- (

1"\“‘10\f.hlv‘v‘-"»4\\‘Q.

‘.“ -u“..‘

‘Qv'i‘

.‘l'

V“

s

 

c.
. . u . .
.. . . . .
. .
.
. . .
.

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

RELATIONSHIP REPAIR AT WORK. A MULTIDIMENSIONAL
CONGRUENCE MODEL

presented by

RUCHI SINHA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Psychologl

 

 

/%/5L

 

 

Major Professor 5 Signature

27‘h July 2010

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

fl

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

fl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KlProj/Acc&Pres/CIRC/DateDue.indd

 

 

 

 

RELATIONSHIP REPAIR AT WORK: A MULTIDIMENSIO
MODEL

NAL CONGRUENCE

By

Ruchi Sinha

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Psychology

2010

   

 

ABSTRACT

MAHONSHIP REPAIR AT WORK: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONGRUENCE
~ , MODEL

   

I ll" By

  

, Ruchi Sinha

The very nature of relationships at work makes them susceptible to interpersonal
ofl'enses. It is essential to understand both the consequences of such offenses and also the
mechanisms by which strained relationships between colleagues can be repaired to
positive relationships at work. The present study examines the impact of workplace
ofl'enses and the impact of offender repair attempts on the victim’s needs and aspects of
relationship quality with the offender. A Multidimensional Congruence Model of
Relationship Repair at Work is proposed and examined in this study. The model proposes
that different types of workplace offenses differentially violate the basic needs of the
Vicfim (such as need for control, belongingness, identity and moral meaning) and affect
napects of the relationship quality with the offender (such as, presence of negative
emotions, distrust and lack of non-obligatory supportive behaviors towards the offender).
A mixed-method research design is adepted to examine the proposed model. The results
mm the eXploratory qualitative study and the quantitative survey study are reported and
discussed in detail. Research and practical implications of the findings along with

avenues for fixture research are presented.

   

V

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Need For A Multidimensional Framework ......................................................................... 5
The Present Study ............................................................................................................... 7
Outline ................................................................................................................................. 9
What Constitutes A Positive Relationship At Work? ....................................................... 10
Multidimensional Effects Of Workplace Offenses ........................................................... 13
Proposed taxonomy of workplace offenses .......................................................... 17
How is the victim affected in the aftermath of different types of offenses? ........ 18
How are the dimensions of relationship quality affected in the aftermath of
an offense? ............................................................................................................ 26
Overview of the Multidimensional Congruence Model of Relationship Repair .............. 3]
Conceptual Description of the Multidimensional Congruence Model ............................. 34
Role of offender repair attempts ........................................................................... 43
Theoretical processes by which offender repair attempts exert their influence 45
Mixed findings about the efficacy of offender repair attempts ............................ 46
Relative effects of different repair attempts on the victim needs and
relationship quality ............................................................................................... 50
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 56
Mixed-method research Approach .................................................................................... 56
Advantages of mixed-method research design ..................................................... 58
Method-Qualitative Study ................................................................................................. 61
The grounded theory method ............................................................................... 62
Steps followed in data collection .......................................................................... 63
Steps followed in data analysis ............................................................................ 69
Method-Quantitative Study ............................................................................................... 71
Participants ........................................................................................................... 71
Survey development ............................................................................................. 73
Research design .................................................................................................... 74
Manipulations ....................................................................................................... 74
Measures ............................................................................................................... 80

 

iii

 

 

 

’Lj

EL)
-.1

 

 

 

84

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 84
Section 1: Qualitative Results ...........................................................................................
Goal 1: Taxonomy of violations at work ........................................... : .................. 85
Goal 2: Impact of violations on victim’s need and relationship quality .............. 94
Process of Relationship Repair ........................................................................... 106
Goal 3: Notion of Congruence: Efficacy of repair attempts in relationship
repair. .................................................................................................................. 112
Summary ............................................................................................................ 125
Section 2: Quantitative Results ....................................................................................... 126
Psychometric Analyses- Examining the dimensionality of the measures .......... 126
Basic Descriptives .............................................................................................. 131
Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................. 131
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 1 55
Qualitative Study: What did we learn? ........................................................................... 156
What are the types of incidents that strain relationships at work? ..................... 156
What is affected in the aftermath of offenses at work? ...................................... 159
What are effective ways of repairing strained relationships at work? ............... 160
Quantitative Study: What did we learn? ......................................................................... 161
Impact of different types of offenses .................................................................. 161
Impact of different types of repair attempts ....................................................... 163
Implications of the quantitative findings ............................................................ 164
Challenges in Mixed-method Research Studies ............................................................. 166
Integrating results from two methods ................................................................. 168
How data from the two methods complement each other .................................. 168
Complexities in Relationship Repair at Work ................................................................ 172
Complexities regarding the nature of the offense ............................................... 172
Complexities regarding the impact of offenses .................................................. 173
Complexities regarding the types of repair attempts .......................................... 174
Complexities regarding the impact of repair attempts ....................................... 175
Practical Implications of the Findings ............................................................................ 177
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 1 78
Avenues for Future Research .......................................................................................... 180
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 1 82
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 184
Appendix A: First Round Interview Schedule ................................................................ 184
Appendix B: Second Round Interview Schedule ............................................................ 187
Appendix C: Third Round Interview Schedule .............................................................. 193
Appendix D: Text Used in the Online Survey ................................................................ 195
Appendix E: Victim’s Needs Satisfaction Measures .......................................... - ............ 200
Appendix F: Relationship Quality Measures .................................................................. 202
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 204

iv

 

 

  
 

LIST OF TABLES

i“. an 7w Repair Attempts for Specific Types of Offenses ................................. 51
' - M2: Demog'aphic Characteristics of the Sample ....................................................... 72
Tfile 3: Graphic Representation of the Factorial Research Design ................................. 75
Table 4: The Five Levels of Repair Attempts ................................................................... 78
Table 5: Taxonomy of Violations at Work ....................................................................... 86
Table 6: Coding Summary for Types of Violations .......................................................... 93
Table 7: Impact of Violations on Victim Needs and Relationship Quality ...................... 96
Table 8: Coding Summary for Impact of Violations on Victim Needs and Relationship
Quality ............................................................................................................................. 102
Table 9: Opening the Lines of Communication .............................................................. 108
Table 10: Transactional Violation: Most Congruent Repair Attempt ............................ 115
Table 11: Relational Violation: Most Congruent Repair Attempt .................................. 118
Table 12: Moral Violation: Most Congruent Repair Attempt ........................................ 123
Table 13: Post-Violation: Goodness of Fit Indices for CFA Models ............................. 128
Table 14: Post-Repair Attempt: Goodness of Fit Indices for CF A Models .................... 129

Table 15: Indicating Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-correlations and Reliability
' ......................................................................................................................... 130

 

 

 

  

     
    
   
  

-- tonsil r-‘w '

 

LIST OF FIGURES
W. 3" ‘
Q 0 ye“- -
d 3-1:; Conceptual Landscape of Relationship Repair Covered in Past Research ......... 4 . '

-. 4 We 2: Conceptual Model of Relationship Repair ........................................................ 35
' Ftfln'c 3: Depicting the Notion of Multidimensional Congruence ................................... 40
Figure 4: Differential Effects of Types of Offenses ....................................................... 134
Figure 5: Differential Effects of Types of Repair Attempts ........................................... 137

Figure 6: Need-Control: After Transactional Offense and Extenuating Rectification. .145
Figure 7: Trust: After Transactional Offense and Extenuating Rectification ................. 146
Figure 8: Need-Belongingness-After Relational Offense and Empowering Apology .. .148
Figure 9: Need-Identity-After Relational Offense and Empowering Apology. ............. 148
Figure 10: Negative Emotions-After Relational Offense and Empowering Apology. 150

Figure 11: Supportive Behavior-After Relational Offense and Empowering Apology. 150

Figure 12: Need-Moral Meaning- After Moral Offense and Virtuous Promise ............. 152
Figure 13: Trust- After Moral Offense and Virtuous Promise ....................................... 153
Figure 14: Supportive Behaviors- After Moral Offense and Virtuous Promise ............. 154

Figure 15: Integration in Mixed-Method Research ........................................................ 169

 

 

.\i

‘ "1
vii]

 

INTRODUCTION

As organizational researchers it is essential not only to understand the antecedents
and consequences of injustices, interpersonal conflicts and violations at the workplace but
also to understand the mechanisms and dynamics through which damaged relationships
can be repaired to positive relationships at work. A large body of research addresses
employee’s reactions to negative experiences at the workplace (e. g., Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Porter & Ng’s, 2001). Negative responses to interpersonal offenses and
violations at work such as revenge, workplace incivility, aggressive behaviors, sabotage,
theft, interpersonal violence, etc, receive substantial attention (e. g., Bies, Tripp, &
Kramer, 1997; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Skarlicki &
Folger, 1997; Wanberg, Bunce, & Gavin, 1999). In contrast, few empirical studies
examine the reparative responses to interpersonal offensesl (Kurzynski, 1998) and the
mechanisms by which offender repair attempts can lead to relationship repair in the
aftermath of an offense.

The interdependent nature of interactions and relationships at work makes them
susceptible to interpersonal offenses and violations of expectations (e.g., Baron &
Neuman, 1996; Coser, 1964; Hatfield & Hatfield, 1995). In the aftermath of an offense
between two coworkers it is likely that the relationship between the employees is
damaged. Interpersonal relationships at work are unique in that colleagues are often
required to interact on a daily basis and work interdependently even after being in a
conflict and, cannot choose to withdraw from work relationships at will. In such

situations if coworkers harbor negative emotions, continue to distrust each other and do

I In this document I will use the term “offense” to denote perceived violations of expectations between
colleagues at the workplace. I will also use the term “victim” to denote the target of the ofi'ense and the
term “ofi‘ender” to denote the perpetuator of the violation.

1

 

 

 

not maintain cooperative and supportive exchange (Retzinger & Scheff, 1996; Tripp &
Bies, 1997), it can interfere with effective communication, performance and productivity
(De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; John, 1995). To prevent these detrimental consequences it is
important to investigate the antecedents of repair such that damaged relationships can be
repaired to positive relationships at work. Research has shown that positive relationship
at work is associated with high performance, positive work attitudes and perceptions of
climate (e.g., Sears, 1989). Positive relationships provide the conditions for future
cooperation and higher performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001).

One of the most important facilitators of relationship repair is an offender repair
attempt offered in the aftermath of an offense (e.g., Colquitt & Chertkoff, 2002;
McCullough, et a1, 1997; Shaw et a1, 2003). Organizational researchers in the justice,
forgiveness and trust literature have examined the direct effects of various types of
offender accounts/repair attempts, such as. denial, excuse, justification, apology and
penance on a variety of outcomes (e.g., justice perceptions, trust repair, emotions,
forgiveness, and reconciliation). The findings from these literatures have often produced
mixed results (Ren & Gray, 2009). For example some studies find that an apology is
effective in remedying the damage caused by transgressions by facilitating forgiveness
(e.g., Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989; Schlenker, 1980),
while others have found that an apology via the admission of guilt can have negative
consequences (Riordan et a1, 1983) and may impair trust (Kim et a1, 2006). Similarly,
there is controversy regarding the effectiveness of accounts such as excuse and denial, as
some studies find that they can facilitate trust repair by reframing attributions (e. g., Crant

& Baternan, 1993; Kim et a1, 2006; Roirdan, Marlin, & Kellogg, 1983) while others have

 

 

 

 

fomd that such mitigating accounts may be taken as an insincere attempt to excuse bad

behavior and may result in greater negative emotions and outcomes (e.g., Hodgins &
Iiebeskind, 2003; Tornlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004).

The major goal of these past studies has been to understand how offender repair
attempts can help to reduce or remove the damage caused by the offense and how they
can facilitate relationship repair. Despite such clear goals, no study has systematically
attempted to examine the phenomenon from a multidimensional perspective (e.g., Dirks
et al., 2009). Studies in the justice, trust and forgiveness/reconciliation literature tend to
focus on a small set of dimensions of damage and repair (e. g., fairness perceptions, trust
repair and forgiveness respectively). In a recent narrative review of the field of
relationship repair, Dirks and colleagues (2009) point out that past studies in the justice,
trust and reconciliation literature have given us an excellent understanding of isolated
effects of repair attempts on limited dimensions of repair, however “they tend to be
taking place in relative isolation from each other, as the efforts rely on a diversity of
theories, define the problem in different ways and, have different foci” (Dirks et al, 2009,
pg. 4). Past studies have not explicitly examined the impact of different types of
workplace offenses simultaneously on both the victim (e.g., on victim’s need for control,
belongingness, identity and moral meaning) and on aspects of the relationship quality
between the victim and the offender (in terms of quality of emotions, cognitions and
behaviors). Similarly we know little about how offender repair attempts exert their
influence in repairing the damage on these multiple dimensions given a certain type of

offense (i.e. victim’s needs and relationship quality).

 

 

 

Figure 1 (adapted from the Dirks, et al, 2009 paper) depicts this issue of different

foci and the lack of a multidimensional perspective adopted in past empirical studies. The
Make in figure 1 symbolically represent the existing density of empirical studies in the
litaature. It is evident from the diagram in figure 1 that past studies have not examined
the effects of offenses and repair attempts simultaneously on the important dimensions of
relationship repair. There is a need to conduct studies that simultaneously examine the
effects of workplace offenses and repair attempts on both the victim’s needs and aspects
of the relationship quality. Such a multidimensional framework for understanding
relationship repair is important because it provides for a more holistic understanding
regarding what is damaged post violation in the victim (e.g., violation of the basic needs)
and in the relationship quality with the offender (e.g., increase in negative emotions,
distrust and lack of supportive behaviors) and therefore gives us a better understanding

about what needs to be repaired (In terms of the most congruent offender repair attempt).

Figure 1
The Conceptual Landscape of Relationship Repair Covered in Past Research

    
      
  

     

>1: *

Trust Repair

  
  

*
Reduction in
Negative Emotions

      
   
   
 
   
   

:1:

-‘
.N
‘
\

=1:

 

Restored Victim’s Needs ,
Supportive Satisfaction ,’
Behaviors I,

:1: * /’

 

Rl

rel

rel

tit

Iii

ill"

 

V' “—1:

Need for a Multidimensional Framework

The benefits of a “Multidimensional Framework” in explaining organizational
behavior have been consistently demonstrated in the organizational and management
literatme. Such a framework is equally applicable in the area of relationship repair (e.g.,
Reb, Goldman, Kray & Cropanzano, 2006; Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). The issue of
relationship repair by virtue of its complex and dyadic nature requires multidimensional
thinking and conceptualization. The state of a relationship can be characterized in terms
of the psychological states of the relationship partners as well as in terms of the
relationship quality between the partners (Dutton & Ragin, 2007). In the aftermath of an
offense it is likely that both the psychological state of the victim is affected (in terms of
violation of basic needs) and the state of the relationship quality is affected (in terms of
reduction in trust, supportive behaviors and increase in negative emotions towards the
offender). In the context of this study, I am interested in examining the effects of
workplace offenses and offender repair attempts on two dimensions- i.e., the victim’s
psychological state interms of needs violation and the quality of the relationship between
the victim and the offender. Understanding how the victim’s needs and the dimensions of
relationship quality are damaged by typical workplace offenses is essential to understand
and predict which repair attempt is most likely to restore the damage. To understand how
a victim reacts to an offense and how the relationship between victim and offender can be
repaired, it is important to examine the effect of the offense and the repair attempt on
both these dimensions. Whether a damaged relationship is repaired to a positive level
depends on the extent to which an offender repair attempt is congruent in repairing the

damage caused by the offense in both the victim and in the relationship quality. Thus, to

 

 

unda'stand relationship repair as a criterion it is essential to measure both the extent of

and repair at both these dimensions.

In the litmature there is insufficient treatment of the multidimensional aspects of
relationship repair. Studies emphasize either the individual relationship partners or the
dyadic relationship quality and tend to focus on one of the two dimensions (See Figure
1). Studies that focus on the individual tend to examine how offenses and repair attempts
afi'ect the victim in terms of affecting needs satisfaction (e.g., De Crerner & Tyler, 2005;
Foster & Rusbult, 1999; Jones, Sowell, Kelly & Williams, 2009; Shnabel & Nadler,
2008). Studies that focus on relationship quality outcomes tend to examine the influence
of offenses and repair attempts on dimensions such as level of trust, presence of negative
emotions, and cooperative behavior towards the offender (e.g., Aryee et al., 2002;
Barclay, et a1, 2005; Bottom, of a1, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004b; Lewicki,
McAllister, &.Bies, 1998; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002).
Neither perspective is adequate to account for the phenomenon of relationship repair in
isolation as each perspective can at best provide an incomplete evaluation of the criterion
(i.e. there is likely to be criterion deficiency if only one dimension of damage and repair
is evaluated). For example, a study that examines only the relationship quality outcomes
of an offense and evaluates the role of offender repair attempts in repairing such damage
is likely to miss out on how the offense affects the psychological needs of the victim and
whether the offender repair attempt was successful in repairing at both these dimensions
of relationship repair. Similarly, if a study explores only the link between offender repair
attempt and cooperative behaviors (a single aspect of relationship quality); the results will

only reveal whether a repair attempt is effective in repairing cooperation but will not

 

A.
‘l.

 

 

m ~., '-

ll

Sill

Iii

’I l . _.

 

Wide an understanding of how it affects other dimensions of relationship repair such as

mag negative emotions and repairing trust. Thus isolated studies evaluating just one
Of the various dimensions of relationship repair fail to inform us if the relationship will be
viable in the future. For example, supportive behaviors between the victim and the
offender may be repaired; however, if the victim continues to harbor negative emotions
such as anger and resentment and does not trust the offender it is likely that the
relationship will dissolve due to the high socio-ernotional and psychological costs of
maintaining such a relationship (Dirks et al., 2009).

Past studies have overlooked how offenses affect both the victim’s need
satisfaction and the relationship quality with the offender and thus have been limited in
their evaluations of how repair attempts may affect both these dimensions of repair. A
lack of multidimensional conceptualization and examination leads to criterion deficiency
in terms of addressing only one dimension of relationship repair. No single empirical
study has simultaneously evaluated the impact of offenses and offender repair attempts
on both these dimensions (i.e. victim’s needs and relationship quality). Such a
multidimensional perspective is likely to provide us with a more integrated understanding
of the phenomenon of relationship repair.

The Present Study

The present study addresses this gap in the literature by proposing and evaluating
a Multidimensional Congruence Model of Relationship Repair at Work wherein the
impact of different types of offenses and repair attempts on both the victim and the
relationship quality is examined. The Multidimensional Congruence model developed in

this paper proposes that different types of offenses differentially violate the basic needs

 

 

     
  
       
  
 

't

. 7' I--. Mafia aspects of the relationship quality (such as, presence of negative

‘ 7 ~ -. and lack of non-obligatory supportive behaviors towards the ofi'enda).

. (it is proposed that the efi'ectiveness of any particular offender repair attempt is

'1‘ W by me multidimensional congruence between what is aflected in both the
-m and in the relationship quality and what is repaired by a certain ofi'ender repair
Mt. Multidimensional congruence is proposed as the mechanism by which an
ofi‘ender remedy is effective in exerting influence on relationship repair. The most
effective way to understand this notion of congruence is through an example.

Example: Imagine a situation where a co-worker is extremely rude and

snaps at another coworker during a private exchange interaction at work

(an ofi’ense — as it is a violation of commonly agreed upon social rule/

relational norm). The victim in this situation is likely to feel oflended.

When a victim perceives an ofiense like the one mentioned above there is

something that is aflected in the victim. The victim ’s needs or beliefs about

being treated with respect and dignity may be affected in this case (e.g.,

need for belongingness and identity related needs). In addition to

something that is aflected in the victim, other aspects of the relationship

quality with the offender may also be affected. For example, such a

perceived ofi'ense may result in negative emotions towards the oflender

and may also suspend cooperative and supportive interactions between

the two relationship partners. Given this oflense situation, the ofi’ender

may respond to the victim through a variety of repair attempts/accounts.

The ofl’ender may communicate through an explanatory message (denial.

 

  

 

    
    

:fl 5... m justification) or an atoning message (apology, promise,

lbuw.’ ;.mpmmment, compensation, expressing guilt/remorse, acknowledging

the hurt etc) or some combination of these messages. The

multidimensional congruence model of relationship repair with respect to

this example, suggests that any one of these repair attempts (messages)

amongst others, is likely to be eflective in atoning the negative efects of

the ofl’ense to the extent to which it restores in the victim a sense of

belongingness and identity and also restores the damaged aspects of the

relationship quality by reducing negative emotions and facilitating

cooperative exchange towards the oflender. The content or message

inherent in the repair attempt must restore what is damaged in the victim

and in the relationship quality. It is through this congruence between what

is aflected in the victim and the relationship quality in the first place and

what the repair attempt restores that leads to relationship repair.

Outline

In the following sections, I review the literature on relationship repair with a focus
on describing what constitutes a positive relationship at work and how different types of
offenses at work have multidimensional effects on both the victim and the relationship
quality with the offender. I then provide an overview of the conceptual model proposed
in this study and discuss the notion of congruence in examining the efficacy of offender
repair attempts. Finally I review the literature on the role of offender repair attempts in
facilitating relationship repair and propose a typology of repair attempts that will be

examined in this study. In reviewing the literature for each of the above mentioned topics,

 

 

 

 

'I ll

the 9pc will be identified along with the ways in which the present study seeks to fill
m gaps.
What Constitutes A Positive Relationship At Work?

A “Relationship” is traditionally defined as a sequence of interactions between at
least two individuals that involves some degree of interdependence and mutuality such
that one person’s behavior takes into account the behavior of the other person (e.g.
Hinde, 1979; Dutton & Ragin, 2007). The interactions in a relationship are guided by the
past, present and (expected) future experiences (McNeil, 1980) and are different from
short-term discrete interaction events. Relationships at work can occur at different levels
- dyads, group, community, and at the organizational level. The focus of the present
study is on the relationship between co-workers (individuals at the same level in the
organizational hierarchy).

A positive relationship at work can be defined in terms of dimensions of the
relationship quality that is commonly characterized by positive emotions, trust, and non-
obligatory supportive behaviors (such as increased information exchange, greater
openness, feedback opportunities and support) as well as in terms of the extent to which
the needs of the relationship partners are being satisfied. Researchers differ in their
definitions of a positive relationship at work. Some researchers define a positive
relationship in terms of the perceived quality of the relationship while others define it in
terms of the positive outcomes of the relationship (Dutton & Ragin, 2007). Despite the
differences there is consensus on the notion that a “positive relationship” is a higher-

order construct made up of several distinct, although related dimensions.

10

 

 

v a
.

 

The next section briefly reviews some of the definitions of “Positive
Relationships” in both the social-clinical psychology literature and the organizational
literature with the aim of identifying the various dimensions of a positive relationship at
work. The clinical psychology literature primarily deals with positive relationships
between close partners such as spouses and friends. Studies in this literature define
positive relationships in terms of the degree to which there is dyadic consensus
(agreement about what is important for the relationship); affectional expression (amount
of affection expressed); dyadic satisfaction (satisfaction with the relationship), and dyadic
cohesion (closeness and shared interests) between relationship partners (Spanier, 1976).
There are a number of studies in the organizational literature that examine
positive relationships at work in terms of the quality of relationship between two parties
such as, suppliers and buyers or between customers and organizational representatives. In
this literature a positive relationship is defined in terms of supportive behaviors such as
amount of information sharing, high quality communication and other dimensions such
as, long-term orientation and satisfaction with the relationship between two groups (e.g.,
Anderson & Narus, 1990; Roberts et al., 2003; Mohr & Nevin, 1990; Etgar, 1979;
Ganesan, 1994; Crosby, et al., 1990). Some researchers define positive relationships as
those relationships that fulfill the needs, expectations and goals of the relationship
partners (e.g., Jarvelin & Lehtinen, 1996; Kim & Cha, 2002; Huntley, 2005). Others
suggest that trust (Dwyer & Oh, 1987) and commitment (Kumar, et al., 1995) are key
dimensions of positive relationships. In most empirical studies a positive high quality
relationship is operationally measured in terms of satisfaction with that relationship (e.g.,

Ragins, Cotton & Miller, 2007).

ll

   

 

Another area of organizational research that has explored relationship quality is

the literature on leader-member exchange (referred to as LMX relationships). This body
of research defines a positive relationship in terms of high-quality LMX relationships
characterized by mutual trust, respect, commitment, and influence (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). Mueller and Lee (2002) found that followers who have high-quality relationships
with their leaders, experience greater supportive behaviors such as, openness and
fi'equency in communication, voice, feedback opportunities, attention and participation.
Although a large number of organizational studies focus primarily on the quality of
leader-member relationships, a few studies have also examined team—member exchange
quality (Seers, Petty & Cashman, 1995) and work-group exchange quality (Dunegan,
Tierney & Duchon, 1992). These studies primarily focus on member's relationship
quality with reference to his or her team as a whole. Research in this area has found that
positive relationship with other team members is positively associated with work
attitudes, perceptions of climate, and performance (e.g., Seers, 1989).

The theoretical and empirical literature on trust suggests that an essential aspect of
positive relationships at work is trust. A relationship characterized by trust provides the
conditions for future cooperation and higher performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). In
recent years, organizational researchers primarily interested in positive phenomenon in
the workplace use a variety of psychological constructs to define positive relationships at
work. For example a positive relationship is defined as interactions characterized by
vitality, mutuality and positive regard (e.g., Dutton, 2003); resilience and the capacity to
repair trust (Pratt & Dirks, 2007); openness to new ideas and the ability to deflect

behaviors that might damage the relationship (Dutton & Heapy, 2003).

12

 

 

 

rei

31.x

neg

it:

 

Reviewing the literature on what constitutes a positive relationship resulted in a

diversity of definitions, dimensions and operationalizations. Common amongst the
divase set of definitions is the notion that a positive relationship is characterized by the
following dimensions: (a) satisfaction of individual’s basic needs and (b) a high
relationship quality characterized by presence of trust, non-obligatory supportive
behaviors and the lack of negative emotions. For the purpose of this study, a positive
relationship at work is defined in terms of the two broad dimensions outlined above.
Multidimensional Effects Of Workplace Offenses

Offenses at work affect the relationship partners in terms of affecting the needs of
the victim (e.g., DeCrerner & Tyler, 2005; Ren & Gray, 2009; Tyler & Lind, 1992) and
also affect aspects of the relationship quality between the partners in terms of presence of
negative emotions, distrust and lack of supportive behaviors (e.g., Barclay, et a1, 2005;
Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson, 1996; Sitkin
& Roth, 1993). The present study examines how different types of workplace offenses
affect different needs of the victim as well as the different aspects of the relationship
quality. The aim is to identify how victim needs and aspects of relationship quality are
differentially impacted by offenses and, which offender repair attempt is most effective in
repairing the damage at both these dimensions.

The existing theoretical models and empirical studies on relationship repair tend
to focus on one of the two dimensions (victim needs or the relationship quality). There is
a lack of multidimensional research that simultaneously examines how offenses affect
victim’s need satisfaction and the quality of the relationship with the offender. It is

important to examine the effect of offenses simultaneously on both these dimensions, as

13

 

[ht
bt'ff:

fat}

1'“ it
We
Erin:
II is i

$229

5

 

a: knowledge of how the victim and the relationship quality is affected will lead to a

better understanding of which type of repair attempt is most likely to be effective in
facilitating repair.

In the following sections, I first present a review of the literature on workplace
offenses and then propose three broad types of workplace offenses. Second, I discuss
how these different types of offenses are likely to violate the four basic needs of the
victim. In this section I present hypotheses suggesting the differential effects of types of
offenses on victim needs. Third, I discuss and propose hypotheses delineating how the
different types of offenses will differentially affect the three aspects of relationship
quality. Fourth, I present an overview of the multidimensional congruence model of
relationship repair and then discuss the notion of congruence. Finally, I review the
literature on offender repair attempts and propose three congruent repair attempts for the
three proposed types of offenses.

