively neglected in employee-level research (Allied Health Professions Australia, 2010; Huxley, 2005; Schofield, 2009). Importantly, allied health professionals constitute a substantial proportion of healthcare workers across countries such as Australia and the USA (Arena et al., 2011; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010). Previous research findings based on other healthcare workers may not generalise to the roles of allied health professions (Kain and Jex, 2010). Therefore, more research is This research was part-funded by the Australian Research Council.

Journal of Health Organization and Management Vol. 29 No. 3, 2015 pp. 393-412 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1477-7266 DOI 10.1108/JHOM-05-2013-0107

JHOM 29,3

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

394

needed to explore the factors that may help to address the workforce shortage for these professionals. Previous research has shown that the exchange relationship between an employee and their employer may influence employee outcomes. Investigating the psychological contract (PC), particularly breach, allows for the investigation of these outcomes via the relationship between employees and their employers. Organisational justice is another aspect of the employee and employer exchange relationship that appears conceptually linked to the PC, potentially affecting similar outcomes. Organisational justice covers the four different dimensions of procedural, distributive, interpersonal and information justice. However, PC breach and the components of organisational justice have rarely been investigated among allied health professionals, both in terms of direct and interactional effects that may exist. Although some studies have examined PC and justice together (Robbins et al., 2012), few studies have investigated these constructs as different aspects of the social exchange relationship, despite recent calls to do so (Colquitt et al., 2013; Cropanzano and Rupp, 2008). Moreover, studies rarely account for individual differences (e.g. negative affectivity; NA), despite calls to do so, as employees’ perceptions of breach and justice may be influenced by such factors ( Johnson and O’Leary‐Kelly, 2003). Key outcomes related to the retention and recruitment of other health professionals have been shown to include attitudes towards the organisation (i.e. organisational commitment) and their mental health (i.e. psychological distress and well-being), which may then impact the quality of care provided by these professionals (Cooper-Thomas and Poutasi, 2011; Shader et al., 2001). Although these links are consistent among other professional groups (e.g. Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002; Zhao et al., 2007), they are rarely explored with allied health professionals. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine the influence of the perceived PC breach and organisational justice (i.e. procedural, distributive, interpersonal and information justice) on important mental health (i.e. psychological distress and well-being) and work-related attitudinal outcomes among allied health professionals, while also accounting for individual differences in perception derived from personality differences (i.e. NA). Background PC breach The PC encompasses a subjective social exchange relationship between an employee and their organisation, whereby the employee perceives promises made by their employer in exchange for the employee’s output (Rousseau, 1998). These promises may include remuneration, promotions, opportunities for development and responsibilities given (Rousseau, 1989). However, these promises are sometimes broken, either because the organisation is unable or unwilling to keep them, and through a cognitive appraisal a PC breach may lead to a breach being perceived. The effects of PC breach (“breach”) include decreased commitment to the organisation, as well as decreased employee psychological well-being (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000; Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Robinson and Morrison, 1995). These links have been consistently shown across a range of occupational groups (e.g. Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002; Zhao et al., 2007), with only a few studies examining breach among allied health professionals specifically (Fielden and Whiting, 2007; Sutton and Griffin, 2004), most with very narrow coverage of allied health (e.g. occupational therapists). Therefore, the impact of the PC on the mental health (i.e. psychological distress and well-being) and organisational commitment of a wider range of allied health professionals has yet to be explored.

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

The mechanisms underlying the influence of perceived breach on employee-level outcomes may involve cognitive interpretations of the reasons behind the breach, potentially impacting employees’ emotions and therefore their outcomes (Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Robinson and Morrison, 2000). That is, following a perceived breach, the employee may interpret the situation by cognitively assessing the processes and decisions that may have led to the breach (Robinson and Morrison, 2000). The employee may then judge whether the breach was the organisation’s fault, beyond the organisation’s control, or due to a misunderstanding of the PC between the two parties (Robinson and Morrison, 2000). These attributions may influence whether breach leads to the employee feeling intense negative emotions, such as anger and betrayal, potentially leading to negative employee outcomes (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). More specifically, if the employee interprets the breach as being caused by the organisation reneging on their promise(s), then the employee is more likely to feel stronger and more negative emotions than if the breach is perceived to be due to a misunderstanding or something beyond the organisation’s control (Robinson and Morrison, 2000). However, the impact of breach may be related to the employee’s perceptions of justice within the organisation. Organisational justice PC breach and organisational justice are conceptually related as both form part of employee perceptions of their relationship with their employer (Morrison and Robinson, 1997) and may therefore influence employee outcomes in similar ways. More specifically, organisational justice forms the employee perceptions of the degree to which their organisation treats them fairly. The idea of organisational justice has often been linked to equity theory, which proposes that individuals try to balance their own contributions with what they receive from their organisation and that employees compare the ratio between their outputs (e.g. performance) and the organisation’s outputs (e.g. bonuses, promotions) to the same ratio of a “referent other”, such as employees in similar roles (Adams, 1965). In instances where the ratios are perceived to be unequal, the employee may perceive low organisational justice (Adams, 1965). Although breach and justice appear to be overlapping concepts, studies have demonstrated their distinctiveness. Overall, a breach may be unjust, yet not all injustices are a breach, with the PC being broader than justice, whereby studies have demonstrated that both concepts account for additional variance in mental health and support their distinctiveness (e.g. Robbins et al., 2012; Rosen et al., 2009). Justice relates to the perceived fairness of outcomes, procedures, interpersonal treatment and provided justifications of outcomes, whereas breach relates to the delivery of perceived promises by the employer. Consequently, justice does not necessarily relate to outcomes of perceived obligations, and low breach does not necessarily lead to high justice. Therefore, investigating the combined effects of PC and justice may enhance our understanding of the effects of the employee-employer relationship. More recently, the conceptualisation of organisational justice or fairness has been extended, consisting now of four dimensions; procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice (Colquitt, 2001). Distributive justice was the primary focus of equity theory, and refers to perceptions of fairness regarding pay, other rewards and recognition. Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of procedures and decision-making processes. Although several researchers cite interactional justice as a third dimension (e.g. Cropanzano et al., 2007), it is often separated into two types. Namely, interpersonal justice, relating to perceptions of the degree of respectful

