The purpose of this research was to develop broad, theoretically derived measure(s) of deviant behavior in the workplace. Two scales were developed: a 12-item scale of organizational deviance (deviant behaviors directly harmful to the organization) and a 7-item scale of interpersonal deviance (deviant behaviors directly harmful to other individuals within the organization). These scales were found to have internal reliabilities of .81 and .78, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis verified that a 2-factor structure had acceptable fit. Preliminary evidence of construct validity is also provided. The implications of this instrument for future empirical research on workplace deviance are discussed.

The psychological contract held by an employee consists of beliefs about the reciprocal obligations between that employee and his or her organization. Violation refers to the feelings of anger and betrayal that are often experienced when an employee believes that the organization has failed to fulfill one or more of those obligations. This article provides a model outlining the psychological sensemaking processes preceding an employee's experience of psychological contract violation. It also identifies factors that affect those processes with the aim of encouraging future empirical research. Academy of Management ReviewJanuary

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. four anonymous reviewers for their helpful assistance with this manuscript. 574/Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1996): 574~-599 Trust and Breach son, 1995). A fundamental and important unanswered question is what role trust plays in the experience and effects of psychological contract breach. Rare is the theoretical paper on psychological contracts that does not mention the word trust or note its central role in psychological contracts (e.g., Rousseau, 1989; Rousseau and McLean Parks, 1994; Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Despite the repeated mention of trust in the psychological contract literature, however, there has been virtually no theoretical explication or empirical examination of trust in relation to the experience of psychological contract breach. This lapse of systematic attention to the function of trust is found not only in the study of psychological contracts but in organizational science in general (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995). As Gambetta (1988: unnumbered foreward) suggested, "scholars tend to mention (trust) in passing, to allude to it as a fundamental ingredient or lubricant, an unavoidable dimension of social interaction, only to move on to deal with. less intractable matters." The purpose of this study is to develop and test a relatively parsimonious theoretical model of the role of trust in the psychological contract breach experience by exploring the multiple roles played by past and current trust in influencing the detection, interpretation, and impact of psychological contract breach. Psychological Contracts Defined The psychological contract is defined as an individual's beliefs about the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that person and another party (Rousseau, 1989). Although the psychological contract was originally defined by Argyris (1960), Levinson (1962), and Schein (1980) to characterize the subjective nature of employment relationships, the present conceptualization focuses on individuals' beliefs in and interpretation of a promissory contract.Unlike formal or implied contracts, the psychological contract is inherently perceptual, and thus one party's understanding of the contract may not be shared by the other.Psychological contracts, comprising perceived obligations, must be distinguished from expectations, which are general beliefs held by employees about what they will find in their job and the organization. For example, a new manager may expect to receive a high salary, to be promoted, to like his job, or to find the walls of his office painted a neutral color. These expectations emanate from a wide variety of sources, including past experience,. social norms, observations by friends, and so forth. Ps...

No abstract

This study examines factors affecting employees' perceptions that their psychological contract has been breached by their organization, and factors affecting whether this perception will cause employees to experience feelings of contract violation. Data were obtained from 147 managers just prior to their beginning of new job (time 1) and 18 months later (time 2). It was found that perceived contract breach at time 2 was more likely when organizational performance and self‐reported employee performance were low, the employee had not experienced a formal socialization process, the employee had little interaction with organizational agents prior to hire, the employee had a history of psychological contract breach with former employers, and the employee had many employment alternatives at the time of hire. Furthermore, perceived breach was associated with more intense feelings of violation when employees both attributed the breach to purposeful reneging by the employer and felt unfairly treated in the process. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.