Different Types Of Workplace Offenses

In the present study the nature of the offense (transactional, relational, and moral
offenses) is integrated into the multidimensional congruence model of relationship repair.
It is important to do so to examine the extent to which any particular offender repair
attempt is likely to be effective for any given type of offense. Other researchers also
suggest that type of offense is an important factor in the prediction of the efficacy of
repair attempts (e.g., Gillespie & Dietz, 2009, Kim et al., 2004, Reb et al., 2006; Ren &
Gray, 2009; Sitkin & Roth, 1993).

There are several typologies in the justice, trust and conflict management

literature that propose different types of workplace violations (e.g., Jehn, 1995,

14

 

 

 

a“

(a

ll 1]

ilt‘

110

iii

“w r:

Greenbag & Colquitt, 2005; Bies & Tripp, 2005). In the conflict literature researchers

 

propose three types of conflicts: task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict
(e.g., Jehn, 1995, 1997b). In the justice literature, they posit three broad types of justice
violations at work: distributive, procedural and interactional injustice (e.g., Leventhal,
1976; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Bies & Moag, 1986). In the psychological contract
literature there are two types of contractual violations: transactional and relational
violations (Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau & Parks, 1992). In the trust
literature, scholars discuss three types of trust violations: ability/competence-based,
integrity-based and faith-based (e.g., Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, Dirk, 2007; Kim, Dirks,
Cooper & Ferrin, 2006). Recently, Bies and Tripp (2005) conducted a qualitative study of
workplace revenge with a focus on identifying the types of situations that violate trust or
are perceived as offensive. They categorize workplace offenses into two broad types: (1)
violations that damage a sense of civic—order and (2) violations that damage ones sense of
identity. Similarly in a conceptual paper by Ren and Gray (2009), they suggest that there
are two types of violations at work: identity and control violations.

The literature on types of workplace offenses is scattered in the sense that
different taxonomies exist that are rooted in specific literatures and do not give us explicit
knowledge about the extent to which there is overlap or uniqueness in the categorization
of workplace offenses. Secondly, these taxonomies are conceptualized at different levels.
For example, the types of injustices and types of psychological contract violations have
been conceptualized to occur between an individual employee and some representative of
the organization (often someone who is at a higher level in the organizational hierarchy

such as a supervisor or senior management). While identity and control based violations

15

 

.1111“

  

and: trust violations are conceptualized to occur between two individuals irrespective of
dreir place in the organizational hierarchy. The majority of taxonomies have not been
developed to cover the types of violations that may occur between colleagues who exist
at the same level of the organizational hierarchy and do not have differences in power
and status. For the purpose of this study, I am interested in understanding the different
types of workplace offenses that can occur between colleagues who are at the same level
in the organizational pyramid. To develop such a taxonomy of workplace offenses
between colleagues I reviewed the existing taxonomies in the literature and attempted to
create an overarching framework that includes the common dimensions from the existing
taxonomies and also incorporates another type of offense that has not been assimilated in
previous work. The integrated taxonomy proposed in this paper is an advancement over
other existing taxonomies as it is more inclusive of the different types of offenses from
past taxonomies. For example, the proposed taxonomy can be used to categorize different
types of justice violations, psychological contract violations and offenses related to
identity and morality at work, which could not be easily categorized in previous
taxonomies of workplace offenses. In addition, the proposed taxonomy of offenses
includes a unique type of offense related to third party violations of moral expectations.
Previous taxonomies either tend to ignore this type of offense or equate such offenses to
other relational types of offenses (e.g., Cropanzano, Byme, Bobocel & Rupp, 2001). On
the whole the aim of proposing this overarching inclusive taxonomy of workplace
offenses is to create a common framework to consolidate past research across different
areas and to create consistency in categorization of offenses for future research. The

proposed a-priori taxonomy of workplace offenses is just the first step towards

l6

 

 

 

d:

it}

1511

 

developing a typology of typical offensive situations between colleagues at the

workplace. The exploratory qualitative approach adopted in this study (which will be
described in detail in the method section) will allow for further refinement and
development of this taxonomy. In the next section I present the a-priori taxonomy of
workplace ofl’enses that is being proposed in this study.

Proposed Taxonomy of Workplace Offenses

In this study I propose three broad types of offenses that are likely to occur
between colleagues at the workplace: (a) Transactional offenses; (b) Relational offenses
and (c) Moral offenses.

Transactional offenses. These offenses occur due to violation of formal
expectations about the procedures and outcomes at work. An example of such a violation
would be when a colleague does not deliver a project report on time or delivers low
quality work. Transactional offenses would also include incidents that fall under the
rubric of distributive justice violations between colleagues (such as, goal obstruction,
reduced or une®al access to resources, lack of appropriate outcome allocation, lack of
expected cooperation on a team project etc) as well as violations of procedural justice
(such as, unfair processes, lack of voice and transparency etc). Rule violations as
proposed by Bies and Tripp (2005) and transactional contract violations as proposed by
Robinson, Kraatz and Rousseau (1994) would also fall under this broad category of
transactional offenses as they denote unmet expectations with regard to the formal
transactional working relationship.

Relational offenses. These offenses occur due to violation of expectations

regarding the social and relational norms in the relationship. These often unstated

17

 

 

 

L‘m

CG

CI.

{3‘
t'. r l

he

'1 ll

 

expectations could be about the appropriate behavior, the level of respect and deference
hat is expected of the other. Offenses of this nature would include violations of rules of
considerateness, kindness, politeness; rules of self respect (interactional justice) between
colleagues at work. They can include concrete acts such as destructive criticism,
disrespect, public humiliation and lack of appropriate deference. Identity based violations
as proposed by Ren & Gray (2009) and relational contract violations as proposed by
Robinson, Kraatz and Rousseau (1994) would fall under this broad category of relational
offenses as they denote unmet expectations with regard to the relational norms and rules
of social interaction in a working relationship.

Moral offenses. These offenses occur due to violation of moral expectations
about human behavior. This type of offense is different from the earlier two mentioned
offenses in that they do not have to be necessarily targeted at the victim. For example,
imagine a situation where you observe another colleague lying and cheating on a project.
In such a situation the colleague’s offensive behavior may not be directly targeted at you
but you may feel that the colleague’s action has violated a basic moral expectation of
honesty and you may think and feel negatively towards that colleague. Such third party
violations of moral expectations fall under this broad type of moral offense.

How Is The Victim Affected In The Aftermath Of Different Types Of Offenses?

Different types of offenses at work are likely to affect the victim by violating one
or more of the four basic human needs: need for control, need for belongingness, need for
identity and need for moral meaning. In the present study I will examine how different

types of workplace offenses affect these four basic needs in the victim. Such an

18

 

 

at

1111

.1:

ind

SUi

 

lift

 

mdu'standing will help to identify the most congruent repair attempt for repairing what is

afl'ected in the victim.

Fundamental Human Needs. There are several theoretical models and
typologies in the literature that propose different types of fundamental needs. Although
there are some inconsistencies, there is substantial overlap between these models. In the
following section I will review some of these typologies with a focus on identifying the
overlap and, defining the four fundamental human needs that best summarize the
literature.

One of the oldest typology of human needs was introduced by Maslow in 1954.
According to Maslow’s model there are five basic human needs: physical health, security,
belongingness, self—esteem and self-actualization. Schultz (1958) suggests that all
individuals have three types of needs: inclusion, affection and control. Other theorists
such as Alderfer (1972) suggest that growth, relatedness and existence are the three basic
needs. The “Self-Determination Theory” (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) that has been
evaluated and validated repeatedly over the years, proposes three types of fundamental
needs: (1) autonomy (i.e., to be able to self-regulate and have control over decisions that
affect oneself), (2) competence (i.e., to be personally effective and to master new skills)
and (3) relatedness (i.e., to feel connected to others). More recently, Cropanzano, Byme,
Bobocel & Rupp (2001) developed a similar taxonomy of justice related needs that
includes the following: control needs, belonging needs, self-esteem needs and meaning
need (virtue).

The four fundamental needs (CrOpanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001) that

best summarize the existing typologies and models are:

19

 

 

 

Ufa

C01

‘Crr

3077

4,]

 

I. Need for Control (c.f. Predictability, Uncertainty Reduction; Closure, Structure)

2. Need for Belongingness (c.f. Inclusion, Relatedness, Affiliation)

3. Need for Identity (c.f. Competence, Self-Esteem, Achievement, Self-Consistency)

4. Need for Moral Meaning (c.f. Moral virtues, Meaning, Self-actualization,
Humanistic)

Need for Control. Need for control manifests itself in terms of desire to
have control over one’s environment and outcomes; to have structure and to reduce
micertainty and ambiguity. Various theorists propose that individuals have a basic need to
control their environment (e.g., Bandura, 1995; Skinner, 1996; Taylor & Brown, 1998;
Tyler, 1987; Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). For example, Webster and Kruglanski (1994),
propose that humans have a need for cognitive closure which primarily comprises a
desire for predictability and a discomfort with ambiguity. Similarly, “Uncertainty theories
of justice” begin with the premise that people do not like uncertainty and strive to reduce
ambiguity in their environments. Other justice scholars have also noted that the
“management of uncertainty [is] a rather basic motive” (Van den Bos & Lind, 2002: 4).

Need for Belongingness. Need for belongingness is one of the most
studied and well-accepted fundamental human need (e.g., McClelland, 1987; Alderfer,
1972; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Baumeister & Leary (1995) that manifests itself in terms of
the desire to be included in valued groups; to be cared for and valued by others and to
have close and intimate connections with others who are valued and considered important
(Cropanzano, et al., 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Individuals as
social beings have a desire to form meaningful attachments with other individuals (e.g.,

Wilson & Ferch, 2005; Wright, 1994; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Justice theories such

20

 

 

ache relational model (Lind and Tyler, 1988), group-value model (Tyler and Lind, 1992)

and the relational equilibrium model (REM; De Cremer, 2002), are all based on this
asannption about humans. These models propose that justice is important to people
because it satisfies their basic need to feel valued by others.

Need for Identity. Need for identity manifests itself in terms of desire to
seek positive evaluations of self, to have positive self-identity, self-esteem and self-
regard and to preserve self fi'om identity threats (Ren & Gray, 2009; Branden, 1969).
Theorists such as Rogers (1963) have suggested that all individuals have a need for
positive self-regard. Studies have shown that individuals seek to have positive global
evaluations of themselves (e.g., Brockner, 1988; James, 1890; Pyszcynski, Greenberg,
Solomon, Amdt, & Schimel, 2004; Steele, 1988; Brown, 1993). The desire to feel
effective, competent and to have positive self-regard has been suggested as a fundamental
need by many theories such as the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and
McClelland’s theory of needs (1987; need for achievement). Similarly, justice models
such as the group engagement model (GEM; Tyler & Blader, 2003) are based on the idea
that justice is important to people because it enhances self-worth and shapes aspects of a
person’s identity— all of which is connected to an individual’s identity and self-esteem
(Tyler & Blader, 2003).

Need for Moral Meaning. Theorists have argued that humans have a need
to find moral purpose and meaning in life and to be virtuous actors in a just world (e.g.,
Rokeach, 1973; Folger, 1998; Kohlberg, 1984). Moral virtue is one way bywhich people
strive to live with meaning or purpose (Baumeister, 1991; Frankl, 1997). Need for moral

oran manifests itself in terms of desire and expectation to have moral order in

21

 

 

 

11c:

.“

 

society; to do one’s moral duty and to pursue actions that are consistent with one’s moral
self (e.g., Folger, 1994, 1998; Folger et al., 2005; Fukuyama, 1999; Wilson & Fetch,
2005). In support of this basic need, empirical studies in the justice literature (e.g., those
based on the deontic model or moral virtues model; Folger, 1994; 1998, 2001)
danonstrate that people often care about the fairness of others—even when it has no
effect on their own economic self-interest or relational concerns. Similarly, Skitka’s
(2002) moral mandates approach proposes that individuals have strong ideological beliefs
(moral mandates) about moral behavior that if violated can have negative consequences.
What Victim Needs Are Violated In The Aftermath Of An Offense?. On the
whole, the literature is full of conceptual arguments suggesting that different types of
human needs are likely to be affected when an individual perceives a violation or an
offensive situation (e. g., DeCrerner & Tyler, 2005; Sedikides, DeCrerner, Hart & Brebels,
2008; Tyler & Lind, 1992). A large number of published articles make conceptual
arguments suggesting that perceived injustice leads a person to feel devalued (e.g.,
Scobie & Scobie, 1,998); challenges their values and moral beliefs (e.g., Folger, 200;
Lerner, 2002; Skitka, 2002); negatively affects their identity/self-worth (e.g., Aquino &
Douglas, 2003; Fincham, 2000); symbolically removes power from the victim;
undermines the shared consensus about the norms and rules of the relationship (e.g.,
Durkheim, 1964; Okimoto & Wenzel, 2008) and threatens the victim’s sense of dignity
(e.g., Steele, 1988). In a recent article by Ren and Gray (2009), they suggest that a
victim’s sense of identity and control are threatened as a result of perceived violations.
Although these psychological outcomes of offenses seem obvious and

conceptually sound, there are only a handful of empirical studies that explicitly test these

22

 

COD

WT!"

new
inju
injus'
filmy
1101 e;

that t]

"W

conceptual argtnnents (e.g., Jones et a1, 2009; De Cremer & Tyler, 2005). Shnabel and

 

Ma (2008) found that interpersonal offenses threaten a victim’s sense of power.
Research has found that perceptions of injustice lead to higher power-seeking motivation
and power-seeking behaviors (Foster & Rusbult, 1999). In a more recent study by Jones,
Sowell, Kelly and Williams (2009), they examined how ostracism in the form of
information exclusion affects individual’s need satisfaction. They found that those who
were kept out of the loop reported lower fiilfillment of needs such as, need for control,
belongingness, identity and meaningful existence. Studies have also found that justice
violations can violate the need for belongingness (e.g., DeCrerner, 2002; De Cremer &
Tyler, 2005) and can lead to negative emotions such as anger and rage (Bies & Tripp,
2006).

Different types of offenses can differentially affect the victim (violate different
needs). For example in the paper by Reb et a1 (2006), they suggest that procedural
injustice is more likely to affect the need for control in the victim while interactional
injustice is more likely to affect the meaning (virtue) needs. Although this paper makes
theoretical arguments that different types of violations differentially affect needs, they do
not explicitly measure the need for control and need for meaning and do not demonstrate
that they are differentially affected.

In the literature on relationship repair, there are scattered and isolated studies
originating in different streams of research that either make conceptual suggestions about
what is affected in the victim or pick a one or two specific needs out of the fill] repertoire
of needs that can be empirically examined. These studies also differ in the kind of

violations they examine. For example, some studies focus on the consequences of typical

23

 

YES!

Com:
elpir
1531 x

We

 

justice violations such as, procedural, distributive and interactional violations while

ofliers focus on different types of conflicts such as task conflict and relationship conflict.
Still others focus on violations like goal obstruction, power derogation and trust
violations. There is lack of a unifying conceptual framework that organizes these spread
of ideas into an integrated model that can help in the development of future empirical
research Thus, there is a need for a more systematic investigation of how different types
of offenses affect different socio-emotional and psychological needs of the victim.

In the present study I seek to fulfill this gap by specifically examining how
different types of offenses at work (outlined earlier) affect the four basic needs in the
victim. I use an open ended qualitative approach to gather rich narrative data that allows
for the examination of how different types of workplace offenses affect the victim and
provides further evidence for examining the four basic needs proposed in this study. The
aim of the exploratory qualitative study is to develop a deeper understanding of how the
victim and the relationship quality are affected in the aftermath of offenses at work. Such
a qualitative understanding will aid the future development of specific differential
hypotheses regarding the effects of offenses on needs violations and will also provide
corroborative evidence for the model proposed in this paper. Apart from what the
exploratory qualitative study reveals about needs violation, there are a-prion' hypotheses
that will be evaluated in the quantitative examination of the multidimensional congruence
model in this paper. These hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Transactional oflense will violate the need for control. in the

victim relatively more than a relational and moral ofleme.

24

 

35 i

[left

\‘iczi

nted

H .
“Om

 

Transactional offenses are more likely to violate the need for control in the victim
as compared to a relational or moral violation. Transactional offenses tend to take away
resources fiom the victim that can lead to an increased sense of powerlessness and can
put victims in a situation where they are unable to exert influence over their outcomes.
For example, imagine a transactional offense wherein a coworker who is working on a
team project does not finish his/her part of the project report on time and therefore your
performance suffers as you are unable to present the final report to the team leader. In
such a situation there is a violation of a formal transactional expectation. Given such an
offense the victim is likely to feel a sense of powerlessness and loss of control over work
outcomes. In the aftermath of relational and moral offenses, it is likely that the victim is
offended but such offenses do not directly impact the work outcomes and do not
necessarily take away resources from the victim and, thus are less likely to impact the
victim’s need for control.

Hypothesis 2: Relational oflense will violate the need for belongingness

and need for identity in the victim relatively more than a transactional or

moral oflense.

Similarly relational offenses are likely to violate the need for belongingness and

need for identity in the victim more compared to transactional and moral offenses.
Relational offenses are perceived when an offender violates a socio-relational norm of
interpersonal treatment. For example, imagine a relational offense wherein a coworker
who is working on a team project humiliates another coworker in the presence of other
team members. In such a situation there is a violation of a relational expectation of

considerateness and respect. Given such an offense the victim is likely to feel a damaged

25

 

 

sense of
001.110th
as 11 deg
is not re
offenses

like!) to

need for 1

tr:
HI

Offenses ;
reiatmmh
lS “ll-lilting
inflated
situation 1}
a ”013110!-
Wct‘ltcd
Ofimefi ar
pacified ]
Unethical 3
Mia} Slang
How Are 1

in 0m, n Se

 

me of identity the to personal attack on the self (self-esteem/identity needs are

violated). The offmse is also likely to threaten one’s sense of belongingness to the group
as it devalued the team member in the presence of other coworkers and signals that he/she
is not respected in the group and by that particular individual. Transactional and moral
offenses are less likely to be perceived as a personal attack by the victim and thus are less
likely to impact the victim’s sense of belongingness and self-worth related needs such as
need for identity.

Hypothesis 3: Moral oflense will violate the need for moral meaning in the

victim relatively more than a transactional or relational oflense.

Moral offenses are particularly unique compared to transactional and relational
offenses as they are not directly targeted at the victim but can still lead to damaged
relationships. For example, imagine a moral offense where you observe a coworker who
is working on a team project with you, mention to another coworker about how he/she
borrowed someone else’s work to complete a part of your team project. In such a
situation the coworker has not directly offended you but you are likely to perceive this as
a violation of a basic moral expectation of honesty and ethics. It is likely that such a
perceived offense will affect your need for moral meaning. Transactional and relational
offenses are less likely to affect the need for moral meaning as they are less likely to be

perceived by the victim in moral terms and do not always cleanly fall in the category of
unethical acts versus a moral offense that is more likely to be perceived as a violation of

moral standards at the workplace.

How Are The Dimensions Of Relationship Quality Affected In The Aftermath Of
An Offense?

26

 

£21

[1.5

10;;

flip

it!

IEILT

 

Typical workplace offenses not only violate the basic needs of the victim but also

damage dimensions of the relationship quality primarily by affecting three aspects: (1)
Emotions: increasing negative emotions towards the offender, (2) Cognitions: reducing
trust and (3) Behaviors: reducing non-obligatory supportive behaviors. Research has
found that offenses at work adversely influence the emotions of the victim such that
victims feel anger, resentment, fi'ustration and outrage towards the offender (e.g.,
Barclay, et a1, 2005; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Research has also shown that offenses
lead to damaged relationships that are characterized by low levels of trust wherein
individuals are not willing to take risk and tend to form negative expectations with
respect to the partner’s future behaviors (Robinson, 1996; Sitkin & Roth, 1993; Lewicki,
McAllister, & Bies, 1998). Workplace offenses also lead to suspension of positive
interactions between the victim and the offender and in some cases lead to overt acts of
aggression and revenge as a reaction to the violation (e. g., Bottom, et a1, 2002). Finally,
violations have been found to reduce cooperation and other non-obligatory supportive
behaviors such as, helping, sharing information, giving feedback and taking initiative
(Aryee et al., 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Coyle-
Shapiro, et al., 2004b; Masterson et al., 2000; Moorman, 1991; Viswesvaran & Ones,
2002).

The nature and type of offense can determine the extent to which different aspects
of the relationship quality are affected. Offenses between colleagues at work have the
potential to affect all three aspects of relationship quality— presence of negative emotions,

distrust and lack of non-obligatory supportive behaviors towards the offender. The three

aspects of the relationship quality outlined in this paper are highly inter-related over time.

27

 

for
oil

ll .‘t‘

l‘lllt'}
Brad
10w

hm

 

or re

‘T'fl‘cm
(film
dtllte
Willi;
mum
Ultras
rm

This;

   

' O

 

    

“it” neytive emotions are likely to eventually affect cognitive trust expectations
durum regarding the offender’s future behaviors. Similarly cognitions of trust can
also afi'ea the presence of negative emotions towards the offender and can influence the
Intent to which victims choose to engage in non-obligatory supportive behaviors towards
the offender. Although these aspects of the relationship quality are interrelated, they can
be studied as separate facets that have been shown to have differential relationships with
other work-related and relationship outcomes (e.g., Aquino, Tripp & Bies, 2001;
Bradfield & Aquino, 1999; Driscoll, 1978; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Mayer & Gavin,
1999; McAllister, 1995). In the following section I will outline some differential
hypotheses that indicate how types of offenses may differentially affect the three aspects
of relationship quality.

Hypothesis 4: Transactional oflense will decrease the level of trust

between the victim and the oflenderrelatively more than a relational

oflense.

Transactional offenses are likely to affect the trust between the victim and the
offender. Such types of offenses often involve incidents where the victim feels that the
offender has either taken away resources that the victim deserved or the offender has not
delivered on a work-related expectation thus putting the victim in a compromising
position. Such offenses may occur due to the offender’s incompetence or lack of
motivation and are likely to damage the level of trust the victim has towards to the
offender (affects the cognitive aspect of the relationship). Transactional offenses are not
directly targeted at the victim’s sense of identity and are less likely to be ego—damaging.

Transactional offenses are more likely to make the victim feel a sense of powerlessness

28

 

 

it:

be :nl
Trait"-
SUppgt
Mei
Mica}
03mm
Wimpa
Sill-m:

if.
011mm;

    

.'}
...4",','.’_f'7 ] more finely to strongly and negatively affect the cognitive dimemions of
g.

  

  
  

 

:3 i quality such as, the level of trust as compared to the more relational and
m aspects of the relationship quality such as, emotions and non-obligatory
W behaviors (Dirks et al., 2009). Transactional offenses are violations of formal
work-related expectations and thus are more constrained to affecting the formal level of
trust in a working relationship and less likely to generalize to other emotional and
supportive dimensions of relationship quality (Dirks et al., 2009).

Hypothesis 5a: Relational oflense will increase the amount of negative

emotions the victim feels towards the oflender relatively more than a

transactional and moral offense.

Hypothesis 5b: Relational oflense will decrease the level of non-obligatory

supportive behaviors the victim is willing to do for the offender relatively

more than a transactional oflense. .

Relational offenses are likely to affect the victim’s sense of identity and
belongingness and are also likely to influence the level of negative emotions (e.g.,
Tranfinow, Bromgard, Finlay & Ketelaar, 2005) and the level of non-obligatory
supportive behaviors towards the offender. Relational offenses are more likely to be
perceived by the victim as a personal attack on the victim’s self-worth and are likely to
indicate to the victim that the offender does not respect or value the victim’s status and
competence. Such an inference is likely to instigate stronger negative emotional reactions
compared to a transactional and moral offense as these offenses do not target the victim’s

self-worth. In the aftermath of a relational offense, the victim is likely to perceive that the

offender is not interested in maintaining a social and fiiendly relationship beyond the

29

 

  

form] \
chore
apart

M31 lift".

m

inferna-
Iht ollcr
bthax‘iury
When a \-
character.
Olimder z
the (fiend

ll:
lhlch hill”
This stud2
dilemma

@hq fig

      
      
 

l

- | g I 0' Momhipw Such an inference is likely to negatively afl’eet fire vicu'rn’s

.3 l
' '.

m. m in discretionary non-obligatory supportive behaviors due to an
*0 MM the ofi’mder is not interested in reciprocating with such supportive
.1 We.

 

-... . lbpothesis 6a: Moral ofiknse will decrease the level of trust towards the
oflarder relatively more than a relational oflense.

Hypothesis 6b: Moral ofl'enses will decrease the level of non-obligatory

supportive behaviors the victim is willing to do for the oflender relatively

more than a transactional oflense.

In the aftermath of a moral offense, the victim is likely to make negative
inferences about the offender’s character and integrity. Such a negative inference about
the offender is likely to affect the victim’s expectation of honest and trustworthy
behaviors from the offender in the future and thus may reduce the level of trust. Similarly
when a victim perceives that the offender is dishonest and immoral or has a defect in
character, it may lead the victim to reduce discretionary supportive behaviors towards the
offender as this may be seen as an additional cost in a social exchange relationship with
the offender.

The relative differential hypotheses outlined above are plausible hypotheses
which have not received much attention and investigation in previous empirical research.
This study is the first empirical attempt to examine how different types of offenses
differentially affect aspects of relationship quality. In the present study _I also seek to

gather rich qualitative data to further explore how offenses impact the different

30

   

dime:

bchdl Ill

Conga:
11mm
offenses
into a c
efficacy
concur:
that is‘:
Iht notiu
facilizrtin
Over
0:
mm to“
fruit per:
llacDem:
Stable Con
examined
35le {of
3003; Gem
mildelg [CT

“Whiting

 

W of relationship quality (i .e. how they affect emotions, trust and discretionary

Wines) and how they impact victim’s need satisfaction.
In the next section I will provide an overview of the proposed “Multidimensional
Congruence Model Of Relationship Repair At Work”. I will integrate the proposed
taxonomy of workplace offenses and the hypothesized multidimensional effects of these
ofl’enses on the victim needs and relationship quality dimensions (as discussed till now)
into a conceptual model. I will then discuss the notion of congruence and how the
efficacy of offender repair attempts in facilitating relationship repair depends on the
congruence between what is affected (in the victim and in the relationship quality) and
what is being repaired by the repair attempt. After discussing the conceptual model and
the notion of congruence, I will then discuss the role of offender repair attempt in
facilitating relationship repair.
Overview of the Multidimensional Congruence Model of Relationship Repair
Organizational theorists and researchers have repeatedly expressed the need to
move towards process models that examine psychological phenomenon not just from a
trait perspective but also from a state perspective (e.g., Beal, Weiss, Barros &
MacDermid, 2005). Traditionally, studies in the organizational literature have focused on
stable conceptions of psychological constructs. For example, researchers in the past have
examined constructs such as emotions, trust and performance from a static perspective by
asking for aggregated judgments of psychological states over time (cf. Robinson & Clore,
2002; George, 1991; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Pelled & Xin, 1999). Such static
models tend to ignore the fluctuations and the meaningful pattern of changes in the

PSYchological states within an individual.

31

 

 

though
indie
Lushcr
toward
ounce;
sensitr
a1. 3w
Hakcl.
19%).

pS}Chr1

conccp
Ol'tr Ii:
Gems.
2004).
mean i
and Va.
Niles.