PC breach among allied health professionals 395

JHOM 29,3

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

396

treatment received through interactions with organisational representatives, and informational justice, referring to the perceptions of frequency and quality of information provided by the organisation (Colquitt, 2001). Some studies have found that employees may not consciously separate types of organisational justice, such as procedural and interactional/interpersonal justice, and tend to use any information to judge the overall fairness of events (Wiili-Peltola et al., 2007). However, if there are differential outcomes for the separate dimensions of justice, then that indicates that employees are likely to distinguish between justice types on some level (e.g. see Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). The four dimensions of organisational justice have been differentially related to various employee outcomes, such as those associated with the employee’s attitudes of organisational commitment, as well as their mental health, such as psychological strain and well-being. For example, procedural and distributive justice have previous been found to positively influence attitudes towards the organisation and general emotional well-being (Francis and Barling, 2005). Moreover, some studies have demonstrated that organisational commitment is more strongly related to procedural justice than other types of justice (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). Interactional justice, including interpersonal and informational justice types, has been negatively related to psychological strain directly (Francis and Barling, 2005), whereas interpersonal justice has been negatively related to strain indirectly ( Judge and Colquitt, 2004). Although these effects have been highlighted in research across a range of occupational groups, rarely have such effects of organisational justice and these employee outcomes been tested among allied health professionals specifically, particularly while also considering other social exchange-related constructs involving the PC (i.e. breach). Organisational justice appears conceptually related to the PC as it also relates to an exchange relationship between employee and employer, yet it also accounts for additional variance in employee outcomes (Robbins et al., 2012) and is therefore worthy of investigation in conjunction with one another. Interactions between breach and justice A recent review by Colquitt et al. (2013) highlights a push to explain the impact of justice in terms of social exchange processes and a modified version of social exchange integrating justice referred to as “contemporary social exchange theory” suggests that justice fosters social exchange relationships (Cropanzano and Rupp, 2008). In addition to positing independent effects of breach and the dimensions of justice on employee outcomes for allied health professionals, these constructs may have interaction effects, which have also rarely been empirically tested (Thompson and Heron, 2005), particularly for mental health. The paper by Robbins et al. (2012) examined mental health as an outcome of justice and PC breach, but did not examine moderating relationships between breach and separate types of justice. A study examining the interaction between procedural justice and breach onto commitment began addressing that gap, albeit without exploring other forms of justice (Restubog et al., 2009). The moderating influence of procedural justice on the reactions to PC breach may be explained through the fair-process effect, incorporating processes of causal attributions. Researchers have primarily referred to the fair process effect to explain the influence of procedural justice on the effects of PC breach, suggesting that when employees view the organisation’s processes that lead to a PC breach as being fair, the employee may not attribute the cause of the breach to the organisation (Brockner and Weisenfeld, 1996). For instance, unfair processes reflected in low procedural justice may worsen the effects of PC breach, whereby employees may take breach more

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

personally and view it as more unfair due to the organisation reneging on promises, potentially leading to more intense negative emotions towards the organisation. That is, if employees assess procedures as unfair then the impact of breach may be exacerbated and vice versa (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Turnley et al., 2003). Further, the interaction between distributive justice and breach could be explained by equity theory, which suggests that individuals are more concerned with the fairness of an outcome rather than the outcome itself (Adams, 1965; Colquitt, 2001). Therefore, if an employee has received less rewards/recognition than was promised (primarily relating to distributive justice), this breach may have less of a negative impact on the employee if “referent others” in the organisation have also received less than promised, such that if the ratio of inputs/outputs compared to referent others is equal (Adams, 1965). Moreover, similar cognitive assessment and attributions may be related to interpersonal justice. Specifically, it has been suggested that, after a breach, if an employee perceives that they have been treated with respect and dignity by organisational representatives (i.e. high interactional justice) throughout the decision process that led to the breach then its impact on negative emotions could be ameliorated (Morgan and King, 2012). For example, studies have found that high interpersonal justice decreases frustration felt in response to a breach (Robinson and Morrison, 2000). A similar interaction may be observed for informational justice, whereby low informational justice may increase employees’ reactions to a breach, although this interaction has yet to be examined. NA PCs are perceptually based and therefore individual differences in personality that impact perceptions may influence perceptions of breach, such as NA (Johnson and O’Leary‐Kelly, 2003; Raja et al., 2004; Tallman and Bruning, 2008; Turnley and Feldman, 1999). NA is a pervasive trait whereby individuals high in NA have a general negative emotionality and tend to perceive themselves and the world more negatively than other people (Watson et al., 1988). This more negative interpretation may also lead to more negative emotions than would otherwise occur from a breach (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Individual differences in the trait NA have been suggested specifically to increase sensitivity to breach, consequently increasing its impact on employee outcomes (Turnley and Feldman, 1999). NA has often been a stronger predictor of employee-level outcomes than variables such as breach in studies that investigate the PC and NA (Lo and Aryee, 2003). Similarly, NA may affect perceptions surrounding organisational justice in a number of ways, such as increasing the employees’ vigilance in monitoring for injustice (Raja et al., 2004). The findings indicate that high NA negatively relates to perceptions of several types of justice (e.g. procedural, distributive and interactional justice), possibly through similar processes to the PC. Unfortunately studies examining PC rarely include NA despite calls to do so (Turnley and Feldman, 1999). Allied health professionals Allied health represents several highly specialised professions, with specific training and education. Allied health professionals comprise appropriately 18 per cent of the health workforce in Australia, more than medical practitioners (12 per cent; AIHW). However, allied health workers are relatively under-studied, especially in PC research, despite calls for context-specific studies of professions in healthcare (Boyce, 2006). Although professions within allied health are diverse and each has distinct

