In this article, psychological contract breach, revenge, and workplace deviance are brought together to identify the cognitive, affective, and motivational underpinnings of workplace deviance. On the basis of S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennett's (1997) model of workplace deviance, the authors proposed that breach (a cognitive appraisal) and violation (an affective response) initiate revenge seeking. Motivated by revenge, employees then engage in workplace deviance. Three studies tested these ideas. All of the studies supported the hypothesized relationships. In addition, self-control was found to be a moderator of the relationship between revenge cognitions and deviant acts; the relationship was weaker for people high in self-control.

No abstract

We developed a model of the relationships among aggressive norms, abusive supervision, psychological distress, family undermining, and supervisor-directed deviance. We tested the model in 2 studies using multisource data: a 3-wave investigation of 184 full-time employees (Study 1) and a 2-wave investigation of 188 restaurant workers (Study 2). Results revealed that (a) abusive supervision mediated the relationship between aggressive norms and psychological distress, (b) psychological distress mediated the effects of abusive supervision on spouse undermining, (c) abusive supervision had a direct positive relationship with supervisor-directed deviance, (d) the positive relationship between psychological distress and spouse undermining was stronger for men as opposed to women, and (e) employees engaged in relationship-oriented occupations reported greater levels of abusive supervision and psychological distress. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

No abstract

Why do employees who experience abusive supervision retaliate against the organization? We apply organizational support theory to propose that employees hold the organization partly responsible for abusive supervision. Depending on the extent to which employees identify the supervisor with the organization (i.e., supervisor's organizational embodiment), we expected abusive supervision to be associated with low perceived organizational support (POS) and consequently with retribution against the organization. Across 3 samples, we found that abusive supervision was associated with decreased POS as moderated by supervisor's organizational embodiment. In turn, reduced POS was related to heightened counterproductive work behavior directed against the organization and lowered in-role and extra-role performance. These findings suggest that employees partly attribute abusive supervision to negative valuation by the organization and, consequently, behave negatively toward and withhold positive contributions to it.

Research on psychological contract breach has referenced social exchange as its dominant theoretical foundation. In this study, we draw insights from the group value model as a theoretical extension to explain employees' negative responses to psychological contract breach. According to the group value model, fair treatment by group members communicates symbolic messages about the relationship between the organization and the employee, and has implications for whether employees can take pride in their organizational membership. When people are treated unfairly, they lose trust in the organization and dis-identify from the group. This in turn results in less willingness on the part of the employees to engage in organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs). We tested these relationships across three studies. In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal test of the role of trust as a mediator between breach and organizational identification. In Studies 2 (cross-sectional) and 3 (longitudinal), we tested the complete model in which we examined the role of trust and identification in mediating the link between breach and OCBs. All three studies provided support for the mediated model. Furthermore, as predicted by the group value model, the hypothesized relationships emerged in response to relational but not transactional contract breaches. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008.

No abstract

No abstract