Henry .
Them-
allecm

A “state” is defined as a snapshot of an individual’s current level of feelings,

thonglus and behaviors (e.g., Fleeson, 2001; Cattell, Cattell, & Rhymer, 1947;
Fridhandler, 1986; Nesselroade, 1988; Patrick & Zuckerman, 1977; Spielberger,
Lushene, & McAdoo, 1977). Recent theoretical and empirical research indicates a trend
towards a state perspective, wherein emotional, cognitive and behavioral constructs are
conceptualized and measured as states that meaningfully vary within individual and are
sensitive to changes in the external context as well as in the person (e.g., Laurenceau, et
a], 2005; Rousseau, et al., 1998; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Fleeson, 2001; Polyhart &
Hake], 1998; Sturman & Trevor, 2001; Stunnan, et al., 2005; Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996). Such models map the meaningful intra-individual patterns of changes in the
psychological states (state trajectories) over time (e.g., Beal etal., 2005; Fleeson, 2001 ).
Emerging research on dynamic criteria indicates that job performance can be
conceptualized in terms of performance states that meaningfully change within individual
over time (e.g., Deadrick & Madigan, 1990; Ghiselli & Haire, 1960; Hoffman, Jacobs, &
Gerras, 1992; Hulin, Henry, & Noon, 1990; Thoresen, Bradley, Bliese, & Thoresen,
2004). There is evidence to indicate both long-term changes (increase or decrease of
mean performance trends over time) and short-term changes (performance fluctuations
and variations) in the performance of employees over time (e.g., Hanges, Schneider, &
Niles, 1990; Hofmann, Jacobs, & Baratta, 1993; Hofinann, Jacobs, & Gerras, 1992;
Henry & Hulin, 1987). Similarly, in the workplace emotions literature, “Affective Events
Theory” talks about the ebb and flow of emotional experiences and the changing
affective states within an individual (e.g. Weiss & Beal, 2005). This theory evaluates the

influence of discrete work events on the affective states of the individual as well as on

32

 

 

 

dman‘
199m.
Heattr
duds.
dmanz

andluv

relatior
the re];
fillettl
control.
relation
extent

obligan
are sens
Deci. E
lhOUght
(Lauren.

Laurenc,

expcficn
prOCQSS

Lauren“

 

dynamic criterion such as performance and satisfaction over time (Weiss & Cropanzano,

1996). Consistent with this state perspective, studies in the trust literature also define and
treat trust as a dynamic state composed of the psychological experiences of individuals,
dyads, and firms (Rousseau et al., 1998: 395). Scholars tend to conceptualize trust
dynamically but usually focus on specific phases and states in the development of trust
and how discrete factors affect these psychological states.

Adopting a similar state perspective in the context of this study, I conceptualize a
relationship at work as a set of states (i.e. state of victim’s need satisfaction and state of
the relationship quality as discussed in the earlier sections) that change over time. The
state of a victim’s need satisfaction denotes the extent to which an individual’s need for
control, belongingness, identity and moral meaning is being fiilfilled or violated by the
relationship partner. The state of the relationship quality on the other hand, denotes the
extent to which there is presence of negative emotions, distrust, and lack of non-
obligatory supportive behaviors towards the relationship partner. These two broad states
are sensitive to changes in the environment and changes in the relationship partners (e. g.,
Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Rousseau et al., 1998). These states can be
thought as variables that change and go through their natural pattern of ebb and flow
(Laurenceau et al, 2005) thus creating separate state trajectories over time (See Boker &
Laurenceau, 2006).

Researchers in the area of interpersonal relationships have found that day-to-day
experiences of closeness and quality of a relationship fluctuate as a result of the dynamic
process of interactions between relationship. partners (e.g., Prager & Roberts, 2004;

Laurenceau et al, 2005). Various factors can influence these changes. An offense can be

33

 

 

cones:
33m

in the

lCSCt‘Jt'
33:53.
3th};

satisl‘a.
SIUH. 5

1994;‘\

relation
the rclu
Figure

demons;
Salient i
repress

Figum j.

”alum;

Telallom

 

conceived as a discrete external event that affects both the victim’s state of need

satisfaction and the state of the relationship quality. Similarly an offender repair attempt
in the aftermath of an offense can also be conceived as a discrete external event that can
affect the states of the victim and the relationship quality with the offender. Researchers
have examined how psychological states change due to salient external events. Past
research has found that external disrupting events have a significant effect on the
satisfaction of psychological needs (e.g., Gillison, Standage & Skevington, 2008; Sirsch,
2003; Alspaugh, 1998). These studies indicate that the state of psychological need
satisfaction at any given point of time is sensitive to variations in the environment (e.g.,
Stoll, Stobart, Martin, Freeman, Freedman et al., 2003; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone,
1994; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, & Lens, 2004).
Conceptual Description of the Multidimensional Congruence Model
The first step toward examining relationships as states requires disaggregating a
relationship into two types of states: state of the victim’s need satisfaction and the state of
the relationship quality which are responsive to momentary changes in the environment.
Figure 2 depicts a conceptual model that represents a relationship in terms of states and
demonstrates how these states may change over time and how they can be affected by
salient events such as an offense and an offender repair attempt. Figure 3 is a graphic
representation of how the states change to form separate state trajectories over time.
Figure 3 also illustrates the notions of multidimensional congruence.
In the following discussion, I include the concepts of changing states, state
trajectories and salient events to describe a multidimensional congruence model of

relationship repair. In the context of the present study the relationship being discussed is

34

 

 

L.....n~UM~ QwCZCpcmuanrvakC Tiles: -~3~A~UU-CFV
mu rUL-uuwmyi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.352“ 083 “sonata 8 nflgoufla 05 mo 835 33308:: meet? 2: 83me moxon 05 wagons—co won: cog—c 2:. .632

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESE: mafia: mmzmmmo no we:
mmnzmmmo no as»...
mmoSémm mmo~><mmm meoSfimm mmoSémm
mEmoeSm MEEESm $5.20,nt mZEoeSm
55:2an 5929an 5.8.3“an 20:9an
.202 . :L .202 . r--. .202 . T--. .202 .
SB: . :L 53: . Ii 53E . Ti 33%. .
mzofiozm . ..... mzoiozm . Ti mzofiozm . :L mzoFozm .
E550 arr—.35 5.5450 3350
amaze—95mm E5553”; Emzofifime amaze—3.4.5.
5
3
go: . Ii 4552 . IL .7202 . :i 455: .
Ewe . Ti >5.sz . r--. EEmB . 1-: >5.sz .
mmmzcaczonmm . r: mmmzoaozodm . Ii mmmzcaozodm . mmmzcaozgmm .
nomhzoo . r--. 8528 . :i 49:28 . T... 15528 .
8mm: 2.55 mam—”.2 2.55 mnmmz 25.05 mammz E55
1:... Eds—b E. HES—rm Sh When—M :.
52%
2.882 59% c8.— EE§< fias— oseouo «Sauce...—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cfigom arena—cased mo Eco—2 Bagueou
N enema

 

 

llmlto
hlt'lliit
and tr
parcel“
relatio
and. 4

Phase

exists:
one ca.
the otl
Whiting
emonn
Figure
art the.
other It

Phase j

Wenti:
relation
Second

Phase]

 

W to that between two employees who are coworkers (i.e. at the same organizational
hia'u’chy). The conceptual model I present is primarily based on the victim’s perspective
and includes the states of need satisfaction and the states of relationship quality as
paceived by the victim. Figure 2 depicts the four phases in the conceptual model of
relationships as states: 1) the pre—offense phase; 2) offense phase; 3) repair attempt phase
and, 4) post-repair phase.

Phase 1- Pro-offense

This phase of a relationship can be conceptualized as a set of states that have
existed over a period of time prior to the offense. At any given time point in this phase
one can measure the state of victim’s need satisfaction (four states - the extent to which
the other fulfills the four basic needs of a relationship partner) and the state of the
relationship quality (three states - the extent to which there is presence of negative
emotions, distrust and lack of non-obligatory supportive behaviors towards the other). In
Figure 2, the first box on the left indicates a single time point at which the seven states
are measured prior to the offense. The dashed lines joining the boxes depict the various
other time points at which these states can be measured.

Phase 2- Offense

An offense can be conceptualized as a discrete external event that has the
potential to affect the seven states. The nature and type of offense (e. g., transactional,
relational, and moral) is likely to differentially affect the various states. In Figure 2, the
second box from the lefi indicates the measured seven states right after the offense.

Phase 3- Repair Attempt

36

 

 

 

 

OI It‘C.
Qlt’ilit’

the th

repair

to the

petrol
relatiot
affects
the da:
ahennc
atttne fi
Sumcie
and the
be disct
the ef‘fik
COngflte

firm We

 

In the aftermath of an offense, an offender can make repair attempts to atone for

or reduce the damage caused by the offense. Such repair attempts (will be discussed in

greater detail later) can also be conceptualized as discrete external events that affect both

the victim’s state of needs satisfaction and the state of the relationship quality. The nature
and type of repair attempt is also likely to differentially affect the various states. In Figure
2, the third box from the left indicates the measured seven states right after the offender
repair attempt.
Phase 4- Post Repair

This phase includes the seven states post offender repair attempt. Relationship
repair can be characterized in this phase as a positive change in these states as compared
to the level of these states in phase 2 (i.e. right after the offense). When an offense is
perceived it is likely that both the victim’s state of needs satisfaction and the state of the
relationship quality are affected. It is important to understand how these states are
affected to be able to identify which repair attempt would be most effective in repairing
the damage. If we do not understand what was damaged or negatively affected in the
aftermath of an offense we will not be able to identify the most effective repair attempt to
atone for the negative effects. The studies in the relationship repair literature have not
sufficiently examined the different states that are affected in the aftermath of an offense
and the states that need to be repaired. The notion of multidimensional congruence(will
be discussed in more detail in the following section) proposed in this study suggests that
the efficacy of an offender’s repair attempt in repairing relationships is contingent on the
congruence between what the repair attempt restores and what has been impacted in the

first place by the offense. It is important to investigate how different offense types

37

 

 

influt
under
rdaht

The?

ingne
thath.
dhen
medn
telatio
hate
aCCttUF
quaht}
attemp
muhhh
Oli't‘lldt
ii Witt
’i’h’ltiur;
hnlnh;
proper,e

I"fluent

influence what is impacted in the victim and in the relationship quality in order to
understand which repair attempt is most likely to be effective in repairing the
relationship.
The Notion of Multidimensional Congruence: Efficacy of Offender Repair Attempts

In the following section I will discuss the notion of multidimensional congruence
in greater detail. As noted earlier, many isolated streams of research exist in the literature
that have failed to conduct process oriented research to delineate the “why” behind the
efficacy of repair attempts in facilitating relationship repair. Most studies merely examine
the direct effects of certain types of offender repair attempts on a limited and select set of
relationship quality outcomes (such as trust, forgiveness, cooperation etc). These studies
have found mixed results in terms of the benefits of various types of social
accounts/repair attempts in facilitating victim’s need satisfaction and positive relationship
quality outcomes. As researchers we do not empirically understand why certain repair
attempts are effective in relationship repair (Bobocel & Zdaniuk, 2005). The notion of
multidimensional congruence proposed in this paper suggests that the effectiveness of
offender repair attempts is determined by the multidimensional congruence between what
is aflected in both the victim (state of need satisfaction of the four basic needs) and in the
relationship quality (state of relationship quality in terms of the three aspects of quality)
and what is repaired by a certain oflender repair attempt. Multidimensional congruence is
proposed as the mechanism by which an offender remedy is effective in exerting
influence on relationship repair.

Hypothesis 7*: The eflcctiveness 0f offender repair attempts in facilitating

relationship repair will be determined by the multidimensional

38

 

attent
htptit:
htpot;

Rena

repres
tietirr.
lines 1
relatio
lines i
attemr
repair
“pair
that at
0f the
alleetc.
of litter
With as

the Sta]

congruence between what is impacted in the victim and in the relationship

quality and what is repaired by a certain type of repair attempt.

This hypothesis has three sub-hypotheses that delineate what type of repair
attempt is going to be most congruent for different types of offenses (given the
hypothesized damage to victim needs and aspects of relationship quality). These sub-
hypotheses will be further discussed in the following section on the “Role of Offender
Repair Attempts”.

Figure 3 explains the notion of multidimensional congruence through a graphical
representation. The X-axis denotes the various time points at which one can measure the
victim’s state of need satisfaction and the state of the relationship quality. The different
lines in the graph indicate the changes in the four needs satisfaction states and the three
relationship quality states thus forming seven separate state trajectories. The two vertical
lines indicate the time points at which there was an offense and an offender repair
attempt. The notion of multidimensional congruence suggests that the effectiveness of a
repair attempt in repairing a relationship depends on the congruence between what the
repair attempt can restore and what has been damaged. For example the graph indicates
that at the time the offense was perceived there was a significantly larger change in one
of the four states of the victim’s need satisfaction (i.e., need for control was negatively
affected- line with diamond markers). There was also a significantly larger change in two
of three relationship quality states wherein there was a drop in positive emotions (line
with asterisk markers) and trust (line with circled marker). Figure 3 depicts that some of

the states were more strongly impacted in the aftermath of the offense. This is a

39

representation of the hypotheses that proposes that different offenses may differentially

affect the victim’s need satisfaction and relationship quality states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3
Depicting the Notion of Multidimensional Congruence
Offense Repair Attempt
i7 V
8M”. 6666 U,......,...‘_..,WW W...--. v f .. ,,. -..-.. 1 .. - ...__ ‘
+CONTROL
BELONGINGNESS
‘ -atr-IDENTITY
W“.M~e.omamfi.mfi‘w H “ix '4’ _- .m- e" v“ ‘ """wfl ~
‘1. x
xx \ r -)(—MORAL

 

\1 —-\L L 5"
r— Nae—AW” aye-r ii '*" “mm-EMOTIONS
chknflwfl TRUST

. BEHAVIOR

 

r...

Victim Needs and Dimensions of Relationship Quality

 

The second vertical line (to the right) indicates the time point at which the
offender made a repair attempt. In the aftermath of the repair attempt you can see from
the graph that there was a positive change in two of the three states that were affected by
the offense. The offender repair attempt was successful in satisfying the victim’s need for
control (upward move in the line with diamond markers). Similarly theoffender repair
attempt reduced the negative emotions (move in the line with asterisk markers). However

the offender repair attempt was not congruent with the damage caused to the state of trust

40

 

Hack
men
rdan
does
can a
ofthc
indie:
repair

dantai

thcin:
0n rel
Ihconc
Shnabt
ffpah

ticnni

modCL
rnahna;
Mdpu
“mhra
Mdas
hen“;

lilakes

(lack of upward move in the line with circled markers). In such a situation the efficacy of
the repair attempt will be limited as it is not congruent with what was damaged in the
relationship as it only addresses some of the damaged aspects of relationship quality and
does not reduce or remove an important damaged aspect of the relationship quality. One
can also see from figure 3 that the offender repair attempt did not strongly influence any
of the other states except for the lines with diamond and asterisk markers. This figure
indicates that the extent to which an offender repair attempt will be successful in
repairing relationships at work will depend on the extent to which it addresses the
damage at both the dimensions (victim needs satisfaction and relationship quality).

In the last few years, several theoretical models have been proposed that delineate
the instrumental and socio-emotional paths through which remedies exert their influence
on relationship repair. In the intergroup conflict literature, researchers have proposed
theories that support the notion of congruence as proposed in this paper. For example,
Shnabel and Nadler (2008) propose that reconciliation is most likely to occur when the
repair attempt offered in the social interaction following an offense satisfies both the
victim and the offender needs. There has been only one empirical yet partial test of this
model, where they selectively looked at two types of needs: need for power and need to
maintain a public moral image. The study found that violations affect the sense of power
and public moral image of the victim and offender respectively. They also found that
repair attempts such as an empowering message (designed to influence sense of power)
and a social acceptance message (designed to influence sense of acceptance) increased
the victim’s and offender’s willingness to reconcile respectively. This is a unique study as

it takes into account both the victim and the offender and the effects of messages

41

 

etch;

30th

dean
The}
innru
resuu
punni
mom:
congr
meant
rancd
SiUdlc
in a p
Valida
dlil‘t‘n‘

MORE:

E n0
differe-
Sailsfak

Studies

exchanged during social interaction in the aftermath of conflict (Shnabel & Nadler,
2008).

Another study by Reb et a1 (2006) supports the notion of congruence by
demonstrating that different violations necessitate the preferences for different remedies.
They found that procedural justice violations were associated with preference for an
instrumental remedy (e.g., monetary compensation designed to provide instrumental
resources) while interactional justice violations were associated with preference for
punitive remedy (e.g., disciplinary action against the offender- designed to give a sense of
moral meaning to the victim). Although this study supports the proposed notion of
congruence by suggesting that different violations differentially affect instrumental and
meaning needs in the victim and thus necessitate the preferences for appropriate
remedies, it does not examine the proposed socio-emotional mediators. The few other
studies that examine how remedies satisfy the socio-emotional needs of the victim, do so
in a piece meal approach by focusing on one specific need (e.g., need for perceptual
validation in the article by Eaton, Struthers & Santelli, 2006) and do not identify how
different types of remedies relatively influence the satisfaction of a variety of needs.
Moreover, these sporadic studies examine the efficacy of remedies in facilitating a
variety of different dimensions of relationship repair ranging from victim’s need
satisfaction to other dimensions such as emotions, trust and supportive behaviors. There
is no single empirical study in the literature that looks at how these remedies may
differentially relate to multidimensional aspects of relationship repair (both victim’s need
satisfaction and relationship quality dimension). Another way in which these existing

studies differ is in the level at which they measure remedies. Some studies examine

42

rel.

off:
the r
ofrc;

Rolei

anan

remedies offered by the target offender while others examine the role of organizational
remedies. The nature and content of the repair attempt may differ depending on whether
the relationship is between two individuals or is between an individual and an
organization.

There is a need to weave these sporadic studies into a more comprehensive
examination of how offender repair attempts are likely to satisfy the needs violated in a
victim and how they affect different aspects of relationship quality to facilitate
relationship repair. The present study seeks to fill these gaps by empirically examining
offender repair attempts as the facilitator of relationship repair and by explicitly testing
the notion of multidimensional congruence (i.e., type of offense-)type of damageé-type
of repair attempt).

Role of Offender Repair Attempts

An offender repair attempt can be defined as an effort made by the offender to
address the offense and to atone for the negative effects of the offense (Bobocel &
Zdaniuk, 2005) on the victim and/or on the relationship quality Existing studies in the
trust and justice literature focus on the effectiveness of various types of social accounts
and organizational remedies in reducing the negative consequences of violations (e.g.,
Kim et al., 2004; Shaw et al, 2003). A large number of these studies focus on how
explanatory accounts (such as, denial, excuse and justification given by offenders) that
alter blame attributions and reframe the offense situation affect trust, negative emotions
and cognitions of retaliation (e.g., Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009; Kim et al., 2004; Colquitt

& Chertkoff, 2002; Greenberg, 1990). The purpose of such explanatory accounts is

primarily to avoid or mitigate the blame attributions associated with the offense. Another

43

 

S€iC

jUSi

lflllf

belie

such ;

men
to chi

harm

that I

“as a

set of studies examine the role of repair attempts in atoning for the injustice rather than

just changing the blame attributions. Barclay and Skarlicki (2008) categorize such

remedies into three types: socio-emotional (e.g., providing an apology); instrumental

(e.g., providing monetary compensation) and punitive (e.g., punishing the offender).

Commonly studied offender repair attempts are discussed in the following section.
Explanatory Repair Attempts.

Denial. A denial is an assertion that something that has been said,
believed, alleged or blamed is not true. A denial would manifest in terms of a message
such as: “I did not do that. It’s not my fault and I’m not responsible for the situation”.

Excuse. An excuse indicates the cause behind one’s action. It provides
external reasons or unforeseen circumstances to indicate that there was lack of intention,
planning or choice in behaving the way one did. An excuse would manifest in terms of
messages such as: “I did not want to do that but I was forced”; “I could not do anything
to change what I did because I did not have a choice”; “I did not plan to do that...it
happened because. . ..”.

Justification. A justification provides reasons that are more ideological
and related to higher goals to prove that one’s actions were just, right and reasonable. A
justification would manifest in terms of messages such as: “I did that for the greater good
and not to hurt you...”; “My behavior was just because I had good intentions for doing
what I did”; “If you compare to how much worse it could have been you can see that this

was a better option”.

Atoning Repair Attempts.

44

 

 

Nun

hmnt
under
[ther
i‘Ot‘Ust
flit Vic
anmnr
mcofi

Mayer

Apology. An apology is an expression of sorrow and an admission of
blameworthiness. It would manifest in messages such as: “I’m sorry! It’s my fault”.

Promise. A promise is a written or spoken declaration that something will
or will not be done. It would manifest in terms of a message such as: “I promise you
something like this will never happen again”.

Compensation. A compensation is an attempt to give back (could be
money or other resources such as time, concrete things etc) to make up for a real or
imagined loss, injury or suffering. It would manifest through messages such as: “I am
willing to make it up to you in any way I can”; “Please let me pay back for the damage I
have caused”.

Theoretical Processes by Which Offender Repair Attempts Exert Their Influence
On reviewing the broad range of studies on relationship repair in diverse
literatures, it is evident that two basic theoretical processes have been proposed for
understanding how offender repair attempts are likely to facilitate repair. The first
theoretical process is based on the attribution theory (Heider, 1958). This perspective
focuses on changing the attributions of the victim such that the offense and the offender
are viewed less negatively by the victim. According to this perspective an effective repair
attempt (e.g., an excuse, denial or a justification) is one that provides information about
the offense such that the negative inferences made by the victim are offset (Tomlinson &
Mayer, 2009; Kim et al., 2004). This perspective is often applied in studies that focus on
trust repair in the aftermath of an offense (e. g., Gillespie & Dietz, 2009; Kim et al., 2004,
2006). The psychological attribution perspective is helpful in understanding the cognitive

trust dimension of repair but does not explain how repair attempts may be able to restore

45

 

OIhC‘

in}
the:
pars;

pnati

mgun
in [he
Oiienr
Under
0fncc
damai
[0 fat}

NHXed

Vanct}

Circn'

 

 

other social or relational aspects of a relationship that are damaged in the aftermath of an
offense.

The other theoretical perspective in the literature proposes that the most effective
way to restore a relationship is to re-establish the social equilibrium that is disrupted in
the aftermath of an offense (Goffinan, 1967; Ren & Gray, 2009). According to this
perspective offender repair attempts (such as, apology, penance and compensation)
provide information to the victim that reaffirm the norms that govern the relationship. It
also restores the victim’s relative standing in the relationship (i.e. provides the victim
with more power in the relationship). This perspective is particularly well suited for
addressing issues related to reducing negative emotions and repairing cooperative
exchange between the victim and the offender (Ren & Gray, 2009).

On the whole, the two theoretical perspectives outlined above provide conceptual
arguments for why an offender repair attempt may be effective in repairing relationships
in the aftermath of an offense. What we do not understand is “when ” a particular
offender repair attempt is most likely to be effective. To answer that question, we need to
understand how different types of offenses are likely to influence both the victim’s state
of needs satisfaction and the state of the relationship quality. Once we know where the
damage is, only then can we know and identify the most effective offender repair attempt
to facilitate repair.

Mixed Findings about the Efficacy of Offender Repair Attempts

There are a large number of studies examining the efficacy of repair attempts for a

variety of outcomes; however, there is still controversy and contradictions about the

effectiveness of such repair attempts. Explanatory repair attempts such as a denial, excuse

46

 

anger

apttlt:

reduc
(redu;
facilit
Schlci
1992 )
inlegp
Wino:
Scatter

multip

 

 

and justification have been found to repair initial trust (e.g., Kim et al, 2006; Roirdan,
Marlin, & Kellogg, 1983; Crant & Bateman, 1993) as they attempt to remove the blame
(e.g., Sigal, Hsu, Foodim, & Betrnan, 1988) and extend the benefit of the doubt to the
offender (Schlenker, 1980). Although this has been found in empirical studies there is
also data to suggest a competing expectation. Explanations such as denial, excuse and
justification have the potential to be perceived as insincere attempts to excuse bad
behavior and can result in greater negative emotions and outcomes (Tomlinson, Dineen,
& Lewicki, 2004; Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003). Such repair attempts can make the
offender look deceitful, dishonest, self-absorbed and ineffectual (Schlenker et al, 2001).
There is also controversy about the beneficial effects of external causal accounts (Crant
& Bateman, 1993; Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, & Verette, 1987) in reducing the victim’s
anger versus more internal attributions of blame along with remedial accounts such as an
apology (Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004).

There is also controversy about the effects of apology on trust repair versus
reducing negative emotions. Apology has been found to positively predict forgiveness
(reduction in negative emotions of anger and resentment; McCullough et al, 1998) and
facilitate conflict resolution by increasing empathy in the victim (e.g., Darby &
Schlenker, 982; McCullough et al, 1997; Takaku, 2001; Gonzales, Mannings, & Haugen,
1992). However, apology has also been found to hurt trust repair in the aftermath of
integrity based violations, as it indicates to the victim that the offender is guilty and
cannot be trusted (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper & Dirks, 2004). On the whole, the literature is
scattered and there are mixed results regarding the effects of such repair. attempts on the

multiple dimensions of relationship repair.

47

 

 

haw.
that

ditli"
of th
stilt;

et cc

impa
repair
repair
set of
the is.
do Ill;
facilit
Studic

Victim

repeat:
mOIC g

repair

The most obvious explanation for these mixed results is the fact that these results
have been derived from empirical studies that differ not only in the dimensions of repair
that they examine (e.g., needs vs. trust vs. emotions vs. supportive behaviors) but also
differ in the context in which they evaluate the efficacy of the repair attempts (e.g., nature
of the offense). Existing studies have not systematically and sufficiently examined the
efficacy of repair attempts from a multidimensional perspective that is, examining its
effect on multiple dimensions of relationship repair (such as, both the victim’s need
satisfaction and the relationship quality between the victim and the offender that may be
impacted in the aftermath of an offense). The studies that examine the effects of offender
repair attempts have usually done so by looking at the direct effects of a select set of
repair attempts such as denial, justification, excuse, apology and compensation on select
set of outcomes. As a result of this selective picking of variables in past studies, we know
the isolated main effects of a variety of repair attempts on diverse outcomes however we
do not understand how these offender repair attempts compare to one another in
facilitating victim’s need satisfaction and positive relationship quality. From the existing
studies we can know, for example, that monetary and punitive remedies can repair the
victim’s economic and social status (Darley & Pittman, 2003; Barclay & Skarlicki,
2008); however, it is not known whether such remedies are likely to address the negative
emotions, trust repair and damaged cooperative exchange between the victim and
offender. Scholars in the field of organizational psychology and management have
repeatedly expressed the need to explore the relative effects of explanations/remedies
more systematically (Bobocel & Zdaniuk, 2005). To understand how these different

repair attempts affect relationship repair, there is a need to simultaneously (in a single

48

study) evaluate their influence on different damaged dimensions/states for different types
of offenses.

There is also a need to strike a balance between examining levels of repair
attempts that make scientific sense (but may be impractical manipulations) versus
examining repair attempt messages that make more practical sense. Past research has
examined repair attempts that range from denial, excuse, justification, apology, promise
to more instrumental and punitive remedies. Although these are the most often studied
levels of repair attempts in experimental and survey studies in the literature, the reality is
likely to be different. In a real offense situation it is very unlikely that an offender will
merely communicate a “Promise” by saying that he/she will to never do it again. A
promise is most likely to be accompanied with an offender’s acknowledgement of the
harmful act or situation. Similarly, in everyday work situations, it is very unlikely that an
offender will respond to a victim’s confrontation of a violation by communicating a
simple “denial” message such as, “I had nothing to do with”. It is more likely that the
message will include some acknowledgement of what the victim is feeling and thinking
and then it will involve denial most likely followed by some explanation. Example, “I
know you blame me for it, but it’s not my fault. I’m not responsible for causing this harm
to you. Let me explain”. Most empirical studies in the literature investigate the effects of
unrealistic and isolated levels of repair attempts (i.e. denial vs. excuse vs. promise etc)
without making an effort to contextualize the repair message and operationalize it like it
is likely to occur in a real life work situations. Such an approach to manipulate isolated
levels of repair attempts is usually adopted to examine the differential effects of each of

these levels or components of the offender’s message. Although such an effort seems

49

scientifically logical to parse out the separate effects, the reality is that such messages
will most likely never be communicated in isolation. Thus there is a need to look at the
effects of more complex repair messages that combine these components. More
importantly, there is a need to examine specifically designed repair messages for specific
types of offenses. This will allow for evaluation of more targeted repair messages that are
designed and aimed at positively influencing specific needs and relationship quality
dimensions that are most likely to be damaged in the aftermath of an offense.