PC breach among allied health professionals 397

JHOM 29,3

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

398

responsibilities, they share several features that are unique to allied health within the healthcare context that are relevant to the exchange relationship underlying the PC (Pickstone et al., 2008). Importantly, these common features among allied health professionals may impact the nature of their exchange relationships with their organisation and how they respond to them. Allied health workers also commonly operate across boundaries and offer ancillary services in multidisciplinary teams, and may be subordinate to, or dominated by, medicos and consequently their contributions may be less valued than those of medical professionals (Boyce, 2006). Thus, allied health workers as a group tend to have less occupational power than medicos. Though some commentators have suggested that medical dominance may be decreasing due to healthcare reforms (e.g. Coburn, 2006), evidence indicates that the dominance of medicos in healthcare contexts and control over allied health professionals continues, with medicos often coordinating the roles of allied health workers in patient care (Nugus et al., 2010). The lower occupational power of allied health workers is reflected in treatment plans for patients often being controlled by the doctor in charge and thus allied health workers have less autonomy to use their professional skills (Murphy and McDonald, 2004; Nugus et al., 2010). Occupational power differences are also apparent in allied health workers’ discussions with medicos, where they are often dominated by the medicos and are unable to provide equal input (Reeves et al., 2009). The medico-centric nature of healthcare, including the comparison between allied health and medical professionals, may influence aspects of the employee-employer exchange relationship, such as organisational justice and the PC, among allied health professionals in several ways. For example, the medical domination of allied health professionals may influence their perceptions of types of justice by allied health workers comparing what they receive from their organisation to what medical staff receive (e.g. they may be more likely to perceive inequity by being paid less than medicos, less voice for influencing procedures and policy which may be biased towards medicos, or less respect from management). In relation to perceptions of the PC, allied health professionals’ lower occupational power may lessen their ability to respond to changes in the employee-employer exchange relationship (e.g. PC breach). Moreover, professional groups in healthcare with less occupational power may feel lower entitlement and employees with lower entitlement may be less likely to perceive a PC breach; therefore, allied health workers may be less likely to perceive that their PC has been breached compared to other healthcare workers (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Following on from this point, less powerful employee groups are in less of a position to react to breaches in the PC by altering their performance or exercising bargaining power by threatening to withdraw or seeking alternate employment compared to medical doctors. Consequently, allied health workers may be more strongly affected by low justice or a PC breach, although breach may be less likely to be perceived by this group due to lower job-related expectations (Kickul and Lester, 2001; Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Therefore, allied health professionals may be less able than other groups to respond to changes in the PC or perceived injustices by withdrawing or quitting due to their lower bargaining power and are in less of a position to find alternative employment, but still be impacted in terms of their attitudes. Although allied health professions may experience breach less often than other healthcare professionals, it is possible that they may be more severely impacted by it. Allied health professions often work more independently than other occupations in

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

healthcare, and therefore they may be less likely to experience a breach as often as other employees who have more direct contact with supervisors. However, allied health professionals may be more likely to identify with their organisation rather than their profession compared to other groups within healthcare (e.g. doctors and nurses) because they are a less cohesive group, being made up of several disparate occupations. Further, although they do have moderately high status in healthcare organisations, they are still dominated by the medical profession and thus identifying with their organisation may provide them with perceptions of a more “even” status among occupations. Although they may not experience breach as frequently, their potentially higher identification with the organisation may mean that they experience breach more severely when it occurs, leading to more negative outcomes such as lower organisational commitment. The study The current study investigates the impact of breach and organisational justice (i.e. procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice), including NA, on organisational commitment, well-being and psychological distress of allied health professionals. Organisational commitment was examined as it may be an indicator of social exchange quality (Shore et al., 2006) and its potential links to employee retention (Parry, 2008) which is particularly difficult in allied health (Schofield, 2009). Further, we examined outcomes that reflect employee mental health of employees, psychological distress (representing negative aspects) and mental well-being (representing positive aspects), in light of calls to investigate the impact of breach on psychological health (Robbins et al., 2012). A high degree of breach and low organisational justice were expected to be negatively related to organisational commitment and mental health (i.e. psychological distress and well-being). Further, it was expected that overall, each type of organisational justice would ameliorate the negative impact of breach on allied health professionals’ commitment and mental health outcomes. However, it is uncertain whether both interpersonal and informational justice will both moderate the influence of breach, because their separate interactions with breach have been rarely tested. It was also expected that high NA would be related to poorer mental health and lower organisational commitment. Importantly, although the contextual issues facing allied health professionals, especially their occupational power, may influence aspects of their exchange relationships (i.e. breach and justice) regarding employee outcomes, the nature of this influence has not been established. Method Design and sample This study was conducted with a sample of allied health professionals employed by a medium to large, Australian healthcare organisation. Surveys were distributed to the organisations’ facilities across several locations and were returned via reply-paid mail upon completion. Completed surveys were received from approximately 113 (56 per cent) allied health professionals employed by the organisation. The main professions represented were social/welfare workers (31 per cent), physiotherapists (16 per cent), medical imaging technicians (15 per cent) and health informatics (11 per cent). The majority of respondents were female (87.5 per cent), and just over half (51.1 per cent) had worked for the organisation for four years or less. In terms of age, 29.5 per cent were below 35 years old, 35.3 per cent were aged between 35 and 49 years and 35.2 per cent were aged 50 years or above.