The present study seeks to fill this gap in the literature by systematically
comparing targeted and realistic repair attempts (messages that include a combination of
explanatory and atoning components) that have been designed to positively affect
specific needs and relationship quality dimensions. The present study is a step forward
from the past studies as it not only takes into account the type of offense in designing the
repair attempts but also incorporates a multidimensional perspective in examining the
efficacy of repair attempts in facilitating relationship repair.

Relative Effects Of Different Repair Attempts On The Victim Needs And
Relationship Quality

In this study, I propose three new types of repair attempts that are composed of
different components (combinations of denial, excuse, apology, acknowledgement,
promise, compensation etc). These three repair attempts have been developed with the
aim of positively targeting (repairing) specific needs and relationship quality dimensions
that are hypothesized to be impacted in the aftermath of different types of workplace

offenses. The three repair attempts are labeled to signify the components that makeup the

50

message. Table 1 below indicates the three types of repair attempt along with the
message.

Table 1
Targeted Repair Attempts for Specific Types of Offenses

 

 

Type of Repair Attempt Message

 

“I know you must blame me for what happened, but I
want you to know that it is not my fault and I’m not
responsible for this situation. There were so many other
commitments at work and I did not have any other option
but to submit the report when I did. However, I am
willing to make it up to you in any way I can”.

Extenuating Rectification
(Repair Attempt for
Transactional Offenses)

 

“I’m sorry! It’s my fault. I know what I did was not right

 

Empowering Apology and I should not have done that. I feel bad that I caused
(Repair Attempt for . . .
. you harm. You did not deserve this. You are right to feel
Relational Offenses) . . ,,
angry With me. I hope you can forgive me.
Virtuous Promise “What I did was morally wrong. I promise you something
(Repair Attempt for like this will never happen again. Please don’t judge me
Moral Offenses) as a bad person.”

 

 

 

 

Repair attempt for transactional offenses. Transactional offenses are likely to
affect the victim’s need for control (e.g., Reb et al, 2006) and his/her level of trust (Dirks
et al., 2009) towards the offender (as hypothesized earlier). In the aftermath of such an
offense, the most effective repair attempt would be that which is effective (congruent) in
terms of repairing these damaged dimensions. In this study, I propose a specific type of
repair attempt that would be most effective in relationship repair in the aftermath of a
transactional offense. Such a repair message would be as follows: “I‘know you must

blame mefor what happened, but I want you to know that it is not my fault and I ’m not

responsible for this situation. There were so many other commitments at work and I did

51

not have any other option but to submit the report when I did. However, I am willing to
make it up to you in any way I can In this repair attempt message the offender rejects
culpability for the act and thus is likely to get the benefit of the doubt. Past research in the
trust literature has found that denying culpability helps to reduce blame and facilitate
trust repair (e.g., Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009; Kim et al., 2004). In this particular message
the offender not just denies being at fault but also provides an explanation for behaving
the way he/she did (attributing his/her action to circumstantial reasons). Such an
explanation helps make the situation less ambiguous for the victim and also indicates that
the offender was helpless and could not have acted any other way (e.g., Gillespie &
Dietz, 2009). An explanation that attributes the offender’s action to circumstantial
reasons separates the offender’s character from the act such that the offender is less likely
to be considered a bad person (e.g., Ferrin, Cooper, Kim and Dirks, 2007; Synder &
Higgins, 1988). These properties of the repair message should positively affect the level
of trust the victim has towards the offender. The message also conveys an offer to help.
Such an offer for help is one way in which the offender is giving power and control to the
victim (e.g., Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). The offer of help from the offender may also be
perceived by the victim as an additional resource that will allow the victim to be more in
control of the situation, thus satisfying their need for control.

Hypothesis 7a: In the aftermath of a transactional offense, an

”Extenuating Rectification " message will be more effective in repairing

the damaged needs (needfor control) and dimensions of relationship

quality (level of trust) compared to the e. ectiveness of other types of

repair attempts.

52

Repair attempt for relational offenses. Relational offenses violate the victim’s
need for belongingness and need for identity and are also likely to increase negative
emotions and decrease supportive behaviors towards the offender (as hypothesized
earlier). In the aftermath of a relational offense and the resulting damaged states, the most
effective repair attempt would be that which is targeted at repairing the damaged states.
In this study, I propose a specific type of repair attempt that would be most effective in
relationship repair in the aftermath of a relational offense. Such a repair message would
be as follows: “I ’m sorry! It 's myfault. I know what I did was not right and I should not
have done that. I feel bad that I caused you harm. You did not deserve this. You are right
to feel angry with me. I hope you can forgive me". This repair attempt has several key
components. The message acknowledges the harm that was caused by the offender and
indicates that the offender is sorry, regretful and feels remorse. Such a message is likely
to positively influence the emotions of the victim towards the offender (e.g., Goffman,
I967; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004). The message also indicates that the victim
did not deserve to be treated unfairly and that it is legitimate for the victim to feel angry.
Such a message by the offender (e.g., Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) along with a validation
that the victim is right is likely to positively influence the self-esteem and identity of the
victim (e.g., Schlenker & Darby, 1981). The message is likely to positively affect the
victim’s need for belongingness and their likelihood to engage in supportive behaviors in
the future as it indicates respect and concern to sustain the relationship which is reflected
in the offender’s request for forgiveness (e.g., Ohbuchi, Agaric & Kameda, 1989). The
message is likely to be perceived by the victim as conveying a desire to reconcile and

continue the relationship (Goffrnan, I972; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Tedeschi &

53

Norman, 1985) thus satisfying the need for belongingness. Finally this apology message
is an expression of disgrace and indicates to the victim that the offender is experiencing
guilt (a form of self-punishment) which is likely to restore the social equilibrium in the
relationship and will also positively affect the supportive behaviors of the victim towards
the offender (e.g., Goffman, 1967).

Hypothesis 7b: In the aftermath of a relational offense. an “Empowering

Apology ” message will be more eflective in repairing the damaged needs

(need for belongingness and identity) and dimensions of relationship

quality (level of negative emotions and non-obligatory supportive

behaviors towards the offender) compared to the effectiveness of other

types of repair attempts.

Repair Attempt for Moral Offenses. Moral offenses violate the victim’s need
for moral meaning and the level of trust and supportive behaviors towards the offender
(as hypothesized earlier). In the aftermath of such a moral offense and the resulting
damaged states, the most effective repair attempt would be that which is targeted at
repairing the specific damaged states. In this study, I propose a specific type of repair
attempt that would be most effective in relationship repair in the aftermath of a moral
offense. Such a repair message is as follows: ”What I did was morally wrong. I promise
you something like this will never happen again. Please don ’t judge me as a badperson
This repair attempt has several key components. In this message the offender
acknowledges that he/she did an unethical thing. Such a message is likely to positively
satisfy the victim’s need for moral meaning by indicating that the offender is aware of the

moral and ethical codes (e.g., Scher & Darley, 1997; Conlon & Murray, 1996). The

54

offender also promises that something like that will never happen again and requests the
victim to not think of him/her as a bad person. The promise will positively affect the
victim’s level of trust towards the offender as it indicates to the victim that the offender
will make an effort to not repeat unethical acts in the future (e.g., Schweitzer, Hershey &
Bradlow, 2006). The message is also likely to positively affect the victim’s supportive
behaviors towards the offender as it indicates to the victim that the offender is not a bad
person and that he/she should be given the benefit of doubt before making any
judgments.

Hypothesis 7c: In the aftermath of a moral offense, a “Virtuous Promise ”

message will be more effective in repairing the damaged needs (need for

moral meaning) and dimensions of relationship quality (level of trust and

non-obligatory supportive behaviors) compared to the effectiveness of

other types of repair attempts.

55

METHOD

As discussed in the previous chapter, organizational scholars in isolated streams
of research have explored a limited set of dimensions of relationship repair, primarily by
examining the direct effects of a select set of repair attempts (e.g., denial, justification,
apology, promise and penance) on limited and often not simultaneously studied set of
outcomes (e.g., emotions, trust, supportive behaviors, justice perceptions, reconciliation,
forgiveness etc) (e.g., Barclay, et al, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001; Coyle—Shapiro et al.,
2004b; Masterson et al., 2000). These studies also vary in the types of offenses they
examine. These relationship repair research studies do not explicitly examine the effect of
different types of offenses and repair attempts on multiple dimensions such as victim’s
need satisfaction and the relationship quality. In this study, a multidimensional
framework for understanding relationship repair is adopted. It is important to examine the
phenomenon of relationship repair from such a multidimensional perspective as it
provides for more fine grained understanding of how different types of offenses affect
both the victim’s needs and the quality of the relationship between the victim and the
offender, thus providing crucial knowledge to identify the most congruent repair attempt
that can facilitate relationship repair.

Mixed-Method Research Approach

Given the novelty of the proposed multidimensional congruence model and the
lack of strong theory and empirical evidence in this area in the existing literature, a non-
traditional mixed-method research approach was adopted in the present study. Mixed-
methods research is formally defined as the class of research where the researcher

combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods and approaches into

56

a single study. Mixed-method research allows for the examination of the phenomenon of
interest from different lens. In the context of this study I used an exploratory grounded
theory qualitative method combined with a traditional deductive quantitative method.

The general trend in the organizational psychology literature is to use mono-
method research designs that are primarily quantitative designs to empirically examine
psychological phenomenon of interest. Such a quantitative design has a variety of
advantages such as quantitative measurement and prediction of phenomenon, ability to
use sophisticated statistical analyses to objectively analyze data and make predictive
inferences, etc. Although there are several advantages, it is important to also note some
disadvantages of using a mono-method quantitative research design. Mono-method
quantitative research designs are relatively more rigid and focused on evaluating a
proposed theory or test a-priori hypotheses rather than on theory building and hypothesis
generation. Due to the emphasis on a-priori hypotheses it is likely that such designs may
miss out on relevant and interesting psychological processes and phenomenon which may
be different or which may not fit prior theory. There is also a likelihood of confirmation
bias (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). One way in which these weaknesses can be
overcome is by incorporating rich qualitative data about the phenomenon of interest.
Other organizational researchers in the area relationship repair have stressed the
importance of adopting a mixed-method and an exploratory approach to understanding
psychological phenomenon (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 1996). In the early 1990’s, Bies and
Tripp reviewed the literature on revenge in organization and found that there were no
strong theoretical frameworks and models that suggested and systematically delineated

the different manifestations of revenge and the possible motivations that underlie these

57

acts. To develop a conceptual understanding of these issues, they conducted an
exploratory qualitative study that provided an “initial mapping of the emotional
geography of revenge” (Bies & Tripp, 1996, pp. 247). The results from their qualitative
study led to the development of a taxonomy of (a) situations that violate trust; (b)
emotions and cognitions in response to such violations and (c) behavioral responses to
violations. The findings from Bies and Tripp’s exploratory qualitative study have been
cited by over 100 empirical studies and their taxonomy has been quantitatively evaluated
to study the phenomenon of workplace revenge and deviance (e.g., Dirks & F errin, 2001;
Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002; Aquino, 2000; Goldman, 2001; Jockin, Arvey & McGue,
2001; DeCrerner, 2004; Greenberg, 2003; Bennett & Robinson, 2003). This particular
qualitative study helped in the identification of research questions and hypotheses and has
generated future empirical studies in the literature.
Advantages of a Mixed-Method Research Design
According to Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989) there are five principles of
mixed-method research that also represent the advantages of using a mixed-method
research design over a mono-method quantitative design (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003).
In the following section, I outline how the mixed—method approach used in this
study was advantageous over a mono-method design and the goals that were served by
using such a non-traditional design.
Principle of Development. The exploratory qualitative study helped in the
development of the taxonomy of violations among colleagues at work. This taxonomy
was then used to generate the hypothetical scenarios for the survey in the quantitative

study. This overlap between the two methods is the essence of the Principle of

58

Development in mixed-method research. In line with the principle, in this study I used the
results from one method of investigation (Qualitative) to effectively inform measurement
and designing decisions in another method of investigation (Quantitative).

Principle of Expansion and Completeness. The qualitative study helped in
developing a broader understanding of the phenomenon of relationship repair by
providing rich information about the nature of incidents that strain relationships between
colleagues and how these incidents affect the victim’s needs and quality of relationship
with the offender. The qualitative data also provided detailed and rich information on the
process of repair at work. For example, the interview data suggests that repeated
interactions where a change in the offender’s attitude and behavior is observed leads to
repair. The data also suggests that having “small-talks” or “buddy—buddy conversation”
goes a long way in helping two people get along and start the repair process. The fact that
data from the qualitative study provides a broader understanding of the phenomenon of
relationship repair (beyond that proposed in the empirical quantitative study) is
something that is expected in all mixed-method research and is termed as principle of
expansion and principle of completeness —whereby the researcher brings together a more
comprehensive account of the area of enquiry in which he or she is interested by
employing mixed-methods.

Principle of Triangulation. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods
to explore the same set of phenomenon (i.e. the impact of different types of violations on
victim’s need satisfaction and relationship quality with offender and the notion of
multidimensional congruence) allowed for convergence, corroboration, and

correspondence of results from different methods. Such corroboration of results is the

59

essence of the principle of triangulation. The qualitative data on types of incidents that
strain relationships and the resulting taxonomy of violations provided converging
evidence for the a-priori taxonomy proposed in this study. Similarly, the qualitative
evidence indicating how the victim and the relationship quality is impacted after
violations provided corroborating evidence for the quantitative results obtained in the
evaluation of the a—priori congruence model in this study.

Principle of Complementarity. In this mixed-method study the quantitative
method of investigation overcomes the weaknesses commonly associated with the
qualitative method of investigation and vice-versa. This overcoming of weaknesses and
utilizing of strengths of both methods is the essence of principle of complementarity.
Quantitative method of examination is often criticized for it weakness and inability to
explore the “Why” behind the survey responses. For example, with respect to this
research the quantitative study will not be able to throw light on “Why” an empowering
apology works best to repair the victim’s needs and relationship quality after a relational
violation. On the other hand, a qualitative study can help to answer such questions.
Similarly, a qualitative study is often criticized for its inability to provide a concrete level
of impact and produce generalizable results. For example, a qualitative study can throw
light on the fact that need for control is affected afier a transactional violation but it will
not be able to provide a concrete level of impact in terms of how much of that need is
affected compared to other needs. However, the quantitative study provides us with this
information. Thus using both the type of methods allows a researcher to overcome the

weakness associated with a mono—method research study and also allows the researcher

6O

to utilize the unique strengths of the two methods to develop a better understanding of the
phenomenon of interest.

Principle of Initiation. In the context of this mixed-method research, each study
provided both unique and complementary knowledge about relationship repair, thus
contributing an additional piece to the puzzle. The mixed-method approach used in this
research was in line with principle of initiation in that the results from the qualitative and
quantitative study resulted in the discovery of paradoxes and provided a unique
perspective on the role of repair attempts on the criterion of relationship repair. Another
important aspect of the principle of initiation is the recasting of questions or results from
one method with questions or results from the other method. The design adopted in the
present study did not entail conducting iterative and sequential set of multiple studies
thus it did not allow for the recasting of questions based on the findings from the
qualitative and quantitative studies. Future research will be able to fill this gap by using

the knowledge developed from this mixed-method study.

In the following sections, I will outline the details of the method used in both the
qualitative and quantitative studies.
Method- Qualitative Study
In this qualitative study, the phenomenon of relationship repair and the notion of
multidimensional congruence are examined using exploratory qualitative lens. A

grounded theory method is used to achieve the following goals:

1. To investigate the types of incidents at work that lead to strained relationships

between colleagues and to develop a taxonomy of offenses/ violations at work.

61

2. To investigate how violations affect the victim’s needs and quality of relationship
with the offender. This study was aimed at qualitatively exploring and understanding
the dimensions that are affected in the aftermath of offenses and repair attempts (in
terms of the types of the victim’s psychological needs and aspects of relationship
quality that are affected).

3. To investigate the notion of congruence as previously discussed in this document and
to explore whether there are certain types of repair attempts that are more effective in
facilitating repair after specific types of violation.

The Grounded Theory Method

The Grounded T heorjv Method of qualitative research and analysis was developed
by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960’s. The purpose of this method is to inductively develop
descriptive conceptual maps or/and explanatory theory about a phenomenon of interest
that is grounded or rooted in observation. The grounded theory approach is based on a
complex comparative and iterative process of collecting data and identifying theoretical
concepts and taxonomies. Initial data is used to code for theoretical concepts and develop

a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon. Once a tentative theory or taxonomy
emerges, new data is compared to it. The grounded theory method was suitable for the
goals of the present study (identified above) as it allows for the use of critical incident
interviewing technique and generative questions to delve in more detail into the
phenomenon of interest and to understand the causal and mediating mechanisms behind
the relationship between antecedents and outcomes.

Steps Followed in Data Collection

Sample identification and characteristics. The aim of this study was to observe

62

and capture through qualitative methods, real-life incidents that lead to strained
relationships between colleagues and the process by which such relationships can be
repaired at the workplace. Given this broad goal, I chose to study a population of
individuals who had the experience of handling relationships with colleagues at work and
had often worked in team and interdependent situations where expectations are likely to
be violated and relationships are likely to be strained. The sample for this study included
twenty-four full-time MBA students from a large Mid-Westem University in the United
States of America. Twelve participants were interviewed in the first phase of data
collection followed by another six participants in the second phase of the data collection.
Six participants were recruited for the third phase of data collection where in verbal
protocol analysis was conducted. Seventy one percent of the sample was in the age range
of 26-30 years and 92% of the sample had at least 3 years of job experience in business
divisions of small to large corporate firms. A vast majority of these individuals reported
having previously worked in environments where they had to continuously deal with
other employees who were at the same organizational level as them. The majority of
them also reported having engaged in managerial activities and having been in jobs that
required them to manage interpersonal relationships at work. This sample was rich in
their experience of the modem-day business environment and thus was suitable to
provide information on a variety of incidents at work that could strain relationships. This
sample also had a number of other characteristics that provided a wide base of experience
and thus aids the transferability of findings, such as a varied sample of industries (6. g.
pharmaceuticals; engineering; law; multi-national food & agricultural industry etc);

occupations (e.g., lawyer, medical representative, metal exchange trader, army

63

intelligence etc); ethnicity (50%—White/Caucasian; 37%- Asian; 8%-Hispanics & 5%-
Afiican American); citizenship (58%-US citizens and 42% were non-US Citizens) and
marital status (42%-Single; 33%—In a relationship and 25%-Married). The interviewee
participants were randomly selected from an exhaustive list of 1 IO MBA students at the
university site.

Funnel approach in data collection. The qualitative study was conducted in a
funnel-like process over three phases. Strauss and Corbin (1998), who are considered the
fathers of the “Grounded Theory Method”, suggest a funnel—like approach to grounded
theory data collection, i.e. moving from broader to more specific questions in the
interviews. This basic funnel approach has also been applied by qualitative researcher to
repeated interviews, wherein the questions become increasingly more directive based on
emerging concepts with every passing interview (Rennie, 1995). Researchers such as
Marshall and Rossman (1999) emphasize that exploratory qualitative research should
start from the larger end of the funnel which should contain the broad questions
pertaining to the general conceptual focus of the study. Midway down the funnel, the
focus should be narrowed to relevant concerns and issues that are brought forth by the
participants as well as issues that are considered important but were not covered in the
first set of broad questions. Finally at the small end of the funnel the questions should
become narrower, focusing more closely on a smaller set of research questions.

The three phases in the current study were structured based on the funnel-
approach, in that the interviews went from broad open-ended questions to more specific
targeted questions and finally to a verbal protocol analysis. This funneling method

allowed for both an exploratory approach to collecting data as well as a structured

64

approach to obtaining targeted data on variables and concepts identified as important by
a—priori hypotheses and theoretical understanding of the literature by the researcher. In
the following section I will describe the procedure for the three phases of the qualitative
data collection. This is followed by a detailed description of the qualitative coding
process of data analysis.

Phase 1. Phase I was specifically designed to investigate the types of
incidents at work that lead to strained relationships between colleagues and, to develop
the taxonomy of violations at work. Twelve participants were interviewed in this phase of
the study. One hour long interviews were conducted in person with each of these twelve
participants. The critical incident interviewing technique was used to collect broad Open-
ended narratives about participant’s real life experiences of violations at work that strain
relationships between colleagues. The Critical Incident Interviewing Technique was
developed by John C. Flanagan in 1954. The basic principle behind using critical incident
technique is to help the participants relate to an actual incident that has happened in their
past and, to understand the psychological processes, motives, thoughts, emotions and
behaviors with respect to a particular phenomenon of interest. The critical incident
approach used in this study achieved this by asking a series of open ended questions (See
Appendix A for the Phase 1- interview schedule). The interview process began with broad
generative questions that were aimed at guiding the researcher more than limiting the
scope. These questions were aimed at getting into the details of the reported critical
incidents and explicating the psychological processes behind the actions and outcomes
reported. The critical incident interview schedule asked the participants to think of an

actual event at the workplace that strained their relationship with another colleague. The

65

participants were not given any other information and were allowed to pick any incident

from their past working history. The generative questions for the reported incidents were

as follows (please note that these are merely examples and that the actual leading

questions differed by participants based on what information was being reported; Also

see appendix A):

1. Description of the Situation (critical incident at work): When, where and in what
context?

2. Who is Involved: Who, how many and in what capacity?

3. Thoughts. What were your thoughts and why?

4. Feelings. What were your feeling and why?

5. Actions. What were your actions and behaviors and why?

6. Outcomes: What were the outcomes?

Through this interviewing technique, the participants were asked to provide their
thoughts and feelings about issues related to workplace offenses and relationship repair.
This approach has several advantages. It allowed for the identification of specific types of
events that are perceived as offensive to employees and that lead to strained relationships
between colleagues. It was also a flexible and relatively inexpensive method for
collecting relevant data from the respondent’s perspective- in his or her own words. This
approach was particularly useful from an exploratory perspective as it did not force the
respondents into any given framework.

Phase 2. This phase of the qualitative study was designed to serve two
purposes: I) to investigate how violations affect the specific victim needs and dimensions

of relationship quality with the offender and 2) to gather more qualitative data on moral

66

violations. At the end of the phase 1 interviews, there was saturation of data in terms of
the violation incidents at work which were directly targeted at the participants. In
majority of the interviews where the participants were asked to think of a violation
incident in their working history, there was a tendency to report incidents where they
were the target victim. After interviewing ten of the twelve interviewees in the first
phase, two participants reported an incident where they had observed a colleague engage
in an immoral act at work and how that had strained their relationship. As a researcher I
realized that such violation incidents may not be immediately salient in the minds of the
participants and thus to obtain any data on such incidents, one would need to directly ask
them to also include in their reports those incidents/experiences where they were not
necessarily the target victim but yet the relationship was strained. The phase 2 interviews
allowed for the inclusion of such instructions in the interview schedule. It also allowed
for more targeted questions regarding the specific needs and dimensions of relationship
quality that are affected in the aftermath of violations at work. Six participants were
interviewed in this phase of the study. One hour long interviews were conducted in
person with each of these six participants (See Appendix B for the interview schedule).
Phase 3. This was the final phase of the qualitative study. Phase 3 was
designed as a verbal protocol analysis task. Verbal Protocol Analysis is
a psychological research method (originally developed by Ericsson & Simon, 1984) that
requires participants to "think aloud" through steps of a selected task scenario and
verbalize their thinking behind the steps they are performing. Participants are asked to
say whatever they are currently feeling and thinking with respect to the task in hand. For

example, when participants are given a survey, they are asked to talk-aloud about their

67

response on a particular item and what they were feeling and thinking when they decided
to mark a certain number on the response scale. Such methods have long been used in
psychology to study thinking (e. g., Crutcher, 1994) and has also found application in the
designing of surveys and interviews (Sudman, Bradburn & Schwarz, 1996). According to
Ericsson and Simon (1993) verbal protocol analysis is based on the assumption that when
subjects are asked to think aloud, their verbalizations corresponds to vocalizing “inner
speec ,” which would otherwise be difficult to measure and capture. According to this
view, such a verbal stream can provide the researcher with valuable information about the
process of thinking and can also provide information about how the participants are
interpreting the task in hand. In the context of this study, the verbal protocol analysis was
designed to serve two purposes: I) to gather specific and targeted qualitative data
regarding the impact of violations and repair attempts on both the victim needs and
dimensions of relationship quality with the offender and, 2) to gather qualitative data to
understand how the participants interpreted the message that was being conveyed by the
repair attempts and why they believed it to be effective or in-effective in repairing the
relationship.

An important consideration with verbal protocol analysis studies as well as with
other multi-phase qualitative studies is the level of time and resource investment required
(i.e. participant recruitment, interview time, transcribing and coding of data). It is
impractical for one researcher to collect and analyze data from a large number of
participants on a variety of tasks. As with all research, the precise number of participants
selected in the different phases of this qualitative study was based on both conceptual

goals (exploratory approach) and practical constraints (difficulty in finding participants

68

who would agree to participate and the downside of analyzing voluminous qualitative
data). For similar reasons, verbal protocol studies and multi-phase qualitative studies
have fewer subjects than other kinds of quantitative psychological studies (e. g., Ericsson
& Simon, 1984). Verbal protocol studies in the past have had as few as one person (e.g.,
case study verbal protocol analysis) to typically 5—10 participants (Trickett & Trafton,
2009). In the context of this study with primarily exploratory goals, six participants were
recruited for the verbal protocol analysis. One hour long interviews were conducted in
person with each of these six participants (See Appendix C for the interview schedule).
Steps Followed in Data Analysis

The grounded theory method of coding and categorizing themes was used to
analyze the interview narratives from all the three phases of the qualitative data
collection. NVIVO—8 which is an accepted qualitative analysis software for analyzing the

transcribed interview data was used for coding. The analysis was done in three phases as
is recommended by established grounded theory techniques (See- Strauss & Corbin,
1997)

Phase 1. In the first phase of data analysis I engaged in open coding. Open coding
involved identifying, naming and, describing phenomena found in the transcribed text of
the interviews. I began by breaking down the sentences in the interview transcripts and
identifying themes and core conceptual ideas (these are called Free Nodes in NVIVO-S).
I did so by reading each sentence and asking questions such as, "What is this about?
What is being referenced here?” I also screened the narrative data for critical terms, key
events, emotions, thoughts and behaviors. In this stage of coding, I located the themes

and assigned codes such that I could condense the mass of data into conceptually

69

meaningfully categories. These open codes then allowed for broader themes to emerge
(Huberman & Miles, 1984).

Phase 2. In the second stage of analysis I used axial coding. During axial coding
the focus was not on the raw data but on the themes identified in the earlier phase. I
attempted to categorize themes from the open coding phase and identify connection
among themes (These are called Tree Nodes and corresponding Child Nodes in NVIVO-
8). During this stage there is likely to be dropping and adding of themes (Strauss, 1997):

Phase 3. The selective coding phase is the last phase of the data coding. In this
phase I scanned previous codes and themes and made comparison and contrasts. The idea
was to organize core ideas, thoughts and generalizations around a core category and
relating the others themes to that core conceptual category. This phase resulted in the
creation of taxonomies and descriptive categorization of phenomenon related to
relationship repair at the workplace (this is done by merging Tree Nodes into higher level
Tree Nodes in NVIVO-8).

The above outlined steps occurred simultaneously along the data collection
process. I used the initial themes and conceptual categories to make revisions in further
data collection (adding specific questions related to the emerging taxonomies and
categorizations). I continuously evaluated how the new data fitted into the identified
conceptual categories and progressively revised the conceptual map/taxonomies to
accommodate contradictory or new data and concepts. This process is iterative and does
not have a clearly demarcated end point. In the context of this study the pre-decided size
of the sample (twenty four participants) provided the objective target to decide the end

point of this iterative process.

70

Method- Quantitative Study

The quantitative study is the other component of the mixed—methods research
approach adopted in this paper. The purpose of this quantitative study is to evaluate the
multidimensional congruence model of relationship repair by testing the a-priori
hypotheses proposed in the introduction. This study allows for the collection of targeted
and reliable information from the respondents regarding the relationship between types of
offenses and repair attempts, and the victim’s needs satisfaction and dimensions of
relationship quality.

An experimental design was used to randomly assign hypothetical offense
scenarios to the participants and to evaluate the level of damage on multiple dimensions.
Offender repair attempts were also manipulated such that the efficacy of the repair
attempts in repairing the damage on the multiple dimensions could be evaluated for
specific types of offenses. Experimental control and the quantitative nature of the data
allowed for the use of sophisticated statistical analyses to make predictive inferences
about multidimensional congruence and relationship repair.

Participants

The sample consisted of 530 full time working employees. This sample was
drawn from a large Mid-Westem University’s alumni database which contained email
addresses and contact information of working alumni members. The participants were
contacted via email with an embedded link to connect them to the research survey. The

data from the survey was housed on a secure server. In order to increase the response
rate and the likelihood of participation in the survey, a $10 gift certificate for an online

retailer was provided as a small incentive.

7l

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Mean SD
Age 43 9.10
Gender N %
Male 292 55.10
Female 238 44.90
Race N %
White 495 92.70
African American 10 1.87
Hispanic 9 1.69
Asian 19 3.56
American Indian 1 0.19
Marital Status N %
Married 362 68.43
Single: Divorced, separated or widowed 35 6.62
In a relationship: Living with partner 29 5.48
In a relationship: Not living with partner 12 2.27
Single: Never Married 91 17.20
Education N %
Business or Trade School I 0.19
Associate or two-year degree I 0.19
Bachelor's or four-year degree 275 51.79
Master's degree 222 41.81
Professional degree 20 3.77
PhD or Post Doctorate 12 2.26
Years if Job Ewerience N %
Less than 1 year 1 0.19
1-2 years 4 0.76
3-5 years 27 5.12
6-10 years 61 11.57
More than 10 years 434 82.35

 

 

 

72

 

Table 2 indicates the sample characteristics. F ifty-five percent of the sample was
male and 45% female. The average age of the sample was 43 years (SD==9.10 years).
Sixty—nine percent of the sample was married. In terms of education, a large majority of
the sample had at the least an undergraduate degree (52%) or a master’s degree (42%).
The remaining 6% had either a professional degree (4%) or a PhD or post doctorate (2%).
Eighty-two percent of the sample had more than 10 years of job experience; 12% had 6-
10 years; 6% had between 1-5 years of job experience. Ninety—three percent of the
sample was White; 4% was Asian and the remaining 3% was divided between Hispanics
(1.69%), African American (1.87%) and American Indians (19%).

Survey Development

The item and survey development for the quantitative study was informed in
important ways from the results of the qualitative study. Below are the two important
ways in which the qualitative study informed measurement and designing decisions in the
quantitative study:

Generating the hypothetical offense scenarios. In order to manipulate the type
of offense, I created hypothetical offense scenarios for the three types of offenses
(transactional, relational and moral) as discussed earlier. The results from the qualitative
study helped in the development of these scenarios (The nature of the offenses will be
discussed in greater detail in the results section).

Measuring the multiple dimensions— Victim needs satisfaction and
relationship quality. Although the a—priori conceptual model primarily determined the
selection of variables to measure in the quantitative survey, the qualitative study results

provided rich data that facilitated the selection and modifications of survey items. For

73

example the survey items chosen to measure victim’s need satisfaction and dimensions of
relationship quality in the quantitative study were informed by the knowledge gained
from the qualitative study (This will be further discussed in the results section). The
quantitative survey items included both items from standardized measures of these
constructs Item the literature as well as items developed based on the results of the
qualitative study.
Research Design
In the present study I adopted a 3 X 6 between-subjects factorial design. In this
design there were three levels of a between-subject factor (type of offense) and six levels
of another between-subjects factor (types of repair attempts). The same set of seven
dependent variables (i.e. four needs and the three dimensions of relationship quality)
were measured across all the between subject factors. In order to compare the pre-repair
attempt state of victim’s needs satisfaction and relationship quality with the post-repair
attempt states in this design, I measured the multiple dependent variables right after
manipulating the type of offense (for all individuals) and then after manipulating the type
of repair attempt. The first measurement of the multiple dependent variables right after
the offense manipulation are presented in the first column of table 3- titled “Post-
Offense”.
Manipulations.
Type of Offense. Three types of offenses were manipulated using
hypothetical scenarios in the online survey (See appendix D for the actual text used in the

vignettes). The three types of offenses were as follows:

74

I. Transactional Oflense- In this hypothetical scenario, a colleague (offender)

violated formal working expectations by not delivering a report on time and eventually

sending sub-quality work.

2. Relational Oflense— In this hypothetical scenario, a colleague violated relational
norms of treating another colleague with respect and deference. The colleague (offender)
treated the victim with disrespect by publicly criticizing and downgrading the victim

during a team meeting.

3. Moral Offense- In this hypothetical scenario, a colleague (offender) was seen

engaging in an unethical act at the workplace.

Table 3
Graphic Representation of the Factorial Research Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Types of Repair Attempts - 6 levels; Between-Subjects Factor
Type of Post Simple Extenuating Empowering Virtuous
Offense Offense Denial Apology Rectification Apology Promise
3 levels
[getgveen Measured Repair Repair Repair Repair Repair
Fu item for all A [tempt I Attempt 2 Attempt 3 Attempt 4 Attempt 5
ac 0’ N: 530 N: 95 N: 109 N: 107 N2105 N=114
Transactional 7 7 7 7 7 7
Offense Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions
N =1 73 Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured
Relational 7 7 7 7 7 7
Offense Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions
N=1 78 Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured
Moral 7 7 7 7 7 7
Offense Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions
N =1 79 Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured

 

 

75

Development of hypothetical scenarios. The specific violation incidents
chosen for the hypothetical scenarios were developed based on the taxonomy derived
from the narrative data in the qualitative study (the taxonomy will be discussed in more
detail in the results section). Past research in the area of relationship repair has discussed
several important moderators that have the potential to affect the extent to which certain
incidents affect the victim’s needs and relationship quality as well as the extent to which
repair attempts are effective in repairing the relationship. Some of these important
moderators are as follows: number of years of shared working history, the relationship
closeness between the victim and the offender, the number of times that particular
violation has occurred in their relational history and the expectation of future interaction
at work. It is practically impossible to manipulate all these possible moderators in a
single study. Thus, these important factors were forced to be constants in the hypothetical
scenarios designed for this study.

Relationship closeness, frequency of violation in the past, number of years of
shared working history and the expectation for future interaction at work were controlled
and kept constant in the hypothetical scenario by specifying the following details in the
background information given to respondents- “Imagine that you are Person X in this
scenario. You (person X) have been working at a company called "Atlantic Inc" for 5
years. Person Y is a colleague of yours who has also been in the company for 5 years and
is at the same level as you in the organizational hierarchy. You and person Y have
worked together on several projects before and are likely to work together for a long

time. Person Y and you are for the most part work colleagues but you also engage in

76

friendly conversations related to oflice and sometimes personal (family and outside work)
matters. "

Although keeping these important moderators as constants in the design limits the
transferability of the findings, there are several advantages of doing this for the present
study. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of different types of
offenses and repair attempts on multiple dimensions such as victim’s need satisfaction
and relationship quality with the offender. Given the specific aim of this study, the
hypothesized predictors from the a-priori model were experimentally manipulated
through hypothetical scenarios in the survey. In order to ensure validity of conclusion in
any experimental design it is important to use controls and to define the boundary
conditions, so as to minimize the unintended influence of other variables on the
dependent variables. These controls in the form of constants are needed to eliminate
alternate explanations of experimental results. Keeping these extraneous variables
constant allowed for the specific examination of the a-priori hypotheses about
multidimensional congruence while consciously setting and being aware of the important
boundary conditions of the design.

Type of Repair Attempt. Five types of repair attempts (See Table 4) were
manipulated as a between-subject factor in this study. Scholars in the field of
organizational psychology and management have repeatedly expressed the need to
explore the relative effects of repair attempts/explanations more systematically (Bobocel
& Zdaniuk, 2005). However, in any single empirical study it is not feasible to compare
every message component or type of repair attempt (e.g., apology, denial, excuse,

justification, promise, empowering message, compensation etc) with one another and

77

with unique combinations of the components. Thus I chose to compare the three proposed
types of repair attempts (based on the theoretical notion of multidimensional congruence-
Extenuating Rectification, Empowering Apology and Virtuous Promise) with two other
standard conceptualizations of repair attempts that have been most commonly examined
in the literature (Denial and Apology).

Table 4

The Five Levels of Repair Attempts
Generic Repair Attempts

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Repair Message

Attempt

Apology “I’m sorry! It was my fault”

Denial “I did not do that. It’s not my fault and I’m not responsible
for the situation”.
Targeted Repair Attempts for Specific Types of Offenses

Type of Repair Message

Attempt

 

“I know you must blame me for what happened, but I want

 

stfiglgtlgi you to know that it is not my fault and I’m not responsible
(Repair Attempt for for this situation. There were so many other commrtments at
Transactional work and I dld not have any other option but to submit the
Offenses) report when I did. However, I am wrllrng to make it up to
you in any way I can”.
Empowering Apology “I’m sorry! It’s my fault. I know what I did was not right and
(Repair Attempt for I should not have done that. I feel bad that I caused you

harm. You did not deserve this. You are right to feel angry

Relational Offenses) with me. I hope you can forgive me.”

 

“What I did was morally wrong. I promise you something
like this will never happen again. Please don’t judge me as a
bad person.”

Virtuous Promise
(Repair Attempt for
Moral Offenses)

 

 

 

 

Why compare it with a simple denial and apology? A large number of

studies in the trust, justice and conflict management literature explore the role of denial

78

and apology (Ferrin, Cooper, Kim and Dirks, 2007; Kim et al., 2004; Tomlinson, Dineen
& Lewicki, 2004). There are several reasons why these two types of repair attempts have
been extensively examined. One reason why the focus has been on these two is because
of how they relate to the two broad theoretical perspectives proposed in the literature
(attributions perspective and the social equilibrium perspective as discussed in the
introduction chapter). The attributions perspective (e.g., Heider, I958; Tomlinson &
Mayer, 2009; Kim et al., 2004) is often adopted by trust repair researchers thus leading
them to compare the effects of a denial (wherein blame is removed) with that of an
apology (wherein blame is accepted). Similarly the justice and conflict resolution
researchers often adopt the social equilibrium perspective (Goffinan, I967; Ren & Gray,
2009), thus examining the effects of apology (which restores power to the victim) with
that of other repair attempts such as denial (that leaves the victim in a powerless state).
Second reason is that these two types of repair attempts have gathered substantial
empirical support for influencing isolated outcomes such as trust repair, reduced negative
emotions and cooperation and thus are the most relevant comparison points for showing
incremental prediction of other remedies. On the whole, given the theoretical rationale
and the empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of these two repair attempts (denial
and apology), they serve as ideal baseline comparison points to show the incremental
benefits of more congruent repair attempts as proposed in this study. Table 4 indicates the
five levels of the repair attempts that were manipulated in the hypothetical scenarios. For
the actual text used in the message please see appendix D.

Most of the past studies that have examined the effects of denial and apology on

important relationship outcomes such as trust have tended to differ in their

79

operationalization of these two repair attempts. Although the conceptualization of what
constitutes an apology and a denial is often agreed upon; different studies add extra
components to their actual manipulated repair attempt message. For example, in the study
by Ferrin, Cooper, Kim and Dirks (2007), they examine the influence of denial on
integrity-based trust violation. Although they conceptualize a denial as a message that
conveys that the violation was not the offender’s fault, in their operationalization they
include a message that not just denies responsibility but also provides an excuse and
promise for improvement (Quote from their paper ”In the denial condition...the
candidate denied responsibility for the trust violation, attributed the allegation to bad
office politics at the previous firm, and stated that the presentfirm would not have any
concerns about her integrity/competence if she were hired”). Similarly apology is often
defined in line with the definition proposed by Schlenker and Darby’s (1981, p. 271) that
states that an apology is a statement of sorrow which also includes an admission of
blameworthiness. However different studies include various combination of messages in
their operationalization of an apology (e. g., See the messages operationalized in the study
by Ferrin, et al., 2007 and Kim, et al., 2004). The present study seeks to maintain the
parallels between the conceptualization and the operationalization of the repair attempts
(See Table 4) and thus proposes to test the relative effects of an unadulterated simple
apology and denial versus more complex messages that contain a combination of
message components.
Measures

Four basic needs (Post offense and post repair attempt). The needs satisfaction

measure which included four scales for measuring need for control, belongingness,

80

identity and moral meaning was developed specifically for this study. The measure
consisted of 16 items that were rated on a 7-point Likert-type agreement scale. A total of
four scale scores were derived for each of the four basic needs. Need satisfaction scores
were computed by averaging the scores for the four items that comprised each of the four
needs scales. In order to develop the four scales to measure need satisfaction, past
standardized measure of basic needs were reviewed (e.g., Psychological Need
Satisfaction in Exercise Questionnaire- Wilson, Rogers, Rodgers, & Wild, 2006 and
Basic Psychological Needs Questionnaire - Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001). After
carefully reviewing the items from past measures and taking into account the data
generated about needs from the qualitative study, a subset of items were developed (See
Appendix E for the actual items and the results section for the factor structure of these
measures). These four measures were given to the survey participants twice: once right
after they were presented the offense scenario and the second time when they were
presented with the offender repair attempt. The items were identical at both time points
except for the stem of the item that instructed the survey participants appropriate to the
manipulation. For example, right after the offense scenario the participants were asked to
respond to the set of items in terms of how the offense affects their emotions, thoughts
and behaviors. Similarly after the repair attempt was presented, the participants were
asked to respond to the same set of items but this time they were asked to report their
emotions, thoughts and behaviors in reaction to the repair attempt. Reliabilities of the
four scales were as follows: need for control (pre == .87; post =90); need for
belongingness (pre= .94; post: .97), need for identity (pre: .90; post: .91) and need for

moral meaning (pre2 .91; post: .97). Sample items include "...feel that I have influence

81

over my outcomes/deliverables at work (Need for Control)”; “...feel valued by my
coworkers (Need for Belongingness); “. . .feel that my self-identity has been undermined
at work (Need for Identity) and “. . .violates my sense of right and wrong at the workplace
(Need for moral meaning)”.

Dimensions of relationship quality (Post offense and post repair attempt).
The relationship quality measures included three scales for examining the presence of
negative emotions, distrust and non-obligatory supportive behaviors towards the
offender. These three scales were developed specifically for this study. The relationship
quality measures consisted of 16 items that were rated on a 7-point Likert-type agreement
scale. Six items were designed. to measure the presence of discrete negative emotions
towards the offender. Six items were designed to measure the level of trust towards the
offender. Four items were designed to measure the victim’s willingness to engage in non-
obligatory supportive behaviors towards the offender.

A total of three scale scores were derived for each of the three dimensions of
relationship quality. The scale scores were computed by averaging the scores for the
items that comprised each scale. In order to develop the three scales, past standardized
measure of emotions, trust and supportive behaviors were reviewed (e.g., PANAS-
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellcgen, 1988; Trust Scale- Rempel & Holmes, 1990;
Interpersonal trust scale- Mayer & Davis, 1999; and the Affiliative and Supportive
Citizenship Behaviors Scale- McAllister, 1995). After carefully reviewing the items from
past measures and taking into account the data generated about these dimensions of
relationship quality from the narrative data in the qualitative study, a subset of items were

developed (See Appendix F for the actual items and the results section for the factor

82

structure of these measures). These three scales were given to the survey participants
twice: once right after the offense manipulation and second time when they were
presented with the offender repair attempt. The items were identical at both time points
except for the stem of the item that instructed the survey participants appropriate to the
manipulation. Reliabilities of the three scales were as follows: negative emotions (pre =
.93; post =94); trust (pre: .94; post: .97) and non—obligatory supportive behaviors (pre:
.87; post: .92). Sample items include "...feel angry” (Negative Emotions); “...trust this
person to behave in ways that take into account my work-related needs “(Trust); “. . .pass

along new information that might be useful to Person Y” (Supportive behaviors).

83

RESULTS
The results chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section the results
from the qualitative study are reported. In the second section the results from the
quantitative study are reported.
Section 1: Qualitative Results

The primary purpose of conducting the qualitative study was to investigate the
phenomenon of relationship repair at the workplace and the notion of multidimensional
congruence using exploratory qualitative lens. A grounded theory method was adopted to

achieve the following three goals:

1. To develop a taxonomy of violations at work: i.e. to investigate the types of incidents
at work that lead to strained relationships between colleagues.

2. To investigate how violations affect the victim’s need satisfaction and relationship
quality with the offender. This study was aimed at qualitatively exploring and
understanding how the victim’s need are affected and how the quality of the
relationship in terms of emotions, cognitions and behaviors towards the offender is
affected after violations at work.

3. To investigate the notion of multidimensional congruence as previously discussed in
this document and to explore whether there are certain types of repair attempts that
are more effective in facilitating repair after specific types of violation.

In addition to these goals that closely overlap with the conceptual model being
evaluated in the quantitative study, the qualitative results also revealed the components of
the relationship repair process. These process components will be discussed in detail in

his results section.

84

Goal 1: Taxonomy of Violations at Work
The grounded theory method of analyzing the narrative qualitative data revealed a
large number of “incident nodes” that conceptually summarize the types of incidents at
work that strains relationships between colleagues. In the following section the taxonomy
of violations is presented. This taxonomy was developed by iteratively categorizing the
various “incident nodes” into conceptually similar groups. The taxonomy of violations is
presented in table 5 and the coding summary is presented in table 6.

Table 5 presents the taxonomy of violations created from the qualitative
data coding. The first column indicates the broad “Type of Violation”; the second column
shows a description of the violation type and the third column shows a quote from the
transcribed interview data that exemplifies the type of violation. The text along with table
5 describes in greater detail the nature of references that were made for each of these
types of violations and briefly summarizes the findings.

Transactional Violations

These are the incidents/experiences that strain relationships due to violation of
formal work related expectations. Example, when another colleague does not deliver a
task on time, when there is perceived inequity in workload and pay, when there are
misunderstandings about work roles and duties and finally when colleagues are perceived
as partaking in politics. This type of violation can be characterized by five types of
incidents:

Inappropriate Deliverables. These violations occur when another colleague does

not deliver on formal work related expectations and thus a person has to pick up slack for

85

 

:85 0x: 83888 .088:

8:: 0: £008 05 02% 8.6: 8: a 08: 0: 89: 88

8w 0: 85 .8 0.88 83 z 8 0:0. .. 08 8:8 8 8:85
>88 0: 8 0030230500 .88: 0a :08 .3 3:9: >8
..8 :0 :0w 0: 8: 0: 0008 a .85 882308—00 8>0:
0: 0: :5 08: :2: 8 3:9: be 08: 0: :8: 0: 00:: 09"..
0.86 .88 83.83 0088 0: 0:8 :0 00.88 0: 00:3
:8 3:9: 80:: :0m 0: 08: 0E 88:: 805 :0 #83
2:08 0: 30:20: 30: 0:0 mwfifi 00 0: «.000: 380.. 0n
. ”30a .0300 0: 30: 0: 8 Son: 8:9: 83 02M 0: 08:
H .83 8808 0: 08: H 0:3 :88: 0.8.83 .085 0m:

00:80 88:80:00 8:88 88:00: 3 80008

Saw 0: 808 0:80:00 0:0 380:3 83:0: >3:

.8 one: 08.5 05 80:: =fl 2:03 80:38: 805.
$08800 0:: 5 083.8% 088 0: 83:88.83 80
mid—33.300: E 0880 >05 08 #83 8.88 08088
8m 500.8 00:: 80:80:00 0853 880208. 0.8 805.

838%.: .N

 

.=0:0w m: 83 0
.w 3383 8:000: man: 0?: a 8:00 20””? 85 how.“
35 0w:: 0 mm 85 08 8% £05.20: :82: :0» 0858.8
Mom :33 .8 08am :0» 85 0030888 880.8:
:0» S :08: a 83 x .305 :0.» .8 83: 85000 308
a: 0n: .8 0:0 05 a .z 305 :0» 0:: 80.8888:
35 0.88 :0» t :8 $8888 :0 0080.03 .8 . ....

l

.803 3:80 .8 E0380 E08: 8 888098

0:: 80:08? 0:80:00 a 8:3 ”088:8 8m 8080080
0.88 :5 803803—00 88st 8250098

00389 38.8.: 0: 00:20.. 0: 0: 0:0: 3:022:

.8 8:50— 805. £83 3:08.98 83:00 8 8005800

803803—09
Bataoamafl A

 

If 30:0: 808:: 05008 00m

:008 0: 8.: 80:80:00 80:3 3:022: 08 805.

880205 .8 8099 03m .3 0080880
0: :00 8:30? .8 25 8:. .80380098
00:22 £83 388.“ .8 8:30.; 0: 0:: 8:380:20.—

820F305
1208828 8

 

 

[8508 85.583

50.8 :2: 800:0t098300203 0.8 82:.
2950me

 

3808.8 L

 

 

83 a 88205 do

 

xfioaoxmfi
m sea

86

 

 

.....2§e: 0:

8 08 :0> 85...:05 0:0: 2 20:8:5 0:0 2:8: 05
8 :83 05 8: :8 80:0: 05 :82028 0::. . 800.8:
05 0: 0::: :80: 0:: 80:0: 05 88828 0: :80:
0.8 :0> 85 :83 80.: 88:00.: 80: 0w :0> 8:3

2 20:00.5 85. . 80:8 8 288088... 28:00:08....

:83 8 0:80:00 8528 A0888:

08.88 :8 0::: :80: :20: 080:: 5580882: :8
0:0> 0:80:00 8 8:3 .8 :8808 800: 8 8 0:80:00
.8508 82028 0:80:00 8 8:3 .08888 :0 ..H
08550098 :0.H :8 :05 88:0,: 05 80:: 08: 0.8
:8 88:8 00:80:00 :023 8 >83 80008908: 05
0: 85:08 28208 08:.H. 888:2: 5:3 0:80:00
850:: 080: 0:80:00 8 08:3 28:88 0.8 08:.H.

58880.5.
5:888:05 ._

 

30:0: 88:: 020080 00m

”08020:: .8 88>: 03: >: 82:08:88

0: 80 8882 .8 08>: 2:.H. 48880.: .8 08:0:
8:288: :8 8:000 .8 82:02 0: 0:: 02:08:20:
2800 85 808809828208 .8 08>: 0.8 08:.H.

020850;
822.28: E

 

80:0 85:20::

ZOHHAHHMHUmmD

>MODmHH<O

 

:82:

0: 08: 0800 8: :30: 0w 0: 82 8.: 08888: 2:03

H 0:: 0282:: 0:08 8:5 0.8: 200:0 0:85 :0: H 085
08:0 05 8 8m >882: 0: 30: :0 8:20 05 8 0800:
05 :8 80.5005 05 :0 :8: 0:: 0: 82500088:
058 2: 0.883 2 85 :0: 0: 00800: ...:08::0::.:

003 0: 00:80: 5:08:50 83 :2: 28 08 8038:...
83 02:08:88: >: 80:3 888 8 0: 8w 2 0m:

2:08:20: :05 0850 BB :2 :2:3 0:0: 0.850

:08 :050:0:::28 >05 0:5 :8 8:80:00 .8 88::
8 0: 8:888 :8 8885.8 8: 08 0828098

:8 08:0: 05 8:3 ”088:8 :0 m 00:80:00 8038:
82:50:88: :8 88: 80:: 8285088828

8 00:80: 0820:0520: 88:0 85 2820:: 0.8 000:.H.

0:0: 80::
88880802 .v

 

..55505 83 85 00 .83 8 8 8288:5888

.8 :8: 0.: $5885 83 85 :8 .05 8 808 :8

0: :.>05 00:80: 85:8 08:00: :8 >05 ::< 850:0:
88::— m:0_ :8 0:09: 0:080 :00: >05 0:23 :020

05 a: :08 0: :08098 83 H 00:80: :03 8 8:80:00
>8 .8 0800 8: 808:0 >8 >80 8: 08:» H >80

8: .8038: 88:0 88 0 80:80 00:8 :83 05 8
85880 .8: :0 2 08:0: 08:3 88:20 0 83 0.8:.H...

 

0:830: :0 8808: 8:8 02000: 2:05:

:8 :08: 080 05 8 0.8 >05 85 8 8:3 80.808:
:0 0080:: 0.88 :88: 2 0:80:00 850:: 85
82008: 2 2 8:3 :0 0:80:00 850:: 0: 8:88
8:830: :20: 8: 2 :8 80.50 0:08 8 82:8 2
0:20: 85 820088 0:80:00 8 8:3 898: 2:00
2:.H. .8880:00 50:88: 0:830: :8 000.808: .8
>288: 8200.8: 2 0.85 0:0:3 28208 08 0005.

 

80:88: 8 >282: .m

 

 

8.880 m 2.5

87

 

:. . .3000 :0» 00 000 0000003 0000000 00 003

0000 00w0000 0 00: 00 000 00>000.0 0.0 030: 80000800
0:03 :0» 0003 00: 000 =08-0 8 :0 0 0:0 00 0000 000
0000 000000 :00 0.00: 00: E00 000 0000 000 .000 000 300
0m0000 00000000 b0> 800 200 :00 80:0 0000 300 00000
00000 000 00:: 00000000 0000000 8 00000000: 003 00 00000 0..

.0003 00
00000 800.0 w0:0000 00 00 m8»: 0000 003 00 .0:w00:00
0000000 00 0008 0008000 0 8000000 00 mg»— 00

0000 003 003 0:98:00 0 60080000 00 m .0000 000000000
8 wEw0w00 000000.000 00w00:00 0000000 0000000

00 00>00000 0:30:00 0 00003 00002000 0000000 00000.

00000000
>0 00008800 0000
0000880 .\ 000000003 .0

 

30—00 000000 00.000000 00m

.0:w00:00 0000000 0000300

000000—03 0000000000000 000 0000 0000 Am 000 0:m00:00
0000000 0000300 000000003 0000:0000 000 0000 0000

AN ”00w00:00 000000 80.0 M00080 00 w0000000 $003
.00 0000 C ”0003 00000 8 00.0000 000 000 0000800 .00
005 000. .0000 00000000 00 w00w0w00 00w00:00 0000000
00>00000 000000 000 0000000 000 0:m00:00 0000000 >0
008000 3000000 00 000000 0 0000000 000 000000000000
80000 0000 00000000002522: .00 003 000 00000.

mZOEEAOCV
302 cm

 

00000 0003020000

20:05—0me

>MOOWH<U

 

 

..800 0:3

000 00 00 000 2003 0 0000 00000008 00>00 000 0 0000000
000_. 08: .00 00000 0800 00 00: 0.5.00 0 0000000 00003
08 00 0w0000 0003000 00 mg 00 00 .00 00 .00 00 00.0000
3 :00: 0E ..... 00000 00 800003 00.00» 0003 :00 000 00
80000800 0000.0 00 00000 00000800 0003 000 00» 0003
000m 000.0 0.000 :0» 0008 0 5000000 6030000 00300
000 .00 0000000 002. .00000 003 m000003 00.000 0003

 

.00000 003 00: 0 000000 30000 0000000000 0000 00000 0..

.0300 800003 030 0.000 00008 00 00000

:00 0:m00:00 0000000 .00 0300 wag—003 :00 000000000
.08: 000 00000, 000 0000 00w00:00 0000000 0003

00 .0:m00:00 0000 003 000000 00 8000000000 00000003
00w00:00 0000000 00 0003 0009—00 00 000000 :00 0:00
030000000000 00 00 00000 003 0:m00:00 0 .208000
00 .0 .00w00:00 0000000 00 0000000000 00000000300
0000000 0:000:00 0 00003 00000008 0000000 00000.