PC breach among allied health professionals 399

JHOM 29,3

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

400

Materials Organisational commitment. Commitment to the organisation was measured using an eight-item scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Each item asked participants to respond from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Psychological distress. Psychological distress was measured using the K10 (Kessler et al., 2002). The scale asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they experienced emotions relating to psychological health within the last 30 days. Each item asked participants to respond on a four-point rating from 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (most of the time). Higher scores on this scale reflect more psychological distress. General well-being. Well-being was measured using the GHQ-12 developed by Goldberg (1972) and covers physical manifestations of well-being as well as elements of anxiety (reverse scored). This scale measures employees’ self-rated general well-being over the past month. Respondents rated each item on a four-point scale with responses ranging from “not at all” to “much more than usual”, whereby higher scores mean better well-being. PC breach. Employee’s perceptions of a breach in the PC with their employer was measured using five items from Robinson and Morrison (2000). Items asked respondents to indicate how much they agreed with statements about their employer fulfilling the PC (e.g. “My employer has fulfilled the promises made when hired”, “So far my employer has done an excellent job of fulfilling its promises to me”) on a five-point rating from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Organisational justice. Justice was measured using a 20-item scale developed by Colquitt (2001). Four types of justice are measured: procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational. Each item asked participants to respond on a five-point rating from 1 (very often) to 5 (rarely). NA. NA was measured using the ten items relating to NA in the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al., 1988). Each item asked participants to report how often they had experienced each of the emotions that were listed (e.g. “Hostile”) within the previous week and respond on a five-point rating from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (very much). Results Prior to undertaking analyses of the data, 20 participants were excluded due to missing over one-third of the items in a scale or subscale. After excluding univariate and multivariate outliers there was n ¼ 87 for organisational commitment and n ¼ 86 for psychological distress and well-being in the data set. The assumption of normality was checked via indices of skewness and was found to be tenable. The means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s α coefficients were calculated, as were the correlations between variables and are presented in Table I. To assess the discrimination between types of justice and breach, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the current study’s sample. The analyses were conducted in AMOS using a covariance matrix with all the PC breach and justice items. The CFA results established the discriminatory nature of the four justice types and PC breach. To specifically examine the interactions, the justice and breach variables in the current study were centred (by subtracting the mean from each value) then multiplied to create interaction terms and analysed as a distinct step in the regression equation to aid interpretation and reduce non-essential multicollinearity (e.g. see Cohen et al., 2003).

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

(1) Negative affectivity 13.42 2.98 0.64 (2) Breach 11.99 4.27 0.17 0.87 (3) Procedural justice 19.69 6.74 −0.35** −0.39** 0.89 (4) Distributive justice 10.10 4.88 −0.24* −0.37** 0.71** 0.94 (5) Interpersonal justice 16.38 4.27 −0.17 −0.32** 0.47** 0.40** 0.94 (6) Informational justice 17.56 5.66 −0.20 −0.41** 0.64** 0.52** 0.70** 0.93 (7) Organisational commitment 25.23 6.24 −0.16 −0.42** 0.19 0.30** 0.19 0.17 (8) Job satisfaction 21.90 4.69 −0.08 −0.12 0.08 0.19 0.22* 0.12 (9) Psychological distress 14.90 3.92 0.56** 0.15 −0.21* −0.29** −0.17 −0.11 (10) Well-being 24.61 3.65 −0.40** −0.45** 0.27* 0.37** 0.36** 0.30** Notes: The Cronbach’s α coefficients are on the diagonal except for well-being, which is 0.75. *p o 0.05; **p o0.01

x̅ 7

0.83 0.45** −0.16 0.15

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

9

0.76 −0.46**

8

0.87 −0.28** 0.20

PC breach among allied health professionals 401

Table I. The means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s α coefficients and correlations of the analysed variables