 

b00080
0:000 M00008: .N

 

 

30:80 0 0300

88

 

:. . 000000 M00030 00 00 00000000

00.000 3000 :0.» 0.000 w800 00» 000 >03 00::

.3000 00% 00000 .00 0000000 08 000000.00 0000 0008

0 00: 000 8000000030 00 00 90%: 00: 00000 0: 80000
8.0 .002. 8.0 308: :0» 0:00 000 000000 003 0000
000 00 000000 000000 0 0003 00000 000 m00w000 000000
00: 0003 00000 000 E00008 000 00 00000 00: 003 0:

.0:m00:00 0000000 00 000000

0 80003000 00 00000 00 808000000 000 0000 003
003 0:m00:00 0 0008000 00 0 .0:m00:00 0000000
0003 0000000» .00 00% 0000000000000 0 00 mfiw0w00
000000000 00w00:00 0000000 000000 00 00>00000
00w00:00 0 00003 0000000000 0000000 00000.

00000000 00
0008800 0000000» .00
25 0882.50 .0

 

 

a. . .0000. 00000000

0 0008 0 .0m0000 08 000.000 000 0 .000... 00 00<
52000000 0003 0:0 00 000“ 0.3 .00 0080.0 000% 0.000
0000000000000 08: 00 000 0000 F02: £00 00.0000
05 000 20 8 05:0 90 00 20 20 00:00.0 0 80
00000 000.0 0:00 0:003 >000 838 0 .800 .00 00.0 0008
00 00000000 0000 000 00 000: 0 0008 05000 0300 0..

 

0:000:00 0000000 00>0 090000000 00000 $000080
00 0:000:00 0000000 8000000000 0000 003

003 00m00:00 0 6008000 00 0 0:30:00 0000000
0:3 0000—00, .00 00b 000000000 0 8 008080
000000.08 0:900:00 0000000 000000 00 00>00000
0:900:00 0 00003 000000000 0000000 00000.

 

00000.00
00 000008800 0000—03
.00 0000 000000—000 .N

 

 

00.0080 0 2000.

89

the colleague or may suffer from performance decrement on an interdependent task. Such
a violation is perceived when there is non—delivery of assigned tasks on time; when low
quality/sub-standard work is delivered; when work standards are violated and when there
is bad planning and thus the colleague is unable to complete assigned tasks.

Politicking. These violations occur when colleagues play politics at work by
engaging in acts such as flattery and obsequiousness towards the boss and pushing their
own selfish agenda at the expense of other colleagues and the company goals. Such a
violation is perceived when colleagues attempt to get more air time in front of the boss;
attempt to get noticed more by playing politics- such as finger-pointing, leg-pulling and
back-stabbing; when colleagues do things to push their personal agenda at the cost of
others; become excessively restrictive in sharing resources- competitive for personal
gain; take credit for other people’s ideas and successes- instead of acknowledging other
people’s contributions and withhold information and good ideas/opinion to gain power.

Inequity of Resources. These violations occur when a colleague perceives
inequity in terms of workload, rewards, benefits, work-breaks. Such a violation is
perceived when a colleague demands unreasonable work-family boundaries; when a
colleague takes extra work breaks to smoke with other peers or supervisor; when a
colleague perceives that he/she has been putting in extra hours for same amount of pay or
access to resources as another colleague; when another colleague is jealous of a high
performing colleague’s access to resources or when there are unreasonable expectations

from another colleague that are not perceived as equitable.

Misunderstanding about Role. These violations occur primarily due to

miscommunication between colleagues; due to gossip and other misguided assumptions

90

about the scope of a colleague’s duties. Such a violation is perceived when there is
miscommunication between colleagues due to office gossip/rumors; misunderstanding
about expected role/responsibilities; when there are no clear rules/norms in a new team
situation or when certain assumptions are made based on stereotypes.

Relational Violations

These are type of incidents/experiences that strain relationships due to violation

of social and relational norms of treatment. Example: when another colleague disrespects
another colleague; when a peer ignores or devalue another’s opinion and when a
colleague imposes undue authority and their working style on another colleague. This
type of violation can be characterized by two types of incidents:

Disrespectful Treatment. These violations occur when an employee is
disrespectfully treated (either on a one-to-one basis or publicly) or devalued. Such
incidents/experiences violate the rules of considerateness, politeness etc. Such a violation
is perceived when a colleague does not allow another colleague to speak up in a meeting;
does not include other peers in a group; devalues or discounts an expressed opinion;
stereotypes others to criticize them, uses foul language and speaks in a rude manner;
snaps at others, attacks a person’s character rather than the work, and second guesses
every expressed idea or plan.

Imposing Undue Authority. These violations occur when a colleague perceives
another colleague as being unreasonably imposing. Such a violation is perceived when a
colleague is seen as showing no understanding of different types of working styles and is

imposing a certain style on others; not giving another colleague the space, time and

benefit of doubt to do their work; imposing themselves as leaders with other members

9]

that are considered their equals and showing lack of empathy for other person’s

responsibilities and boundary.

Moral Violations

These are type of incidents/experiences that strain relationships not because a

person is directly harmed by another colleague but because the person observes another
colleague engaging in immoral acts. The type of immoral act can differ in three ways: 1)
acts of lying, cheating or stealing from another colleague; 2) acts that are like relational
violations towards another colleague and 3) acts that are like transactional violations
towards another colleague.

Unethical / Immoral acts committed by offender. These include incidents
where a colleague observes or notices another colleague (offender) engaging in unethical
acts. For example, a colleague who was seen as lying or breaking a promise made to
another colleague, or was seen cheating or stealing from others at work.

Relational type of violation committed by offender. These include incidents
where a colleague observes or notices another colleague (offender) engaging in a
relational type of violation with another colleague. For example, a colleague who is seen
disrespecting another colleague or imposing undue authority over another colleague.

Transactional type of violation committed by offender. These include incidents
where a colleague observes or notices another colleague (offender) engaging in a
transactional type of violation with another colleague. For example a colleague who is
seen as not performing his duties or delivering timely reports to other colleagues.

Table 6 indicates the coding summary for types of violations. The first column

indicates the “theme/category” that was coded; the second column indicates the number

92

Table 6
Coding Summary for Types of Violations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Interviewees Regargzdces
Violation incidents coded 18 160

Name Interviewees Reézgzdces
TRANSACTIONAL VIOLATIONS 16 94
Politicking 10 35
Inequity in resources 9 17
Inappropriate Deliverables 8 21
Misunderstandings about role 7 23
RELATIONAL VIOLATIONS 15 73
Disrespectful Treatment 13 48
Imposing undue authority 7 15
MORAL VIOLATIONS 8 18
Unethical/Immoral acts committed by offender 5 9
Relational type of violation committed by offender 2 4
Transactional type of violation committed by offender 2 4

 

 

 

 

 

of interviewees who mentioned incidents that fell into a particular category and the third
column indicates the number of references that were made in the transcribed text and the
number of open codes that were created for a particular category. The coding summary
indicates that all eighteen interviewees who were asked to think of incidents at work that
strains relationships between colleagues referenced an incident that fell into the broad
category of “Transactional Violations”. Fifteen of the eighteen interviewees mentioned
an incident that fell into the category of “Relational Violations”. Eight of the eighteen
interviewees mentioned an incident that fell into the category of “Moral Violations”.

93

Goal 2: Impact Of Violations On Victim’s Need And Relationship Quality
Every line of the transcribed interview text was evaluated with the aim of coding
words/phrases/sentences that described the impact of violations on either the victim’s
psychological state or the relationship quality with the offender. One hundred and eighty
eight references were coded from the 24 interviews in the sample. The grounded theory
method of “axial and selective coding” was used to summarize the 188 open codes into
meaningful categories. In the following section, the broad themes (culled out fi'om the
qualitative data) regarding the impact of violations on victim’s need and relationship
quality are presented in table 7. The first column indicates the “Areas of Impact”; the
second column presents a description of these areas, and the third column shows a quote
from the transcribed interview data that exemplifies the impact of violation at work. The
coding summary is presented in Table 8 which indicates the number of sources coded and
references made for each of the identified themes. The text alongside the tables describes

in greater detail the nature of references that were made regarding the impact of
violations and briefly summarizes the findings.

Victim Needs

Fifteen out of the twenty—four interviewees mentioned that violations at work
impact either their sense of control, belongingness, identity/self-esteem and/or sense of

moral meaning. In the following section I outline some of the ways in which violations

affect the victim’s needs.

Need for control. Interviewees expressed that violations at work affected their
sense of control and their ability to predict both their future work outcomes such as

promotions, pay raises etc and also their control over their image at work. Need for

94

control was violated in two ways: 1) in terms of the loss of control over work-related
outcomes and 2) in terms of loss of control over how others viewed the victim at work.

Need for belongingness. Interviewees expressed that violations at work impacted
their sense of being valued by other co-workers at work. Need for belongingness was
affected in two ways: 1) in terms of not being valued by other coworkers and 2) in terms
of not feeling included and accepted in the workgroup.

Need for identity. Interviewees expressed that violations at work undermined
their sense of identity and led them to question their self and their capabilities. Need for
identity was salient to the victims as the violation made them question their status and
place in the relationship with the offender. The victims of the violation also reported
feeling unsure of their capabilities and to some extent not feeling good about being in the
victim’s situation.

Need for moral meaning. Interviewees expressed that violations at work
impacted their sense of right and wrong at the workplace and were perceived as
violations of basic moral standards. The need for moral meaning was violated when
another colleague was perceived as engaging in acts that disrupted the moral order at the
workplace and often came as a shock to the victims.

Dimensions of Relationship Quality

Twenty two of twenty-four interviewees mentioned that violations at work
impacted their emotions, cognitions and behaviors towards the offender. In the following
section I outline some of the ways in which violations affected the three dimensions of

relationship quality with the offender (i.e. emotions, cognitions and behaviors).

95

 

, ~3-5r1'

 

 

a: .0 0000000
00008 0 .00 0000000, 0 .00 000 000: 0 003 0000 w0000 000 800 00 00.0.
00000080 00 00000000 00 0.00 00.0 0000 00.00.5000 33000 000 0000 00 0003
0003 00.» 0000 0.0000 000 0003 000.000 w800 0000000000 00000000 00 800.0
0000 0w000 00000 .00 000 0.00 0000000 000.0 000.05.. a... . .00w00 0000 8000
0.00000 0: 000.A 00<. . ... M... . .0000 8000 0.00000 00 00: 0.00 08 00.0. . ...

000000000
00008 00000 .00 00000000.. 00 00300000
0003 000 00300003 000 00 w0003
000 0030 00 00000 .0000 00000080 0003
00 00000000.» 0000 000000008 000300000000

000802 082 .0

 

0.00 0000 5000: 300000 000 m800000 00.00% 3000 00.0 00:

00.0 000800 000 0 0m 030000 >00.» 8.: 00: 030000 000 0 80 0000 .030
.08 00 00 00 0.000 0 0800 00.0 00 00: :000 00.0.0008 0 08 800000008
003 000 0000 000.0 000.. a... . .0003 00 000000 0 .003 .000 00.0 003

053000 00 0000. .000000: 00 008800 .00 0000 0.00300 00 00 0000000 0000
000 00000000 000800 0800 080.000 3000800000: 000 000: 0 :000 00 0..

8003008 00200

000 :00 .0000 000000: 00 8000 00: 000
b00000 .00 00000 00000 0000000000 0003
00 00000000.» 0000 0000000000 000300300000

30000— .0

 

.... . :0 00 08 00:0.» 000 00w08 .0000 0000 00000 0088 00» 3000000..
”..0000003 00 .3 0000300000 00 00.0: 0 000.0 0028 0 0000 00000 0..

.0003 00 000000300 00000 .3 00003
w0000 .00 00000 00000 00000080 0003
00 000000003 0000 0000000000 0003000000

000000000000m .0

 

:00000 080000 .00 000: .00 000 000: 0 00.0 03 cm .8000
0800 000 00 000 03. .. 0000000 3000 00.0 .3 0000 0003 0000000000 .00

080 0003 03 00 .00 000 000000 3000 00» w00>0000 00 000000 000 000000
.0000 000000 m0000 003 00 .000000 80000800 m0000 003 00 0000009.

.0003 00 0w080 00000

00>0 0000000 .0000 00:0 000 000 000000

.000 00000880 00 0000 00800000 0003

22:0 00200 08 000.20 9 00.0.. 005
000 0000000 .00 00000 0000 0200.00 0003
00 00000003 0000 0000000000 00030030000—

0000000 .0

 

 

00.500 080002000

 

205.0500me

 

mam—M70

 

 

.0008 8000000000 000 00002 8005 00 00000005 .00 00098:

n 0:000.

96

 

if, ‘k"..t:.l‘|

 

...00 0000 300 305. 00... . .0005 00 ...3
0000M . 00000800. 600000000 0... ..00 08 0000050 .... ӣ000.80 00.
08 000.08 .. .00. .00.. 0... ..05 00... 808000.80 00 0. 0.003 ..000 . z...

..00 00000.00 000
000.080 .00.. 0. 805 000. 0.003 0.003
.0 00000.03 .05 0000000000 000303008.

080...... .0

 

...B..o.9a

000 00.0.0000. 8.... 9.0000000 00.00.0000 .05 0. 00000.8 ..0.. . 3000.

00.. . 00 000 008 ..0 8.50800 0.00. 00m: n... . .0000800 8.0.00 00..
000000 00 0. w80w 8.. .... . ... 0.00 000 0. 8...... .00.. 00.005 .05 0.0.5 0.
0000 03 .003 ... 003 08.. 05 .0 w0..00.. 05 0005 ..0 000 003 .05 0m. . ...

.0000 000
00.8.0000 .00.. 0. 805 000. 0.003 0.003
.0 00000.0... .05 000000008 000303008.

00..0.0xm. .0

 

.200. 0000 300 3000. 00... . .0005 00 ...3

 

 

 

 

 

..00 .
0000w . 00500200. 600000000 0... . ..00 00.» 00000.00 .... ....000.080 00. 00000000 .00.. 0. 805 000. 0.003 0.003 0003 0
08 000.08 .. .00. .00.. 0... ..05 00... .008000.>00 00 0. 0.003 ..000. . . .3 .0 000..0.0.> .05 0000000000 0003030000.
...00..0.0000 00... 00.00.00... 8... . ... 0.00.00.00.00 00.00.08... .0
0008 .0. 0 ..0... z... ....w0..00.000.. 003 .05 00 $03 0 0. 00.00.00,. M0320 00.00.00... .00.. 0. 805 000. 0.003 0.003
..0 00.0. 0... $058.08.. 003 .05. . ... .3 08.00.08,. b0> 003 .. 000. . ... .0 000..0.0.> .05 000000000 000303008.
....0000 3.08.0 00.008 300
3.05.0 08 0008 0.... . ........w0...0000 :00 .00.. 00.0.. .0 w0...0000 000.0. ..000 .0003 .0
003 00.03 0.0.0 000 ..080 0.0000 ..00000 00. 000 03.. .000 0.003 ..00.003 000 .0000 .00.. 0. 805 000. 0.003 0.003
00. . ... 5.000 0008 .00.. 00.. 005 5.000.000.000 00.. 0.00....0 .. 000...: .0 00000.03 .05 0000000000 000303008.
a... 38... .08 0.2.. 2.
0.003 .. . ... ӣ300.. 00.. .80 S03 0050 05 503 00003 0.003 . .300 hm .0
08 0008 .00... .05. . ... ....00m00 003 0005 .000000 0.5 000.0 .00 0.000 .00000....0 05 000030. 0<
.. . ... 0.0.0.3 0 00.. ....0 0000.0 00 0.003. . ... m... . .300 0008 .0m 00.. .000 300 .00.. 0.805 000. 0.003 0.003
0.. 005 ..03 .05 0. 00» 8.000.000.0000 .5000 .00 0. 000000 05.... . ... .0 000..0.0.> .05 000000000 000303008.
mmHODO >M<A02mvnm 20....0Hmowmn. mZOFOEm

 

 

 

 

.6008. 0 2......

97

 

00000....0 05 000030. 0003000.. 00.0.00. 0.0M. 0.003 ..

 

000.000 002002003

ZO.§Umm.D

mmogémm.

 

0000000 080m 0. .003 305. 0. 0>00 000 008.. 80.00000 0. 008..
80.00000 8 00.00000 000 30... 0008000 00.0w00 05 8 00 000 000
.003 000000.. 008.. 80.00000 8 000000 0.5 .000. .00 0.003 .3 ......03
08 .000. 0.003 00 .05 .000. 00 000 0.0.8000 .3 ....00.0> 000.. 0.0.0800
0 a»... 9.0 00.0.0 0 =8... 0 00.00 020.000 0.. 0.000... 0202

0.003 00>0 00000...8 0>00 000000 0.5 w8..0. 0.0000080000 0.0.3.0 00
0.003 .3 ”3.0000 003 . 0003 .00... 0 $000.03 000 .000. ..00.003 . 0000
000 8 .000. 0000 000 .3 ”30.00.000.000. 0000.03 000 00.. .00 080.00. 308.
000 ..0 0800. 8 8.0 .000. ..00.0 03 000 0000 0.003 05 .00 0. 0.00 w800
..0 0800.8 8.0. .000. £00.03 ....00. 0000 000 00080000000 0 00 000000.

0 ..0 .000. 053 ”3.8.0 5.3 0000. .0000000 .05 .00. . 8.0 0. 00000000
808000.000 0 0008 0 00 0.003 ... . .0800 00800 0.000.... 0.308.

000 0 00 000000 .05 .000. ..00.003 . .00 ..00. 0. .000. 05 0008 .3

.000...03
0.000 0.00000 0.8 w80.0. 00... 000008
.0000000 0008 00 .000. 00 ..03 00 0w85
00.0.0.3..53 00.. .000. 0.00 00.0008.
00000.03 .05 00000008 000... 00000....0
05 000030. .000. ..0 .0>0. 0.05 00.0008.
00000.03 .05 000000900 0003030000

0.500 .0

 

... . ..05
00.00900 00>00 000 . 0000000 .00.. 08.. ..0 .800 0800 .0 00... ..00.0

. 0000000 00.03. . .3.... . 000.00 0.0.. ..0 0. 00000.... 0.5 .05 8.000 088
08 8 .00 00080.0 0 .00 . .8 .. .00 .3 ...000000 0.5 000.0 .00 0.000 .3

.00000....0
05 00.. w80... ..0 .0>0. 0.05 00.0008.
00000.03 .05 000000900 000303080.

9000 ..

 

mmHODO >M<002me

7.00.05.0me

mZO.....ZOOO

 

 

.0030
02:... 003 .2. 000 00 0 003 .00... .30 0o 08.. 2.. 0 00.3... ....
00. . ”.0205 0o. .8808». .0 2.... ... B 03380 0220. 09.... .

 

00000....0 05 000030.
80880000 .00.. 0.805 000. 0.003 0.003
.0 00000.03 .05 000000900 000303008.

 

3.0880 .0

 

 

.0008. 0 03.0

98

 

H838. 208 8 8 883 80008088

0>88 8303 H: ”:8088080800 38888408888 08 .0008 H .00:— 038

H.888 03.. 8:803 80 800808 3200 888 .3050 083 084 .0080 08.
8088080800 b0>0 JHHS =880 08 30880088 85 808% 08 808 8808 H. . ...

80888.80 08
83 0808808083800 0878888 8880.88
888 8828880 .8 888088 08 82008.8
0808803 088 80000880 0003038008

8880888800
80880.. 0803 .880
- 882880 .Ho 8084

 

{805883
80 8080 888 8080 88H 28 .0088 H0 88 88 8088 80:0» H 0m 8058883
80 08.83 0880.8 080m: ”:588880880 H0 880. 8380888058

8 08: H0 888 0.088 08 08 888 08 8080888 888 0808 0338

8883 ...»08 308 08388 3080. 808 w880H 808. 08 . .. 880882058

3 .00

888 0.88 8088 .80 80 88880.8 8088808 08 08m 8803 H:

0808838 83808 8 88880 808080.—
»08H. 00808.80 08 8088 80888.3 08

9 8088008 “00.88 w838 3 0808080
888 083808 808 80> 9 808 82
0808803 888 80000880 0003030088

0838 888
00m0> 088.. 0808080
0.080 w880>

 

.388 b0>0 808 8008

08 83.8 3088 80» 888 05888008 88 8808088 0H. . ... ”.2008: 0.08
:8 3080380 8800 H 8808 H 00 083 08 00880. .308H :0» 8883038

.3 888 s”... . .00» 00800088 .808 8 0388880088 888 88830.38

38 H: ”...0880 >8 80¢ .80 800 6388880088 083 8 0m. .. .8080w3
88—803 0803 03 8083 808 08 8 88082 0800 083 0808. . ...

 

08038808 8883038 8 M88880
8080808 >05. 80888.80 08 H0 00800088
08 8 88800 H0 H0>0H .808 80008888
0808803 088 80000898 0003030088

 

0808088008
8 0008883M3<

 

.HO—ucoao 0H,: wfiuwBOH aogmfiom fivumfiu 078M MHOBuGOZ .N

 

...00880008HH00
328808088 000.8 08 0888.83 000... . 800.68 088 83 3030808830
0803 08 0.8008 ..0 0008w8HHH3 .88 .8 x08? #88088 083

8088808000.. $0808 08 88088 80880 H 088 .Ho 8808 0800 08. . ...

080888008 808800-803
80 8088808000 .80 .0>0H 808 8000888H
0808803 “88 80000880 0003038088

0880888008
0.803 808808088088
80 808808000 H0 8084

 

 

.38 H0 088 08 808 08w 0.803 H .0808

888 88 08000 80888888800 :8 0m: m..r88H803 H 00880 080 0800800
888 888 cm HH.H 308— 8.808 80» 8880800 80 08080088 x08 80» .8

.8 038 w80n 08 8888 8080 8080 808088 388088 03 0m: $888088
880888800 00 808 80> 88 888 H 80888888800 08 0_ 0.88. . ...

 

80888.3 08 .83 8080888800
808808.803 .Ho H0>0H 808 820888
0808803 88 80000.8on 0003038088

 

domumOmdd—HHEOO
0o 83

 

 

.5880 8 28¢

99

 

...00 0:083 0 .0008»:0 82 00:: »HH0:0000: :.:0:: H 0080

:.:2:03 H 0n»0H2 08803 300000: 223 0:00.00: 0: 00:0: 0:

::0 08:: 0209.: ”2.08880 »8 m8000> 0: 00800 :0 00:3 > :0000:
83 00:0 00 :02 .00 0: 808 :00on0 :.:0:: :0» :08 M88088

0:: 023 0800: 20:000 8308:0000 0008 00 0: H80: :0». . ...
”.2003 08 0: 808800: »H:00x0 00.03 :83 :08 0008 w88»:0
V02:0 :8 283 0 a 00 0800: .02, 82: :03: 283 0. .

 

.00200HL0 08 8:3

:008: 0:0 00:0 w800 :0: 80:00:00
»0:H.H. 00:80:00 08 803 88080008
00080 0: 00082200 00.» 0:08 0:0»00
0w 2:03 »08 £083 0: 80:00

08 00:00:08 »H0>H:0w0: 0008203
:08 000000900 00:0 000303038

 

0002200808 «00%

 

00030800 03:00:30 »00:0H:0000:H: .00 0:03

 

...::000
00000 »H0:0800 :0>0 H m88»:0 003 :H .:H 000 0:0 808 029 08 0: 00:02
2:03 H :05. AH: :: 820:: 20>0 28000: 00 80:8 00 2:03 H 6:08:
»8 :0 :H: 0800 2:03 080: :08 00:3: ”..0HH08 0::03 0w F0: »HH0000>
00 »H:000HH: w8:00H::8800 .:0 0:00:08 82 :23 0:008:88 0: 0>00H 03
H: :0>0 :8: :0» 02000 :0?» w880 0.0: 00000: 08 0n»08 08 8H3 :: 0H:
:0» M880: »H:008 0:2 :008 H :00:0 :0» .»020 .002 8880: :00:0 »08..
9:08:00 20>0 0: »0: :0» :80 »03:0:: 0 8 803 :0 >.. m... . .::08:00:>:0
0800 0880080 8000 0: 0:0: :0>0 :0: 2:03 03 0008 0003 03 00:3
:08 :80: 08 0: 0080.00: ”...0»0 0: .0»0 000 »HH0000000: r88: 0 >9. . ...

002000.00 08 800.: 00300808 00:00:08
:80 20>0 »=00:0»8H 0: 808 82
0:080:03 :08 000000900 000303088

0080.000
800.: 00:00:08 H0203:
w80002 H80 m820><

 

 

.... . .0: 0.0008 80: HH080 0: 0.0008 308: :0» 0.0008 cm

00:00 00080:: 0 8 808 8:3 H000 »H:0 :00 :0»: p.808: H0:0000: 0:
488000000: 0008 .H0>0H 00000: 0 :0 003 880888 08 00: ”...:08 :08.
:80 0:00 00 0: 0H :83 0: 0:8 8:0 2003 08 0: 08 £020 H. . ._ H0 0800:
8 808000000: »H:0: 0.: 0: H00: :03 03 :80 0:0m 003 80:0: H0:0000:
08 :008 H: m...»00 PH 020 H0888 »00> 0 :0 003 :08 880008:
»H0800:x0 0: 8023 :0::000::0 H0888 08 ::m .2003 08 w80H:

H0 00000:: 08 00.: 8800088 8 H0888 :008 H: m...0008»:0 :08 0:: 0:

030 003 H 0:88 :.:0:: H ::m .000:w H 08:08 »HH::0H0.: 0008 0 8 .5808

 

.88.:080 0:20: 0:
83 880888800 3:22-803 »80
8 0w0w:0 2:03 »08 :08 80:00:00 »0:H.H.

 

 

 

.8008: 0 0300

100

 

...:08 :0 :88. 0.0: 00:00 w800 003 H :83 8 0008003 »:0 00:00

0: 8:: 803 :.:2:03 H 00:00 00:0 0:888 08.: 0:0 0w ::.H 308: :.:00
:0» w880800 :0 88:03:: 0:00 :0» .:: .0: 030 w80: 00 00:0 0080
:000 00:08: »::00:00: 03 0m: $00888 0:00 :.:03 :0». . 8:888:00
008000 08 0>0: :0» 00:000: 8:. . .:: 00 0: 00800: 80» :0 0:0:00
:0». . 0:003 08 :0 :0 0:00 0>0: :0» 0:83 :80: 0: 08: :0 >. . ...

00000000 08
800: 80: 00 000>0.: 00.: 0:00 0: 00:80:28
:0:. 0:08 0:0»0: 0w :0: 2:03 »08

8: :: 000:0:00 0:88 »08 :: 0008:000
:0:. 0:: .:: :0:: 00:00:00 »0:.:. .80: 00.:
0:00 0: m8=:3 0: 2:03 »08 :0::3 0:
80:08 0:: 00:00:00 »:0>::0w0: 0:000:03
:08 00000093 00:0 000303088

80:
00.800: 0: 80.5.03 :02

 

...305: :.:00 H 000300.: 00:0>00 002:0 0:2 808 80: 0: :8:

0 :0 ::0 0w 080w »:H000 :0: 8:: m...»::000 :0: »::0:00: :000:0w

8 0:: 00 0: w8»0: 8: :0:3 80:8: 0: 803 :.:00 H 00:00 ::0 80::

80: 00:: 2:03 H :08 .. .08 80:00 :0:: 0808:8000 0:003 000

000:: :: ::0:0 328:: 0008 003 H: ”:8 0:800:50 2:03 0: :0::

:00: :.:0H:03 H 00:80: 80:: 0:0: 0: »03 »8 .:0 ::0 0w :.:0::03

»:0::8:00 H. . ... m... . 8.8 8:3 00:0:00000 0: 0::03 :.:0:0 00:0 H 0:0

8:: 00.: w8::»:0 :0 0:003 0: w88»:0 8:3 8:: 0:0: 0: ::0 0:00:

»8 0:000 0::03 »::00:..::00:0 :.:20 H: ”.0305: :0 > .0: 000300:

8 8:80: 0.0008 00:000: 30: 8:: :0000::0 :.:00 H 8: .00:
2:00 H :08 880800 0>0: »08 0: :: 0O :8 8003 :0: 0.: .»0HH:
.»00 0:0 0:00: :8: :0» 8: 8:: 80: :00 :0» 308: :0 >. . ...

 

 

:0» 0:: »: 0008000

003 :0:3 0:0»0: 000:0.w:0 0:: 0:0 00
80: 0: 03:08:: 0:: 00:0: :0: 2:03
»08 :08 00:00:00 »0:.:. .000:0.:n:0 0::
80: 0: 08:20:00 :0“ 0:08 0:0»0:

. 0w 2:03 »08 :0::3 0: 80:00
0:: 00:00:00 »:0>::0w0: 0:000:00:
:08 000000900 00:0 00030:>00::H

 

0:2: s 0.0.5.02 32

 

 

.8008: 0 038

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: N
. on _ 0
0 : v
0.0 : m:
E : 0
mm : :
0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:0
F I.
F
F 0 3
W 0 ll
E08 08:000.:00 .:0 00:83]: 00000 00030300:
hm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:H (:0 00:00:07:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0008 03:80:00 .:0 00:8:7:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:20 8.38 e 00.5.02 82 0
0000 e 0500.02 32 0

 

000.20.: 00 00000.0: .000: 0.00:0 00: 100:0. 0 00:0 5.0: 8&0 0: 00 M00502 :0? ~

 

000:>0:0: 03:00. . :0 0:0000080 .:0 0:00.: .0

 

800888800 0888 0:003 80 - 0::0:-::080 .:0 0:03 .0
000:0.c0 800: 00:00:80 0080 :. ”8.000: 0:0 :80:0>< .0
0 :00 0:0 00:0> 00:00 0:000:00 0.0:0 :8::0> .:

 

 

000000008: 8 0000000030300~ .0

 

:OUCDMMO 0:: $0.830: wLOW>m£Dm UDHNEH D—Om u—hoaufioz .N

0808:8000 0:003 800000000088 :0 000000000 0: 000:w8:::3 .:0 0:00.: .:

000000808800 :0 0:00: .0

000:0t0 0:: 000030: 000:>0:0m 00:0:0MH 0:3: 0:003 .:
mmOH><Imm

00000::0 0:: 000030: 08:05 .:

000000.:0 0:: 00: 00::05 .0
mZOFEUOU

308003: .:

0:0:x:< .:

0080:. me .0

. .085 .0

00:00:08.: .0

:00.D .:

«08¢. .0

mZOFOEm:

 

 

3.8003: :0003: 00: 0007: .0
5:00: 0o.: 0002 .0
000088823: 00.: 000Zfl

 

 

 

 

 

   

30800 00.: 0002fl
00000 0003000088 :0 008052 ~ 5’

102

offender following violations at work. Six broad types of negative emotions were

reported by the victims.

a.

Anger. Interviewees expressed that violations at work led them to feel angry towards
the offender.

Hurt/Feeling Upset. They reported feeling upset and hurt with offender.

Fmstration. Interviewees expressed that violations at work led them to feel frustrated
with offender.

Unhappiness. They reported feeling unhappy with the offender.

Feeling Exploited. Interviewees expressed that violations at work led them to feel
exploited and used by the offender.

Anxiety/Stress. They reported feeling anxious and stressed in response to the
violation.

Resentment. Interviewees expressed that violations at work led them to feel
resentment towards the offender. They mentioned rumination and a lasting feeling of

resentment.

Cognitions. Interviewees reported the presence of two distinct types of thoughts

towards the offender.

a.

b.

Dislike. Interviewees expressed that violations impacted their level of liking for the
offender. They reported that after the violation they thought less of the offender and

did not like them as much.

Distrust. Interviewees expressed that violations impacted their level of trust towards

the offender. They mentioned that violations impacted trust in two ways: I) trust for

103

aftermath of violations at work.
Work role related behaviors towards the offender.

Lack of communication. Interviewees expressed that violations impacted
their level of work-related communication with the offender. They reported withholding
communication with the offender on work assignments.

Lack of cooperation on interdependent work assignments. Interviewees
expressed that violations impacted their level of cooperation on work-related
assignments. They reported a lower level of COOperation and collaboration on tasks where
the offender was associated. Lack of cooperation was expressed by ignoring the tasks that
were assigned by the offender and not giving priority to those work-related projects that
would benefit the offender.

Non-work role related behaviors towards the offender.

Awkwardness in interactions. Interviewees expressed that Violations

impacted their level of comfort in the presence of the offender. They reported awkward

behavior in the presence of the offender.

104

Venting one 's emotions. Interviewees expressed that violations led them to
vent their thoughts and emotions by giving direct feedback to the offender about the
offense. They reported engaging in heated arguments and raising their voice while
speaking to the offender.

Avoiding and keeping physical distance from oflender. Interviewees
expressed that violations led them to physically avoid and distance themselves from the
offender. Such behaviors entailed avoiding the offender in the office hallways, not
maintaining eye contact, not picking up phone calls from the offender and using indirect
methods of communication.

Lack of small-talk. Interviewees expressed that violations affected the
amount of small-talk and informal buddy—like conversations with the offender. They
reported that after a violation the relationship with the offender would change to a
completely business and oflen strictly formal relationship. They reported lack of
informal, friendly and personal conversations.

Lack of discretionary supportive behaviors. Interviewees reported
withholding supportive behaviors that were perceived to be extra-role behaviors. For
example victim’s expressed that until unless they were obliged to help the offender they
would not go out of their way to support or help the offender. Discretionary supportive
behaviors were affected in three ways:

3. Lack of openness: Interviewees expressed that violations negatively affected the
extent to which they would go beyond their job role/duties to share information with

the offender. They reported not being open and honest with the offender.

105

b. Lack of helping: Interviewees also expressed that violations negatively affected the

C.

extent to which they would go beyond their job role/duties to help the offender. They
reported that they would not take the initiative to help or aid the offender and would
not stick their neck out in support for the offender.

Lack of asking for help/favors: Interviewees also expressed that violations negatively
affected the extent to which they would be willing to ask for help. They reported that
if the job required it they might consider it but they would not go beyond their job
role/duties to ask for favors or help from the offender.

Process of Relationship Repair

In the first twelve of the twenty four interviews, the participants were asked to

describe an incident at work that led to a strained relationship with a colleague.

Following the description of the violation, interviewees were asked to talk about the

process by which the relationship was repaired. In this section, I outline some of the

important processes that were reported by participants with respect to relationship repair.

This section is aimed at providing a qualitative description of the important steps in the

process of relationship repair as perceived and reported in the critical incident interviews.

In the following section I outline the important components of the repair process that help

in repairing a strained relationship to a positive and functional relationship at work.

a.

Opening the Lines of Communication: Nine of the twelve interviewees mentioned
opening lines of communication as an important first step in the repair process. This
entails initiating small talks and engaging in supportive gestures that Opens the lines
of communication in a non-threatening and non-confrontational way between the

victim and the offender. The following quote exemplifies this component- “I strongly

106

believe you know the thought of having an open communication. The thought of
having a communication with the same individual that you are in conflict is what I
truly believe in. Whether you are having that open conversation that individual one
on one, or having a conversation, with that individual being mediated by someone, is
what I would definitely say is the start of the process”. The following table provides
some of the quotes that mention the ways in which lines of communication between
the victim and offender can be opened.

Admission and Acknowledgment of the Violation: Nine of the twelve interviewees
mentioned admission and acknowledgement of one’s mistake as an important
component of the repair process. This entails the offender admitting and
acknowledging to the victim that they were in the wrong. The following quotes
exemplify this component of the repair process: “. .. I mean it...let me know that they
were, they understand that they were in the wrong, they understand that somehow
they ’ve made a mistake or you know, and so they are basically explaining to me that,
hey you know I screwed up. my mistake and I'll do my best not for that to happen
again. ”,' “...Acknowledging his mistake. That was the biggest thing ...he was like
pretty much transparent and he felt upon his heart that he was wrong and so, that’s
the reason relationship improved. there is not even an admission of guilt to
some degree right so there is no, there is no eflort to resolve it you know, " “It’s
just acknowledgement yeah I guess you could say...

Explanation in terms of the reasons for committing the violation: Nine of the twelve
interviewees mentioned that an explanation outlining the reasons for committing the

violation was required for the repair process to be successful. This entailed specifying

107

Table 9
Opening the Lines of Communication

 

 

 

 

 

 

i Ways of Opening
No. Communication Lines Quotes
with the Victim
“...More side conversations I would say, you know. During
. . . the coffee break or breakout sessions, stuff like that. And then
Initiating Small Talks . . ,
. you could talk about, you know Just general thrngs. Its
and Frrendly Non- . . . . . ,,. “

l basrcally gomg to be small talk in the beginning. , As well as
Issue Related . . . .
Conversations the. fact that I like continuing those smaller conversations

Wthh shows that like yes, it was just an honest mistake on
both side”.

“. . .I think what repaired it was laughter, quite honestly trying
to find common things that I quite literally tried to befriend
Finding and 1 'ng her. So I would go and I would try to find things that. we?
. common to us and start conversations about those thmgs ;

2 evrdent the “ . . . .
commonalities ....seerng that you have like commonalities... helps ease a
little bit of the tensron.”; “there rs a common element and you
start talking about things and, when you walk away you think,

hey that guy is not so bad as I was thinking”

 

 

the reasons for committing the violation along with information about the offender’s
intention and the prevailing circumstances. The following quotes exemplify this

4‘

component of the repair process: ‘...it's either building an understanding with them
or building your own understanding of what happened. You lmow like, why did, why
did you say that? Why did I say that? You know what was, you know, were you
stressed out about something else? Was that why you just kind of snapped cause there
is something I did? And once you've, I guess identified the situation or what actually
happened, then you kind of move on to, you know how to change it. “I guess it
would be like... you find the parties involved and you see what is causing the strain in

the relationship. I guess try to see like what the problem, where the root of the

problem is, attack the root of the problem... “I mean basically objective evaluate

108

what went wrong what you would do to, why did it go wrong. Maybe you were under
certain circumstances that you had to choose this route and obviously it didn 't turn
out as much as you thought it would be just, yeah. “So, for me it comes to, what ’s
the motivation for a person doing what they ’re doing... ”...He explained the
situation how he...what caused him to that outburst. And how much pressure he and
his team were in... “That wasn ’t the case so he was like pretty much
transparent.... "

Expression of genuine and sincere concern to repair the relationship: Six of the
twelve interviewees mentioned the importance of showing genuine and sincere
concern for resolving the issue and repairing the relationship. This entailed conveying
a long-term perspective and expressing the desire to maintain a healthy and functional
relationship with the victim. The following quotes exemplify this component of the
repair process: “I mean the person has thought through each and every aspect and uh
it seems he that this person is just being genuine...it just shows that yeah, the other
person has put in some thought and the person really wants to make uh make
amends. “if the person is just being genuine, genuine and uh wants to make that
change and I would give that person a second chance... like, just going out,
talking informally and just involving having, involving them in the meeting and trying
just because of the strained relationship just trying that extra step forward to have the
other person to get those values and give him that give him that extra importance just
for that time period, small time period just to, get him back on track That could have
really helped". “Yeah. So you get that sense that the person cares to have a good

relationship... "

109

 

‘....I-e.,.

 

”..- ,—

e. Clarification regarding how the oflender will change his/her behavior: Ten of the
twelve interviewees mentioned that part of repairing a relationship is the clarification
regarding the offender’s motivation to change and some specification of the direction
in which this change will occur. This entailed the offender making commitments to
change in a certain way. The following quotes exemplify this component of the repair
process: “...I don 't really need an apology I just need to make sure that they are on
the same page...Just like this, reset the guidelines, or just like re—afi‘irm what I think

I

should be expected of that teammate. ’ ,' “I don ’t even think he apologized ...but
throughout the rest of the interactions we had he was more humble and he
approached the team in a way of “I want to learn " and then in the presentation he
was like “we are on the same boat at the same level and so they are basically
explaining to me that, hey you know I screwed up, my mistake and I ’11 do my best not
for that to happen again. “pretty much he saw that I was upset, because 1 was. And
he said okay, what do...what do I have to do? And I was like 'duh!’ ...I 'm just making
sure, I just want you to know that you, like this is something that you have to put some
effort towards. And you have to make sure that you are always putting somewhat

’ l‘
0

equal eflort amongst the other team mates. ', Sincere apology with a commitment to
learn...a commitment to change, I had no problem with Then continuous eflort
to communicate that you are doing things difi’erently and you are trying to improve
the situation to make that person ’s life better and you ’re not making things difficult
for him.... ”

f Iterative demonstration of behavioral change over time: Seven of the twelve

interviewees mentioned that part of repairing a relationship is the demonstration of

110

behavioral c'
mentioned I
offender's at
the desired
effective we
of the repai
things are .
improvingc
being done
something 1
action...if r
time and (h
results"; “
difficult. U
very respr
’el’eat...itc
the Upproa
‘15 an llltlll
"...when y.
will you.
diflel'ence

"'0’ e Credi

behavioral change by the offender over a period of time. Majority of the interviewees
mentioned this as the last step in the relationship repair process, whereby the
offender’s actions and behaviors over a variety of situations and across time indicates
the desired change as clarified in the previous step. A proof of the change is an
effective way to repair a relationship. The following quotes exemplify this component

I

of the repair process: ‘...make the extra eflort to arrange more things to show that
things are in amends. You need to have physical actions to show that things are
improving and then making the extra eflort to over communicate that these things are
being done and it ’s for the better kind of thing. “you have to prove, you have to that

I!

something has built up over time.... ; “I don ’t wanna hear it I want results I want
action...if repeatedly over the next period, some period of time if they did things on
time and they sort of you know showed that they have changed ” ; “you have to see
results”, “To be honest it is very dzflicult to change any stereotype view. It’s very
difl'icult. Unless there are other instances where you really proved yourself you 're
very responsible. “In this particular case the bandage he had was to
repeat...iterate the process...so through the iterations change the attitude...change
the approach...change the way to communicate...change the way to take credit both
as an individual and as a group...1 think that was one of the most criticalfactors
“...when you see that there is an iteration into a new process...or maybe not even
with you...but when they repeat that with someone else and they are making a

diflerence then those credits may come back and then you are like “ well now I have

more creditsfor you

111

Dilieren1
Depending on tl
presented in the
to be more salie
directly ask the
certain type of
interviewees wl
relational violat
an empowering
were presented
message and w
relationship. T]
message and w
attempt. In the
WlClpanls f0:
ltpair, ln this
Effectiveness o
0013: Notio

The leg
directly fepon
facilitate rel an.
Proriding a q]

prom by wh

Different interviewees stressed on different components of the repair process.
Depending on the specific type of violation incident they had experienced or they were
presented in the verbal protocol task, different components of the repair process seemed
to be more salient for the victim. To get at the notion of congruence it was important to
directly ask the victim’s to report the extent of relationship repair that would occur if a
certain type of repair attempt was made. This was done by selectively asking those
interviewees who either reported a relational violation or were presented a hypothetical
relational violation scenario, to also report their level of relationship repair after receiving
an empowering apology message from the offender. Similarly those who reported or
were presented a transactional violation were presented the extenuating rectification
message and were asked to talk about the effectiveness of that message in repairing the
relationship. Those in the moral violation group were presented the virtuous promise
message and were asked to report their perceived level of effectiveness of such as repair
attempt. In the following section, I present the results that summarize the extent to which
participants found the repair attempts to be congruent and effective for relationship
repair. In this section I also outline some of the reasons they presented for the
effectiveness of the repair attempts.

Goal 3: Notion of Congruence: Efficacy of Repair Attempts in Relationship Repair

The results in this section are based on interview data wherein the participants
directly reported the extent to which they perceived a particular repair attempt to
facilitate relationship repair for given type of violation incident. This section is aimed at
providing a qualitative understanding of the notion of congruence by describing the

process by which certain repair attempts facilitate relationship repair and why they are

112

efieaive in doing
congruent repair
panieipants.

Elleetiveness of

As is evi
positively to an
iiolation.

Why an
relationship altt
inavan'ety of
extenuating reeti
tfinmath of a rel
lllt extenuating -
l- 77leflflender

them ICCOgni
0“ my side 11
WW that th.
like the perm:
2' lire Qllender
I d0n'l kr
it”; “...l'd [h
theytumedt

ill be Okay

effective in doing so for specific types of violations. For each of the hypothesized type of
congruent repair attempt, quotes are presented that exemplify the response of the
participants.

Effectiveness of an Extenuating Rectification after a Transactional Violation

As is evident from the quotes in table 10, interviewees in general responded
positively to an extenuating rectification message in the aftermath of a transactional
violation.

Why an extenuating rectification message was effective in repairing the
relationship after a transactional violation?. The participants interpreted the message
in a variety of ways. The section below summarizes some of the reasons why an
extenuating rectification message was perceived as an effective repair attempt in the
aftermath of a relational violation. Quotes are provided to indicate each theme.

The extenuating rectification message indicated to the victim that:

1. The oflender was aware of the harm they had caused the victim: “...because to me it’s
them recognizing the fact that it may have caused me to have to do something extra
on my side because of what they did but they still wanted to come to me and let me
know that they recognize that, so then I would feel like okay.”; “...but now it feels
like the person Y is, is trying to explain himself so there is more, I feel like there is

2. The afiender was willing to make it up to the victim and was ready to compensate:

“..I don't know that a promise would do hardly anything. If you're not willing to fix

it”; “...I'd think to myself like oh they wanted to come to me and let me knew that

they turned this in late and also that they would try to make it up to me somehow. So

I'd be okay with them because of that and would feel like I wasn't being taken

113

advantag
that the)
willing
acknow‘;
genuine
yes. sor
you knc
right? ‘
compen
Eflectivene
[me
in the aftei
Participants
more leSpe
My enou
feel more 1
Come to m
deadline ar
Strained re]
the Offend
lictim
Wt

advantage of”; “Something like that is definitely good because you know it shows
that they didn’t do it on purpose to just make you have to do more work, that they’re
willing to do more work later”; “...That would be more effective cause it again
acknowledging you did something wrong and then showing the initiative and the
genuineness that you're trying to make it right. Like a lot of people are willing to fell
yes, sorry I over slept and didn’t get to the presentation. But other pole will be like
you know my power went out and I didn’t mean to do that, like how can I make this
right? What can I do going forward. Again it shows (offer for future help or
compensation. . .which is helpful in such a situation). . .Yeah that would be!”
Effectiveness of an Empowering Message after a Relational Violation
Interviewees in general responded positively to an empowering apology message
in the aftermath of a relational violation. As is evident from the quotes in table 11,
participants perceived the empowering apology message as a sincere and adequate effort
more respect than that now than before their explanation”; “...it seemed that they felt
guilty enough to explain...and that made me feel good and cozy.’; “...I feel like then I
feel more like we were on the same page as far as the values because they actually could
come to me and say give me whatever the reason while as well they couldn’t meet the
deadline and talk about it” on the part of the offender to resolve the issues and repair the
strained relationship after a relational violation. The empowering apology message from
the offender was perceived as an acknowledgement of responsibility for hurting the
victim.
Why an empowering message was effective in repairing the relationship after

a relational violation?. The participants interpreted the empowering apology message in

114

IU~CSAJ |.J./.—.C£7.JL .J.J.$U._>LU:; \ 7.2:...153niv Lb.3.c._>L.::— \

 

 

 

uernvaalcx Ewan”: uCUEMflCC;V 7032 i-3m--3m> ~QCAV-U-Z~=~FF
Avu U~F-~r~i

 

 

...m30nHm 5H :8w<

agate 0&8 8 _ as .23 ...38 as sea _ as so: 85 .35 8 9 988 866 H Ba
“:0 803 .8300 >8 308H :0» BE 00 :3 08000 .850 :5 8088088 05 0: 8w 5.5.5
88 808 .8>0 H 80m .8» :03 9 95:3 08 0800a H0 50— 8 SHE .38: 2 0088 05 83.:
0:30.» 85 80:00:88 05 88 02828 05 8:308 :05 58 8003 885088 55 :0»
880230888 :88 HH 088000 0385.8 0.68 00 2:03 8280580.: 9588883 85H...

:82: 0:03 0:08 05 0: 85:3

0:305 85 .503 0.88 05 9 08: :0» 088 8:.a 8 8098 :0 5H 05 “.55 >05 85
8:08 5H 30.2 :0» 088000 500» b05505 8 85 003 w85080m 80.88 .8508 :0 0:08
8800 00H: m: z 0088 8 wntobo 308H :0» :05 E8 .83 8088 85 853 8505 0.8.8: 08
:8 5.80800 .85 .33 :088 05 83 8:3 0580a b :05 8:4 .08: 80 08 05 «H 850w
80.5 805 508088 85 83 8088 05 8:3 b85808 08 :8 0: 805 BE H0. H 80:»

H .088 .908 83 80H80580MH 88885me 08008.. 58008 05 M85 H 808 H 8?.

.33 88

038038 0008 3 2:03 0:0 8.83 8000.. H08
08808 3208 88030080 8 58 08808
8080580.: 888880 8 .Ho mm000>500t0 05
88800 0: H888 0.83 80303.88 0::. .NO

 

.2930 BE H05 3:03 H :05 0m .85 058000.: :05 85 305 08 8H 58

08 05 0800 0: 50:83 :8 >05 5:: 55 >05 83 .8 8:800: 05% >8 :0 8.58 855088
00 05 08: 8 08 H8880 03B 88 5H 85 85 05 88580000 805 5H 08 05 088005 . ...
....Ho 082838 .808: 880

.883 H 00H: H00.H 2:03 88 85 .8 088009 805 53 320 09 PH 0m 303088 08 05 a:
a sea a P 283 as 8.: 8:. Ba 22 a .8 Bee :2: as: 305. as 3. Ba 2a 2
0800 3 8883 85 no 005 £088 0.. :85 pH 08803 8an: on 2:03 5H 805810 88>
H0 H.80— 05 8 8m 8 308— :0» M85 3:03 H 5800288 8:083 8 80¢ 00H: .00.“ H. . ...

EH3 58 938288.: 05

waEmae 8 0>H80.H.H0 09 2:03 08808 8 :03
28:05 :05 833 0: 8080 05 8080: 8 500.8
83 00303.88 0::. 08808 8280580.:
8580080 8 5:: 0058008: Become 05 85
20: 83 8503 05 H88 50808.8 83 08:08
883: 88888 8885 a: .5

 

 

 

88:0 -0888: 00303.82:

 

80585 8303.85:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88055.. 0880M 808800 802

805205 8:058mgh
2 2an

115

Fil10‘1 I‘~I1ul‘ .V-nulwlu Ia .ulll- 14 III ~111‘dilllull fiddlil- gullil‘ II-IIIIII ll llllllllll u lllll {ll Idcll III-£1111 I .I I I 1:.
:DH 33% rial? XS)? 9...:— 93 EEC—w)? H air—C 9.1:: :UH 0H 33% aUUQXU 85333—333 —. 227.33% H:
u\«~.~\~:\:\.\.~.fiv -\.~\\.2\ 3 Mu.~k.s\.».>.:~q\\\

 

 

a3. .2300 Q ~ .JHnHSL.

 

 

...308. so» £83 05 swag“: so» Bonn 5:» mm ow :8 _ =a mums“ b3»: 8:— 35

om do maggot coon bfifiwto 85 35 28 £20098 3: on 35 3:55 083 .2: mo
on 8 man : 3.: ”Cam 3 USE _ 523 BE "33 g on .33.. 2:8 H by: baa on» om .30:
no Boa 89a 26 on =._ on SE .9» .38.. use no» wage: $0.55 .305 58% _. . ...
:dozwamm 35 E cc 9 805 :83 3:03 so» “an? ow 2

.8 Ewwn “m5 ow “on 9 .8 5m 9 magnum Damaged >5 838 >05 22 .Emwm z ow rag
>05 mm mm : xu 980w :2: mafia bao 05. .2 @823 $5 22336 “man 05 Boss ow :8
so» :38 9.38: mm Boa om .63 2: a M: 35 28v >32? 3.55 E 395150..
33.63 .85 .§3§ «3% 338V

>6 . :doamamm ma 5 3 r5303 03 om .08 :8 28 28:9 05 a: #03 “mi
8. so.» 93 on Pm 08: 38a Sm om .38 3ch 039:3».— mm mango—go 85. : 82:
Scam “mono: 8m no» mm was— 3 :5 cm .08» 03 305— :o» 35 33$ 28 82336

was 2855 v5 88389 an: 0:05.55 3583 838 a 08 vim :88 H 333:3
23 as mew ”saws :5» Es. $8 _ 6.5. $88 2,3 2% 8» Egan“: m3“
2&3 2:: h . am. .893 up. 283 ~ :03 as: 2: 23 8a 22. .48.» .0388.” as
.58 2,3: mm. ”a: 5a 5 om £3 53 e 8:5” as a 83 2a: “.3303 2:
:8 no» “2 “can a 3 v8.83 Eon 96: 3:8 03 >66— 8» 8:3 @228» a 08
.56 n3 0M: on 5:83 H “we .08 :8 8 so.» 6098 83. 2:03 a. . .mmosm r.

zohuzuaxm $23 a Mzafiggm

 

£332.28

2: :82 9 conga? 3:28nt a mo
ESEuca 06 5 cc 8 “ovate 08 8098 c303
>05 “an? to? 2 8&3 203 8032335 no

|\L

3.503 A: 2an

 

116

a variety
empowefi
aftermath
Tr

1. the Q!
the en
thew
the re:
had b1
theyc
you c
persor
persor
inelud

2. The n
Victim
other
theyg
littlet

Profes

a variety of ways. The section below summarizes some of the reasons why an
empowering apology message was perceived as an effective repair attempt in the
aftermath of a relational violation. Quotes are provided to indicate each theme.
The empowering apology message indicated to the victim that:
l. The oflender valued the victim 's emotions and thoughts: “. . .so you know they realize
the emotion that I ’m...the person realizes emotions that I’m going through. And so
they probably are at a stage that they’re sensitive to my feelings”; “After listening to
the response I would definitely feel valued by my coworkers whatever little damage
had been done would be repaired and yes I would feel connected because personally
they came... you know a person comes up to me and says you know I am sorry I did
you cause you harm and I want you to forgive me. So there is a certain level of
personal connection there. . .Yes you know because someone who had something
personal to say against me has come back and they are trying to make an effort I feel
included and I feel a part of the work group”.
. The victim was right in perceiving the incident as a violation and that it was not the
victim ’s fault: I think that it... an apology definitely and the realization that the
other person made a mistake and you got involved in the process and you know and
they said bad things about you and realized it definitely makes my confidence go up a
little bit because I feel that okay that you know whatever they are saying about my
professional and personal competence they themselves realize that it was not true to a
large extent so therefore you know I‘m on the right track”.
3. The offender was feeling remorse, had learned a valuable lesson and was less likely

to repeat the mistake: “So I think they have learned a lesson and that‘s why they are

117

.a‘ s":— '

 

 

 

 

 

 

“arr—036‘ hmalnvfln «CQJLMNCCrU “ICE I-Av.~:w~3..> :wCCmuSTJZ
— ~ Dinah

 

”0.. . .unwu “Ga wnum

3000. 00» 003230.200 .000. .0 0.3.00.» ... 0H. 0. 008.000 00% .H. 00>0 009.3 00. 8 00.00.» .00. 308.
00» 000 .H m800 03.. 0.3.00.» >00 00» 0. ...m .3600 .H 80.0 0030 w0H0=03 00.» 000 ..000 H 000 w00H

8 ......H 0030000 03. w0H0H0 0000 0.3.00» .00. 00 ..05 0.0. 3000.0 .05 30090800 00.808 0. 80000 00x00

0. .. M8000 000.0. .0... 0030.000 03. m800 3.080.800 0000 0?..0.» 000 00» .00... ..000 H 80> $00:
.00 3000 H 30.0.0088. 00.8000 H >00 00> @0003 .H w800 0080.000 8.800 00:4 .000 .8... 000.:
000% H 000.8%..M00H8000 000.: 20.00 00.» .00 ..0 ..05003 00 0000000 .. .3 000.8000 0x08 000 000

0 8H 0 80.5 . 00.08 000 00> 00... w0HxHH 00 »03 .050 000 00 3003 ..000 H .00.» .0 00:0.» H 0003
. .H 003 H 000 .00. 03230830 .002 .0 H000 0080.000 r000 00% .HH 000000 00 00.. $2000. . ...
0.08000 0,000.03 0...... M88080

033 .80 03.00000

0.88 00 2003 000 00.03 0.0000 0.