JHOM 29,3

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

402

Four hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted, with predictor variables entered in the block order: (NA; breach, organisational justice (including procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational); and interactions between breach and each type of justice. The interaction variables were created after first centring the variables, which potentially enabled interaction variables to be entered without added multicollinearity and eases interpretation (see Table II for the regression results). Results indicated breach and distributive justice were significant predictors of organisational commitment (R2adj ¼ 0.183, F(10, 86) ¼ 2.93, p ¼ 0.004). NA and distributive justice were significant predictors of psychological distress (R2adj ¼ 0.452, F(10, 85) ¼ 8.02, p o 0.001). NA, breach, interpersonal and procedural justice and interactions between breach and interpersonal justice, and breach and procedural justice, were significant predictors of well-being (R2adj ¼ 0.513, F(10, 85) ¼ 9.94, p o 0.001). Further examination of the moderating relationships on well-being from the interactions between breach and procedural justice, and breach and interpersonal justice, are represented by graphs of the interactions in Figures 1 and 2. Discussion The study examined the impact of PC breach, four dimensions of organisational justice and individual differences of NA on organisational commitment, well-being and psychological distress among allied health professionals. In addition to direct effects, the study examined the impact of interactions between breach and justice, while examining NA. Breach and distributive justice were the main, consistent predictors of allied health professionals’ attitudes. Interpersonal justice and interactions between justice and breach may also impact employee well-being. This study extends previous findings in this area to allied health professionals and examines interactions between breach and justice that are rarely empirically tested (Thompson and Heron, 2005). PC breach The findings suggest that PC breach may negatively impact organisational commitment and well-being, which may be due to its effects on employees’ emotions. Specifically, the findings indicate that breach may decrease employee well-being, possibly through feelings of betrayal (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000; Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Zhao et al., 2007). These findings are similar to previous studies finding links between breach, negative emotions and organisational commitment and poor mental health (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002; Zhao et al., 2007). The current study extends findings regarding the potential impact of breach to allied health workers in general, rather than a narrow section of these professions, with a wider range of outcomes (Fielden and Whiting, 2007; Sutton and Griffin, 2004). The impact of a breach may occur via its effects on employee emotions, such as anger and/or betrayal, through a cognitive assessment of the reasons behind the breach and subsequent judgement that the organisation is to blame for the breach, leading to intense negative emotions towards the organisation and consequently decreased commitment to the organisation and decreased mental well-being (Robinson and Morrison, 2000). Organisational justice The differing effects of organisational justice dimensions reaffirm the importance of examining these four dimensions separately in the same study (e.g. Colquitt, 2001), supporting previous research demonstrating the detrimental impact of poor

B

Organisational commitment SE B β B

Psychological distress SE B β B

(1) Negative affectivity −0.32 0.22 −0.16 0.78 0.11 0.62** −0.39 (2) Breach −0.41 0.18 −0.28* −0.02 0.09 −0.02 −0.42 (2) Procedural justice −0.08 0.15 −0.08 0.04 0.08 0.06 −0.16 (2) Distributive justice 0.37 0.18 0.29* −0.20 0.09 −0.25* 0.16 (2) Interpersonal justice 0.09 0.22 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.07 −1.45 (2) Informational Justice −0.14 0.19 −0.13 0.02 0.10 0.03 −0.09 (3) Breach × procedural justice −0.07 0.04 −0.35 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.04 (3) Breach × distributive justice −0.01 0.05 −0.05 0.00 0.03 0.01 −0.01 (3) Breach × interpersonal justice 0.02 0.07 0.05 −0.05 0.04 −0.19 −0.08 (3) Breach × informational justice 0.08 0.05 0.33 0.04 0.03 0.22 0.01 Notes: A reverse square root transformation was applied to interpersonal justice in the well-being regression. *p o0.05; **p o0.001

(Step) Variable

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

β −0.32** −0.49** −0.30* 0.21 −0.38* −0.15 0.33* −0.08 −0.40* 0.05

Well-being SE B 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.45 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02

PC breach among allied health professionals 403

Table II. Results of the regression analyses for health and attitudinal outcomes

JHOM 29,3

55 50 35

45

ing

30 40 5 10 15

Pro

Figure 1. Graph of interaction between breach and procedural justice on well-being

ced

ura

20

l Ju stic

25

e

be Well-

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

404

15 ach

Bre

10

20

25

distributive justice, and the positive impacts of interpersonal and interactional justice, on the psychological health of employees (Francis and Barling, 2005). Distributive justice was found to potentially improve organisational commitment and may decrease distress, a finding that aligns with Colquitt (2001), whereby if an employee perceives the organisation is not providing fair rewards and recognition for their performance (e.g. pay), then the employees’ psychological health may decrease. The direct effects of distributive justice tie into equity theory, which suggests the employee compares their ratio between their outputs and what they receive in return from their organisation with the same ratio of a referent other (e.g. other employees with similar roles at a similar level); when these ratios are unequal, the employee may perceive low justice (Adams, 1965). Equity theory appears most relevant to distributive justice and in the current study distributive justice was related to more outcomes than other types of justice. The significant direct effects of distributive justice in the absence of significant interactions with breach may indicate that poor distributive justice impacts employees regardless of whether a breach occurs, reinforcing the idea that the fairness of an outcome, rather than the outcome itself, is more important to employees (Adams, 1965). That is, if an employee perceives that the rewards and recognition they receive from the organisation are equitable compared to a referent other (e.g. other similar employees), then a negative outcome, such as a breach, may only have a relatively weak influence on their organisational commitment and mental health. Interpersonal justice was primarily related to well-being, which may indicate that respectful treatment from the organisation may improve employees’ well-being, or

PC breach among allied health professionals 405

10

being Well-

–10 20

–20 –30

18

16

15 ach

14

Bre

erp

ers

on

10

al J

5

ust ic

e

–40

Int

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

0

20 25

12

conversely, disrespectful treatment may decrease employee well-being, in a similar manner to other research (Francis and Barling, 2005; Judge and Colquitt, 2004). Low interpersonal justice may cause an employee to feel under-valued or disrespected by their organisation, and consequently they may feel betrayed and angry towards the organisation (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Further, interpersonal justice may be important for overall justice judgements of healthcare employees, whereby employees may not consciously separate procedural and interactional/interpersonal justice types, but rather tend to use any information to judge the fairness of events (Wiili-Peltola et al., 2007). However, the differential outcomes of the separate dimensions of justice and their interactions indicate that, although employees may not be aware of it, they may subconsciously separate different types of justice. The negative relationship between procedural justice and well-being was an unexpected result and is generally inconsistent with previous research finding positive effects of procedural justice on affective and attitudinal outcomes (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Francis and Barling, 2005). There are several possible explanations for this inconsistency. First, in some circumstances unfair procedures can actually improve the well-being for some employees if favourable outcomes occur when the procedures are biased in favour of a particular group or individual, thereby producing positive outcomes that may improve their well-being (Weiss et al., 1999). A potential explanation is that it is conceivable that procedures in healthcare organisations may be positively biased towards more specialised, stand-alone professionals such as allied health workers. Second, the interaction between breach and procedural justice essentially relates to the fairness of organisational systems interacting with the perceived fairness

Figure 2. Graph of interaction between breach and interpersonal justice on well-being

JHOM 29,3

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

406

of the outcomes of that system, and it is the outcomes, rather than the processes that led to them, which are normally affective and illicit personal emotional responses (Weiss et al., 1999). Alternatively, the inconsistent result could be due to the inclusion of NA in the regression, entailing that the negative relationship between procedural justice and well-being is actually a relationship after the overlaps between NA and procedural justice, and the overlap between NA and well-being have been removed. That is, this result may be due to a combination of left- and floor-adjustment effects. The role of NA and the need for more research on NA and breach is discussed below. Interactions between breach and organisational justice Overall, the findings support the idea that the PC and perceptions of organisational justice interact to predict allied health employees’ outcomes. The interactions between breach and procedural justice, and breach and interpersonal justice, were found to potentially influence well-being, albeit in different ways. An examination of the nature of these moderating relationships, represented by graphs of the interactions in Figures 1 and 2, indicate that the negative effects of breach may be lessened if the organisation’s processes and procedures were perceived as fair. This finding supports the fair process effect, whereby employees may somewhat forgive a breach if they perceive that the processes behind the organisation’s decision to renege on a promise were fair, and given these fair processes the employee may decide that the breach was beyond the organisations’ control (Brockner and Weisenfeld, 1996). These results align with previous findings that employees may assess the procedures behind a negative outcome and if procedures are fair then the outcome has less of an impact on the employee’s emotions (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Turnley et al., 2003). The main effects of procedural justice and the interaction effects between procedural justice and breach may also be explained by procedural justice potentially reflecting the degree of choice or “voice” an employee has regarding decisions made by the organisation (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). The connection between justice and voice may be particularly relevant for allied health professionals who may perceive that their “voice” is greatly diminished by the perceived domination of medical professionals who often have more input into organisational decisions and policy (Boyce, 2006). In the presence of unfavourable outcomes, aspects of procedural justice such as the degree of voice given to the employee may determine behavioural or emotional responses of employees (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg and Folger, 1983; Lind and Tyler, 1988). That is, high breach represents an unfavourable outcome, yet if an allied health worker is able to provide input and influence decisions that lead to the breach, then it may have less negative effects on the employee. The main effects of procedural justice could also tie into attribution theory, whereby providing voice may lead the employee to be less likely to attribute blame to the organisation for a negative decision, such as those leading to a breach, whereas disallowing input from an allied health worker may increase the blame they place on the organisation and consequently increase their anger towards the organisation (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). Despite Folger and Cropanzano’s suggestion that the influence of interactional justice is primarily about providing a justification for decisions to employees, the current study found no significant effects of informational justice for allied health employees, whereas interpersonal justice had direct and moderating effects on mental well-being. However, further exploration revealed that higher interpersonal justice may heighten the negative impact of breach on well-being. This result was unexpected given previous findings that interactional justice ameliorates the impact of breach on

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

negative outcomes (Morgan and King, 2012; Robinson and Morrison, 2000), especially considering the positive direct effect of interpersonal justice on well-being in the current study. This result may indicate an aggravated breach effect, whereby an employee that receives high levels of respect from individual organisational representatives may feel that they have close relationships with these individuals, yet these people break an important promise made to the employee. In these cases, the employee’s mental well-being may be more intensely negatively affected by a breach than when interpersonal justice is low, potentially because of the aggravated effects of having promises broken and feeling that their close friendship has also been betrayed. However, further research would need to be conducted to determine whether this aggravated breach process is an accurate portrayal of the processes involved. NA NA was found to negatively relate to psychological health, but was not significant for organisational commitment. This pattern of results may suggest that the affective and internal nature of NA may influence affective outcomes for allied health professionals more so than work-related attitudes. Therefore, individuals high in NA may be more affectively sensitive to breach, whereas it may not strongly influence cognitive processes, such as the appraisal of a breach or organisational justice. Similarly, individuals with higher NA generally have more negative perceptions of the world (Watson et al., 1988). For example, individuals with high NA may be more vigilant in monitoring for breaches because they may have a higher expectation of organisations’ breaking promises (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Consequently, this study supports calls to include individual differences such as NA in PC and organisational justice research (e.g. Turnley and Feldman, 1999). Limitations The main limitation of the study is its cross-sectional nature, entailing that causality cannot be determined, whereas future studies may benefit from a longitudinal design. The current study also relies on self-report from employees’ perspective, in contrast to studies that also examine the employer’s perspective of the PC (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002). However, the current study took a perceptual approach to breach and justice and the employees’ perceptions of breach and justice were of primary interest (per Rousseau, 1998). Therefore, measures of employee perceptions of these constructs were appropriate. Additionally, the data were collected from one organisation and thus some findings may be attributable to the specific working conditions of this organisation rather than allied health professionals specifically. However, data were collected across multiple sites across Australia that form the nation-wide organisation, and therefore include work condition variation in the results. Allied health professionals also share particular attributes across organisations that should affect the nature of their exchange relationships in similar ways. Therefore, the current study looked at the employment relationship using SEM, focusing on the PC and justice, for this particular occupational group. We also acknowledge that professions included under the allied health banner may differ slightly between countries and that some allied health workers that are included in the healthcare system or are publicly funded in Australia may not be so in other countries. Although they may face similar issues and contextual aspects than those included in allied health in Australia, such as their subordinate status and working in organisations dominated by medicos, researchers may wish to check the generalisability of our results to other countries.

PC breach among allied health professionals 407

JHOM 29,3

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

408

Conclusion The study extends previous findings on the influence of breaches of the PC and dimensions of organisational justice on important mental health and work-related attitudinal outcomes among allied health professionals, while accounting for individual differences in perception derived from NA. The results illustrate that fairness of decision-making processes, pay and rewards and interpersonal respect, are valued by allied health professionals and specifically may impact their well-being and commitment to their organisation. Breach and distributive justice were the more consistent drivers of allied health professionals’ attitudes. The effects of distributive justice may occur through the employees’ perceiving inequity between their inputs/outputs compared to other employees’ inputs/outputs (Adams, 1965). The impact of breach on allied health professionals’ mental health and commitment may occur through its effects on their emotions. The study provides valuable insight into the impact of the employment relationship on outcomes for allied health professionals, offering an avenue to improve retention rates to counteract the workforce shortages in this area. The findings demonstrate that when an organisation breaks their promises to an employee, the employee’s commitment and mental well-being decrease. This potential impact may be worsened when an employee perceives unfairness in the procedures and processes that led to the breach. The findings imply that providing an equal degree of voice and status to allied health workers compared to medicos may increase their emotional well-being and commitment to the organisation through increased feelings of being valued by their organisation, perhaps in-line with their medico counterparts. Ultimately, these improved outcomes for allied health workers may also improve their retention which is particularly poor among them (Schofield, 2009). More interestingly, an aggravated effect of breach appears to occur when organisational representatives generally treat the employee with high levels of respect and dignity, where the employee may take a broken promise more personally in these instances. Further, there is likely to be a component of variation due to individual differences, whereby individuals with high NA are more likely to be detrimentally influenced than those with low NA. Although healthcare employees are often unavoidably excluded from decision making in these organisations, ensuring that processes are fair, honest and transparent, while avoiding reneging on promises made that are within the organisation’s control, may improve outcomes among allied health and other healthcare professionals (Chenevert et al., 2013). If the organisation cannot reasonably keep their promises to employees, they should be transparent about the decision-making processes behind the breach, where feasible, to increase the likelihood of employees perceiving high procedural justice. The study highlights the need to explore the PC and organisational justice among more specialist roles, such as those of allied health professionals, where these concepts usually receive less attention by researchers.

References Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 267-299. Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18. Allied Health Professions Australia (2010), “Allied health: the facts”, available at: www.ahpa.com. au/Home/AboutAlliedHealth/WorkforceData.aspx (accessed 27 February 2013).

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

Arena, R.A., Goldberg, L.R., Ingersoll, C.D., Larsen, D.S. and Shelledy, D. (2011), “Research in the allied health professions: why fund it? A report of the ASAHP research committee”, Journal of Allied Health, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 161-166. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2010), Australia’s Health 2010, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra.

PC breach among allied health professionals

Boyce, R. (2006), “Emerging from the shadow of medicine: allied health as a ‘profession community’ subculture”, Health Sociology Review, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 520-534.

409

Brockner, J. and Weisenfeld, B. (1996), “An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 120 No. 2, pp. 189-208. Chenevert, D., Jourdain, G., Cole, N. and Banville, B. (2013), “The role of organizational justice, burnout and commitment in the understanding of absenteeism in Canadian healthcare sector”, Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 350-367. Coburn, D. (2006), “Medical dominance then and now: critical reflections”, Health Sociology Review, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 432-443. Cohen, J., Cohen, P. West, G.S. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, London. Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321. Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400. Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Rodell, J.B., Long, D.M., Zapata, C.P., Conlon, D.E. and Wesson, M.J. (2013), “Justice and the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 199-236. Cooper-Thomas, H.D.P. and Poutasi, C. (2011), “Attitudinal variables predicting intent to quit among Pacific healthcare workers”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 180-192. Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Kessler, I. (2000), “Consequences of the psychological contract for the employment relationship: a large scale survey”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 903-930. Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Kessler, I. (2002), “Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the psychological contract: employee and employer perspectives”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 69-86. Cropanzano, R. and Rupp, D.E. (2008), “Social exchange theory and organizational justice: job performance, citizenship behaviors, multiple foci, and a historical integration of two literatures”, in Gilliland, S.W., Skarlicki, D.P. and Steiner, D.D. (Eds), Research in Social Issues in Management: Justice, Morality, and Social Responsibility, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 63-99. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E. and Gilliland, S.W. (2007), “The management of organizational justice”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 34-48. Currie, E.J. and Carr-Hill, R.A. (2012), “What are the reasons for high turnover in nursing? A discussion of presumed causal factors and remedies”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 1180-1189. Fielden, S. and Whiting, F. (2007), “The psychological contract: is the UK national health service a model employer?”, Health Services Management Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 94-104. Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

JHOM 29,3

Francis, L. and Barling, J. (2005), “Organisational justice and psychological strain”, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 250-261. Goldberg, D.P. (1972), The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire: A Technique for the Identification and Assessment of Non-Psychotic Psychiatric Illness, Vol. 21, Oxford University Press, Oxford and London.

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

410

Greenberg, J. and Folger, R. (1983), “Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations”, in Paulus, P.B. (Ed.), Basic Group Processes, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 235-256. Hayhurst, A., Saylor, C. and Stuenkel, D. (2005), “Work environmental factors and retention of nurses”, Journal of Nursing Care Quality, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 283-288. Huxley, P. (2005), “Staff shortages in the mental health workforce: the case of the disappearing approved social worker”, Health and Social Care in the Community, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 504-513. Johnson, J.L. and O’Leary‐Kelly, A.M. (2003), “The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: not all social exchange violations are created equal”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 627-647. Judge, T.A. and Colquitt, J.A. (2004), “Organizational justice and stress: the mediating role of work-family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 395-404. Kain, J. and Jex, S. (2010), “Karasek’s (1979) job demands-control model: a summary of issues and recommendations for future research”, in Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C. (Eds), New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress (Research in Occupational Stress and Wellbeing), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 1-31. Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.-L.T., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M. (2002), “Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress”, Psychological Medicine, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 959-976. Kickul, J. and Lester, S.W. (2001), “Broken promises: equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behaviour”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 191-217. Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York, NY. Lo, S. and Aryee, S. (2003), “Psychological contract breach in a Chinese context: an integrative approach”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 1005-1020. Morgan, B.M. and King, E.B. (2012), “Mothers’ psychological contracts: does supervisor breach explain intention to leave the organization?”, Human Resources Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 629-650. Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When employees feel betrayed: a model of how psychological contract violation develops”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 226-256. Murphy, A. and McDonald, J. (2004), Power, status and marginalisation: rural social workers and evidence-based practice in multidisciplinary teams”, Australian Social Work, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 127-136. Nugus, P., Greenfield, D., Travaglia, J., Westbrook, J. and Braithwaite, J. (2010), “How and where clinicians exercise power: interprofessional relations in health care”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 898-909. Parry, J. (2008), “Intention to leave the profession: antecedents and role in nurse turnover”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 157-167.

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

Pickstone, C., Nancarrow, S., Cooke, J., Vernon, W., Mountain, G., Boyce, R.A. and Campbell, J. (2008), “Building research capacity in the allied health professions”, Evidence & Policy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 53-68. Raja, U., Johns, G. and Ntallianis, F. (2004), “The impact of personality on psychological contracts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 350-367. Reeves, S., Rice, K., Conn, L.G., Miller, K.L., Kenaszchuk, C. and Zwarenstein, M. (2009), “Interprofessional interaction, negotiation and non-negotiation on general internal medicine wards”, Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 633-645. Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P. and Bordia, S. (2009), “The interactive effects of procedural justice and equity sensitivity in predicting responses to psychological contract breach: an interactionist perspective”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 165-178. Robbins, J.M., Ford, M.T. and Tetrick, L.E. (2012), “Perceived unfairness and employee health: a meta-analytic integration”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 235-272. Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (1995), “Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 289-298. Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000), “The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 525-546. Rosen, C.C., Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R.E. and Levy, P.E. (2009), “Perceptions of the organizational context and psychological contract breach: assessing competing perspectives”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 202-217. Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-139. Rousseau, D.M. (1998), “The ‘problem’ of the psychological contract considered”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. S1, pp. 665-671. Schofield, T. (2009), “Gender organizational dynamics: the elephant in the room for Australian allied health workforce policy and planning?”, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 383-400. Shader, K., Broome, M.E., West, M.E. and Nash, M. (2001), “Factors influencing satisfaction and anticipated turnover for nurses in an academic medical center”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 210-216. Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., Lynch, P. and Barksdale, K. (2006), “Social and economic exchange: construct development and validatation”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 4, 837-867. Sutton, G. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), “Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: a longitudinal study of new professionals”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 493-514. Tallman, R.J. and Bruning, N.S. (2008), “Relating employees’ psychological contracts to their personality”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 688-712. Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2005), “The difference a manager can make: organizational justice and knowledge worker commitment”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 383-404. Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (1999), “A discrepancy model of psychological contract violations”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 367-386. Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2003), “The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 187-206.

PC breach among allied health professionals 411

JHOM 29,3

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 16:35 30 January 2016 (PT)

412

Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), “Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the panas scales”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1063-1070. Weiss, H.M., Sucklow, K. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 786-794. Wiili-Peltola, E., Kivimaki, M., Elovainio, M. and Virtanen, M. (2007), “Organisational justice and employee perceptions on hospital management”, Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 320-332. Zhao, H., Wayne, S.J., Glibkowski, B.C. and Bravo, J. (2007), “The impact of psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: a meta‐analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 647-680. Further reading Kickul, J. (2001), “When organizations break their promises: employee reactions to unfair processes and treatment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 289-307. Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but the norm”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 245-259. About the authors Professor John Rodwell is a Professor of Management in the Faculty of Business at the Australian Catholic University, Melbourne. His research interests primarily centre on health services management and organisational psychology. Professor John Rodwell is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Andre Gulyas is a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Business at the Australian Catholic University, Melbourne. His research interests are focused on organisational psychology.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]