000.00 0.63 000 00900008 .080 05

0:3 0w0m008 30.000 80.030080
00 00 000003000000 05 3.0.0000

0. 0007.0 9.03 000303.08. 000. .NO

 

3000308005 030 .005 .008

Ewwwo.“ wwwawaaamwwmamu ...... .8... is... 3... .0... .8883558 .a ...... .. .5 .35... 8..
0 0. 00000 .00. 0. ...m H .30 00H 00 “M00— 000 >00 0. 80:. .003 .00“ 2003 H 0008 H 00HHOHOH> H000H.0H0..
... . .80w0 .00. 00. 003 M0 0 000. x0 .00“ 2003 H 300.. 00% .H 30% H 0030.03 80000.0. 0 m... ..H:
000 .00... 30.. m. 0.8. 0 40.0%.. 08 .00. 03000 30.000 00 .000. .0 00 00¢. ... 9.0... H80 z .000. 0000»
02.8 .8. 0 H5» 0... . . 20 so... a... 2. ...8. no... 8.00 ...... a 00.0280 is... an... 3.53

. 08.8. H 0000000 M00” .00 0030000 00» .00. 808302300060 00 00.: m... .000. .<..

.H 00 ... . 00 0. 00800 0... 300M :0.» .. .9333 00 >800 80 E00 000
HH0.H.0MM00.MH0..H0.H.0W000.H0M0000.0.00HMH003 >0... 00.30080 00.0000 00000.0 0.0 32¢ 080080.. $0.00.. 0. 00800

.. 00.8. 8.. .3 080000 .9“... Ba ”.0... 80 See. 0 0088. 26.. a... v.0... .. . .20. 8.8.... 2....
o. 2.0.38 2.. a... ...... 3 . 0.0... .. 8.02 .8... s... 2.38 .05 .. =5...0 .00.. ...... so» a... .8. 2..
00» 00000 H .00. 00 . a .0 .H 0.... ”.000 .0... 00008 .00. .00.. 00. 0. 0.5.0000 0..0 >05 000000mH .800:
n .00.. H -05 m... .08 38.5.. 0. 00> .003 H H000 8.000 00% 00.000. . .00» 20 H >800

033 000 0800000.»...

0... 93000.. 0.. 03.0003 00 2003
0w0mm08 0 0000 23:0... >0... 0033
0. 80.0.0 00. 0000.. 0. 000.00 0.03
00303.08. 000. .0w0mmo8 $0.000
3.0030080 00 .83 000000000
00000000 00. .00. 20. 003 850$ 0...
.80 00.0088 .003 05000.... 0000.03
800.00.. 80.05003 000. .HO

 

m

80 30
H 8H 00> 0000 000 08 0. 00 00800 00800 0 3003 00%. . 3.300800 000000.. 00.000000 .00.. H:

00.000 080000.. 00303.00:

llllllllllllllllllllll

 

 

.0882 8000.0 .5380 .002

00000000 0030303.:

 

hillIL

0000.05 08000.00
H H 0300.

118

:qu >H4ZJFH>:<. . .A>§:_Aah:d Mun—mhudgnuC—Cvu 0:: an.- ~ :0:-:53: rikaur: 7.. anumU—aau—apzhu—L: ...—H0. uMn-u..¢~r‘n\k as}. ..c:

nutfifivv Hun—.3501 1.5 :2: «009093 Cu WEI—.3 “when: 95 Ha.— X053 nun-30 05m. :95. 13%.. “49.62800 12...: 0::—0::02 1
«PIECNCRNVV .v\a\=~.~.f. ~\\.~.I Ar..~\.~\>.~».\\u\~sp V

 

 

.va...:nvnvv ~ ~ nu~£~n.~-

 

0. 0.0... ... 00 0. 0000 03 00 .0....» .m. 000.00 0. w00..0. 0.0 >0... 00.0.08 0 0008 >0...

0305. 0.. 000.00 .0... 300 00 >000 0. w0.... 00000m ..00 .. ...0. 000 000000.008 00 0>0.. H ..0 000000.08
00 03... ..000 H 000 0000000.. .. >..3 .00 0.0m... 0. w0.>... 8.. 8.0.08 0 0008 H .0... >00 .00....
$000003... 0.0.8 008.. M03000800$M

: .800 w00000 000 >0... 0.0.03 300.. 0.003. 0.00000... . .0000. 0.... 02000.. 00>. . .0..0..3 00003.0

.000. 0... 0.. 0.003 .0... 000 0.00 >0... .0... 08.... >00 0. 80... 00.00.08 .0...... 00008000.. 0... 003 .003
..00000000 .003 0.0.00.0 0.003 > .0... 8000.0 0.003 H 00000. 0>.000.. 0. 00.003 >..00.. >0... ... 000000..
00000. 03000.. 0.0.003 0000.00 0... .0... >00 >.0.0.0800 .00 0.003 H 000 00 0030.00 00> .0... 0.0000

..0 0008 0 .000080 .00000 0. >000 .00 0... .3000. 00> 000000.. 0800800 0.0.0000 .00 0... .00 300000
8.0.. 00.00 0... >00 000 00.008. 800. 0.0..3 0... 0.00.. .0w >0... .0... 0.. 0.003 .. 0.003 800.00 0 0H:

00.000008.

0... 0.000.. 0. 0000.03 80000.0.

0 00 0.08000 0... 0. 00 0. 00000.00
0... 800.8 0.003 >0... .003 ..000.
0. 000.00 0.03 00030300.... .mO

 

000.2... 0......

... . ..0000

00... 0 0.. ..00 0.003 . 0m .w00..3 003 0.0 >0... .003 w088woo0. .00 0..>00. ..0 080...

0... 8.0.0. .00 ..0 00.0. .00 0.0 >0... .0m. 000.3 003 0.0 >0... .003 .0... 8.8.00. 0..>0... .80..
0..>08.. . .000 00> >03 >00 0. 00 .. 00.08 080m 0...>0... .0... w0..>00 0...>0... 000000.. >w0.000
0.0.. 0 00 .0... 00.0. 0.003 . .... . >00 .00.. >0... 0.0 .0 >800 >00 >0... 0.0 ..0...0..3 300.. ..000 .
0008 ....0..>0... .000. .0 .00 .0000 0.. ..00 0.003 H 800000000. 800000.00. .0... 00... 0000000.
0 5.3 00003.0 0... M00.... 0. 0.0.. 0. 00.003 3000. 00> 0>.>0... 000 w00..3 003 0.0 >0... .0..3
000.800 0>.>0... 000000.. 000.08.. ..0 .. 0008 00.0.. .0.... . 080.000 8.003008”... 30.000
.0...... 0... 0.... 9.8 >0... .. .0.... 0.0.... . .0.0>0. 80.0.0.0 ..0 0.0000 0 >...0..0.0 0.0 0.0... 0.0.... ...
00000.88: m0...0000.xm~ .0...: 0.580.000...

>800 8.H w0.>00

. ... 00000.. 0.0..3 .00 0... .. 00>0. 0 0. m0. .3 003 > 0800 .0... .00.. 0...
0m0.w.00.w00....00 08.0 M... 0. 0080.000 0. 0>0.. >0... 000M....>.....0.00000..w0...w...0m..0000 000M...0>0. 0>03.0 ..000
000 .30..““W 0M... 000 .008 .0. 98.000 8.0030080. 00.03 000... >00 0. 000...... 0... .00 .. 0008 .00
000 > > .. .. .0. 000 000000 0... >00 000 >00..>00 0008 H 00... ... 0008 .00 000 >800 0.0 >0... >00
00.. 0< 38.000 8.0030080 0... 0.. 00.000w 0.08 0. 008.00.308.00 2.... 00.00.00,. 0>.00>

0000 .
U 00.000» 00 .0... .00000 0. 00003 0.08 0.. 0.. 0.00.. 0800 2.0 00... 000 000000 00.. 0800800. . ...

a... 00...... 2.... 0 m

 

 

[I] $0.00? 03.0.3 .0...: M00090009

 

 

 
 

8.800 .. 0.00...

 

119

I‘IIIIJIIIIIIil 1-1III«II l-Illlll I011 Illl .III I. -.I ..I |.I .. I .1. . .111. 1 .1 I I I u 1 ‘
nu... .5... 0.8.... _. . 1...: 391.3010 90. 3. 1.0.00: .52... ..C: 3.332%. 83.0.90. .0...—0 ...... $.33 3 .3: 0.2.10 02.3%
“Uh: v-uF—xl) 'IIAJIJAULF— Diva-u Fhm —UA-< K..n—Aum~hdrw 1.»! UE-HPUNJ anU‘hI-nduJ L—AAV m.- u—wfinkl) Avm KthF—AU‘V FhrUhVP~ Tnvh-wfimw Dw-wnhhnwuv Duh-Av“

 

 

43...:qu ~ 0 0.0.2.5

 

 

2.39 a maths—8

0.8 so» HE M: 0.8 03 80:3 owfim 05 5 8m 03 >83 :2: So Pawn 9 v8: 50> .31: $335 was
“6:95 mo QEBSSSB mo 8:: 083 of 2 x23 .ow 2 Etc 5 cm 24. .8832:on owcmso 8:: 2:8
3:83 088 assoom 450:8 2 coon >05 35 20:98 8 “6:95 8:: mo 8m Bus 2: 2 8:3 .30;
05 mm :33 .30: 05 3 3:3 .owag :2: wcfimafi mo $803 2: E :05 22 $388 :2: :38

8 bfiomow x33 quoa Son 58 >5: dogma: Swag 088 : mm 205 .t “S: on 2205 3am in:

05 35 :33 u. . .50 3.820 on 9 $08 :2; Joe 2:05 :ofioq 856 $5 flow 8 8: 2: mo 080m
93 :33 .3803 08 E 92 “Vacuum mo 8.58 82.50 Bo mm :33 om «28¢ 53 mug: owns—av 2:8

 

 

 

.528": : 03¢

120

feeling rem
they would]
person is 5
repeat thes
person is 5:
want to me
worse if the
how they 21]
theywon't
learned a \
remorse so
sentence or
”19 Oflcndi
positive im
realized the
Want [0 res.
Pulthe hun
4' The Ofle’m
Telutiomhi;
they did w
“...I think
Work You

t“'OPeOpie

feeling remorse the person is feeling remorse. They are sincere because otherwise
they wouldn't have said it personally and said I'm sorry and whatever it you know the
person is saying. And they are, I won’t say they are not completely not going to
repeat the same mistake there is always a chance but they feel bad about it and the
person is saying it in front of me and so I think the, honestly the person wouldn’t
want to make that mistake again for the most part”; “...I think you’d feel much
worse if they didn’t apologize at all. Cause then you’ll be like they are just like this is
how they are gonna treat it and that’s it. And so at least an apology shows that maybe
they won’t do that again. . .”; “With this I would say by him coming out definitely has
learned a valuable lesson he kind of indicated that to me. You know he showed
remorse so I agree with it. He seems sincere from the remarks that I got in the
sentence or paragraph. So I'd mostly agree that he was sincere that he did it...”

The oflender was a not a bad person at heart: “...in fact I think it increases one’s
positive image of the other person, just because they came out of their shells and
realized they did wrong and now they’re trying to repair relationship. I’d definitely
want to resolve the issue so that we can resume our relationship and I would want to
put the hurt behind because its, we have a working relationship and it’s not good.

. The offender genuinely cared about resolving the issue and repairing the
relationship: “...Apology helps mend it all quicker because they’ve admitted what
they did was wrong and they’ve you know wanted to help in fixing the situation”;
“...I think now that they’re trying to repair the relationship that it moves on from a
work you know a work environment situation to being a personal situation between

two people.

121

5. The victim
make thosi
more powt'
him that re

Ellectiveness

As is

positively to a

Why a

a moral viola

Ways. The se

message was

tiolation. Qua

lhe Virtuous p

1- lhe th’nu
code: We
hey, you i
think he’s
Wrong and

2' ”’9 Qllena
this, I pro
allolher ac
t0 belieoe

5. The victim had more power in the situation: “...if he’s apologizing and trying to
make those steps to repair the relationship, then you definitely feel like you have
more power because you are in control of whether or not you choose to let him mend
him that relationship.

Effectiveness of a Virtuous Promise after a Moral Violation

As is evident from the quotes in table 12, interviewees in general responded
positively to a virtuous promise message in the aftermath of a moral violation.
Why a virtuous promise would be effective in repairing the relationship after

a moral violation?. The participants interpreted the promise message in a variety of

ways. The section below summarizes some of the reasons why a virtuous promise

message was perceived as an effective repair attempt in the aftermath of a moral
violation. Quotes are provided to indicate each theme.

The virtuous promise message indicated to the victim that:

I. The offender realized that what he/she did was morally wrong and against the moral
code: “Yah. Because it, to an extent it would be him admitting that you know, I’ve
hey, you were probably right I wasn’t doing what I was supposed to be doing”; “I
think he's admitting that it was morally wrong so he knows that what he did was
wrong and it kind of goes against what he should be doing.”

2. The offender was willing to change his/her behavior: . .Yeah, I promise I’m not like
this, I promise I’ll change. Because there at least is an action, it’s, and by giving
another action or suggestion of an action of something that would change, it leads you
to believe that they are admitting fault. Whereas you’re saying I‘m sorry, forgive me,

for what? Do they even recognize what they’re doing wrong? Or is it just this is, these

122

7.5.3.:J -07....CLZDL 90>)..J._>LU.:_ \ WECCEUZAJ LD>>D_.»L.J.:~ \

stun-93¢. ...-fiery: ...-03%;:er ~232 I-av=-~3w> :whcz
N~ “lash

 

45> 50

So 805 Shun 058w 8.H 8 H000 >8 2 w5>5 8.H 35 20.53 05 80 805 .3 £5 .3“ x mm 5 3083
wfioe 00.>05 033 0§ew0000 00>0 >05 OD H.233 05 .08 0335 .>b0m 8.H m5>0m 00.:o> 0000055
595 $255.50 0.3 >05 85 05:00 9 :0> 500— : omega 2:03 .05 535088 .3 00500 :0 Ho
5500320 00 8500 00528 wfifim >9 was fit £0500 :0 fl 0000— 8 0005 00:000m .0330 H: 05an
H .05 005 8a 8.H 0&an H £00.». . A8505 08:53 H0083 05 >8 35305 PH 080:0 8 50: H HH:

...0a000b5 9050800 20 2 00805.“ 250% H 0038 H000...w5>8 00.:o> 023 000 H .30? Ho ESQ 50>
000 H 305 50> 505 :83 85 E05 00m 9 005 00 P: :5 .392 0.020 H300 «meow 0.: >Hm=om>no 5005
H. . ... 9.000000,ch a 05:: 5:0 >5 >=0300 9 wEow 0.3 >05 85 805.8580 00 0gb 080m :83 2303 H
cm .085 :6: 50mm 32090 :0 5H waged 0n as“ =.>05 £553.55 $550800 o5 058w 00.>05 wE>am
000 >05 000:3 >onomm :0 no.“ magma 00% 0.8 >05 .5 non: 0000055 .05 ER 2 How .3 09>“ 088 00:4
.00 to z 0009 9 555088 0>0: :0> .005 030009 05:30 «meow 0b>05 85 50580.5 05 .303» H:

>53 Home 0350500 0.58
02 2:03 28 £033 50%: 55
058008 05an 0:05.? 0 Home
093008 320% mam—030080
:0 .3 00083000000 05 65:00 9
500—00 0003 0003030055 2E. .NO

 

R035 05 03800 8 3903

0: 555 H 8 H05“ .5 330 5803 0003 505 $35 05 305 00> wag—000 0.0: cm com—0a Home a ma Emmi
0n 9 .003 0.5005 0: 200 0H.H Sewn 5&0: 00>0: E3 5 E5 ES 0: .5 03800 9 3:03 0: 0x: 808
0005 0s Home. .0000nt 00 08.60 5 005 :05 0.58 £038 000: >HH00._ 2:03 H .5 305 #005 H Home 0.500 cm
0508 2H :5 $530.5 .3: 088 0>0: 35580 :50 “mi. H 50:05:“: 50: 00:3 05 0236050 903 a :55 H
00:096.. 0.80:7. a 0.3. .. 38 «mi. 0:m\0n...mco.mm00 05 :0 05 5:5 2:03 H 323 =o> 5:5 2:03 H om:
...>03 35 E 305335 05 08

0H3 2 we? 0.0: 8 85 05838 0.3 05505 >8 :33 520.83 0.0: 305 50> demon Home a mm 08 03%
race 030R 35 Emma : on “on 3 0.8.50 as 0508 F0: 005 mama. 0005 Ewt 0.0: cm Same 5&0:
b>0a E3 5 magnum 0n w5>0m M03 .wfiow on 2:05 0: :33 0050mm 8% Ho 22 5 use 5083 83
25 0; 00:3 85 0305 0n 9. $803 >=808 003 0H .05 95:8va 0.0: 555 H .808 H ...: 530 0.055..

.>:3 can 03805200

05 330000 5 03000.50

09 2.53 053008 a 550
Emacs. >05 5053 2 50:8 05
“.8000 8 00x00 33 003030005
2:. .0wmmm08 0580.3 0003.5,

a 53 50589.2 00900000
05 E5 22 003 :50? 05 55
5080005 003 2.883. 55033

EOE seasons 23 .5

 

 

008.5 63802 00303002:

 

3050030 0030.555

 

 

EE05< 530% 803580 .002 #85305 H.802
NH 030%

123

flier-Huf—IH Ii. lift-Affiliu Itlllfl ~l——II--Iuiu Quit-lug -\I!CIH,CH-.J.IIII - \lllf‘ .‘uflunu '\Flc ll‘mcllvlclil\v4 Flint F... (Flu-vumki lQFn-N LII—\wxiCII‘ urHflE’lG Vifinuflia Nil-ii fiFNF‘B tfi‘CriL
I DOC/LUZ Up: 3. 9:31 H43: \AOSu .HH nH :2: HJULHSQUL “32.:— UHSOU :3: 32.2: \A—CC UH: \AHCU 9.: \AHH-wUMH. . ... Cu fivUv—mfl 0L0}; MUUBUT)LUHC~ 4,.va

 

 

 

 

 

A... 2.690 N H 572.2.

 

 

...Bfifl 2: E 2 oc 2.35 30: Ho 0&an a :5 Sam: 2 OH: #83 >2: :2: thmmmoooc 8a

:03 Sm .waobs mLH >53 oNHonoaw H can BEE 05 E z 2: :.H 30: mm 0.8: 5:09:85 £5 EH: H 323

:0» Sum dew—2H :2: 2 3:38: 83 96a :5 a :35; zHHaBoa :2. >3 83 no: 9 8H: PH 0938 cm
.35 .9 “H OH: 805 @385; H aofioq 05 2 EH: >05 much.» on: Ewt 9 82: 85 2:03 H. . .8 0H: >05
:33 28 £638 H38: .55 E on 2:03 85 :32 8 33 “won 2H: 3.2% H om .wciuqmm: ozmomao 05
no: «:33 PH 28 Emma conga: 8a “an: com «:53 PH :55. :o> done: no: «as; 32.: P H .938 H:

...omHo 2.9603 9 02% 333
6:30 9365. . .203 8253880 05 :33 52:8 on 33368 8 a: :30 28 8% 93 a 5 £8.59»

Sn 2 waits 203 so» 8H: 08 30% 2:03 35 08 8 63. E 805 50389 : H0 888 85:23
:26 33 “we 55 v2 .33 : :30:—EB 8% can a E 08 Sn :9» 305 :9» .6 b8 35 so» 3 HES
mm? H 8H: i 28 H 33 fl $5 .28 H :53 mm £5 85. . .2m: 2 23:95 on 9 023 $3 088 E 2:03
a 35 89308 2: 5 .583 23 Son: wags mm? 2?. samba 2H: 53, z 332:: 2 van 2H: :33: H. . ...

...Huo>Ho>E 0.83 :5: 038m 05 9 038 soon
26: o. 330: more: 2: om .: E a: fiwsmo #5.: 83 H a £3 2: 2 magic: 3:: £66 33.. H .8:

 

 

 

 

 

2: :o :5 2: a 8:8 :5: . ..oa: 2: s 9:2H :53 225 E: 8228: a: 22: :5 maggooaa 2 :oaaoMfiMmfia 2: :82
.5: “Dawson: _ Ea é: 52:: Saunas: B 28: so: :2: :38: 2.03 5% so: 35 . o. M: as 585::
page 2 ”WEE pa €82 2.03 .8328 H .3: 28 9a 8:388 2: a 8:05 23 8:58: 82:3 58. on o. 580% 2:
8:5: 2: 2 25m :3 3:: a .2: 8%.? 0%: 3:8 :2: was 38 2: :8 2: 3:3. .. 9 Bxaflopowfiww tam

.. . a: .m

 

 

 

9:83 2 03mm.

 

124

are the
the prc
Lflxe s:

where

under:
This u
set at 1

A. G(

ofi
pr:
3. G<
ab.
of

of

are the words that I’m trying to say and so I’m gonna parrot them out at you”; “I guess,
the promise that they’re gonna change because then you have something to base it off of.
Like some type of goal to aim for. Whereas upon if they are just asking for an apology
where they are saying they’re gonna do something differently, they’ll just be asking for
an apology again next time. So I would want some type of commitment that they are
going to actually try and make a difference”; “...He's saying he promises it will never
happen again. So he's right there saying that he'll make an effort to not do it again than
please don’t judge me as a bad person, you know he's worried what my feelings are
towards him so he's trying to ask me for forgiveness in that way”.
SUMMARY

The qualitative results reported in the study provide a comprehensive
understanding of a complicated phenomenon such as relationship repair at the workplace.

This understanding has been achieved through the fulfillment of the three goals that were

set at the beginning of this exploratory qualitative study.

A. Goal 1: The results from the qualitative study include real-life narratives of incidents
at work that strains relationships between colleagues. These narratives were analyzed
to develop a taxonomy of offenses. This taxonomy summarizes the various types of
offensive situations at work into meaningful categories and provides evidence for the
presence of conceptually different types of offenses.

B. Goal 2: The results from the qualitative study include statements from participants

about the impact of different types of violations on the victim’s needs and dimensions

of relationship quality with the offender. The qualitative data pertaining to the impact

of violations on multiple dimensions provides fiirther support for the need to

125

ini

lin

C. G<

regarc
relatic
meani
exami
sectio
result.

with

Psyct

uStd

WeIe

cOnta:

investigate relationship repair from a multidimensional perspective (i.e. by examining
multiple dimensions of damage and repair rather than looking at isolated effects on a
limited set of outcomes).

C. Goal 3: The qualitative results also provide an understanding of the important
components in the process of relationship repair. The results throw light on the notion
of congruence by providing reasons for why a certain type of repair attempt is more

effective in repairing a strained relationship in the aftermath of a particular type of

offense.

The qualitative results from this study not only provide a rich understanding
regarding the types of violations; their impact on the victim’s needs and dimensions of
relationship quality and the efficacy of repair attempts, but also provide the data that
meaningfully informs measurement and designing decisions in the quantitative
examination of the multidimensional congruence model of relationship repair. In the next
section the results from the quantitative study are reported. The following quantitative
results section is structured in line with the a—pn'ori hypotheses that were derived from the
multidimensional congruence model of relationship repair.

Section 2: Quantitative Results
Psychometric Analyses- Examining the Dimensionality of the Measures
To examine the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the measures
used in this study, I conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). All CFA analyses
were conducted using LISREL 8.0 (Jéreskog & Sérbom, 1996). A LISREL simplis file

containing the correlation matrix and standard deviations served as the input data.

126

comp

lit

it

and u

bent:

of fi'
modi'

COmp

CFA overview. To determine the best fitting model for the sample, three
competing models were estimated. The three models were as follows:

1. Model 1- Model based on a-priori expectations- In this model the 30 items were
forced to load on the theoretically expected seven broad factors - i.e. four needs
(Need for control, belongingness, identity, moral meaning) and three dimensions of
relationship quality (emotions, trust and non-obligatory supportive behaviors).

2. Model 2- The second model was a two-factor model, in which all the need items were
forced to load on an overall latent “Needs Factor” while all the relationship quality
items were forced to load on a single overall latent “Relationship Quality” factor.

. Model 3- The third model tested was a unidimensional model, in which all the 30

items were loaded onto a single overall latent “Damage/Repair” factor.

These three models were estimated for two sets of items: “Post Violation” items
and “Post Repair Attempt” items. This was done to check the similarity in factor structure
between post-violation items and post-repair attempt items. The following criteria were
used to test the models’ fit: the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), with
values less than .08 indicating reasonable fit and values less than .05 indicating good fit
(e.g., McDonald & Ho, 2002); the Comparative fit index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI)
and the Non-Normed Fit Index, with values greater than .90 indicating good fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Comparisons of competing models were done by looking at the goodness
of fit statistics and the Akaike (1987) information criterion (AIC). The AIC is a
modification of the standard goodness-of-fit chi-square statistic that adjusts for the

complexity of the model. The AIC criterion is frequently used to compare competing

127

model

finder

to the
1418.
mode
CF12
n01 pr
N1

bothl

models. The model with the lowest AIC is considered the preferred model (Burnham &
Anderson, 2002).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results.

Post- Violation CFA Models. The first a-priori model provided a good fit
to the data ()8: 1256.58, p <.01, RMSEA: .06, CF]: .97, NFI = .95, NNFI=.96, AIC:
1418.58). The other two competing models had relatively worse fit. The two-factor
model did not provide a good fit to the data (x2: 6093.26, p< .01, RMSEA: .18,
CFI=.78, NFI = .77, NNFI=.76, AIC= 7530.65). Similarly the one-factor model also did
not provide a good fit to the data (x2= 6668.99, p <.01, RMSEA= .25, CFI=.68, NF I =.67,
NNFI=.65, AIC= 10019.25). Direct comparison of the first a-priori based model with
both the one-factor and the two-factor model revealed that the a-priori model fits the data
significantly better. Table 13 indicates the fit indices for the three models and the

improvement of AIC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13
Post-Violation: Goodness of Fit Indices for the CFA Models
Post-Violation Measures
Model 1- A- Model-Two Model 3- One
Priori Factor Factor
Chi-Square Value (p value) 1256.58 (.00) 6093.26 L00) 6668.99 (.00)
RMSEA .06 .18 .25
CFI .97 .78 .68
NFI .95 .77 .67
NNFI .96 .76 .65
AIC 1418.58 7530.65 10019.25
Improvement in AIC -61 12.07 -8600.67

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. Lower AIC value is indicative of good fit; Negative value for the “Improvement in
AIC” indicates worse fit; RMSEA < .08 indicates reasonable to good fit; CFI, NFI and
NNFI > .90 indicates good fit

128

provided
NNF1=.9
The two
1111SEA:
model 31
Cf1=.77,
based me
model f1

models a

Table 1
Post-R:

N

\

EL
NFI

\—
mm
\
AIC

\
lmprov

 

N019. L0
AIC" jm
N1 > .

Post-Repair Attempt CFA Model. Once again, the first a-priori model
provided a good fit to the data (12: 1607.82, p<.001, RMSEA: .07, CFI == .98, NFI =.97,
NNFI=.97, AIC= 1769.82). The other two competing models had relatively worse fit.
The two-factor model did not provide a good fit to the data (752: 9365.41, p<.001,
RMSEA= .21 , CFI =.82, NFI = .81, NNFI=.81, AIC= 11034.31). Similarly the one-factor
model also did not provide a good fit to the data (x2= 16838.40, p<.001, RMSEA= .27,
CFI=.77, NFI = .76, NNFI=.75, AIC= 16958.40). Direct comparison of the first a-priori
based model with both the one-factor and the two-factor model revealed that the a-priori
model fit the data significantly better. Table 14 indicates the fit indices for the three

models and the improvement of AIC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14
Post-Repair Attempt: Goodness of Fit Indices for the CFA Models
Post-Repair Attempt Measures
Model 1- A— Model-Two Model 3- One
Priori Factor Factor
Chi-Square Value 1p value) 1607.82 (.00) 9365.41 L00) 16838.4fl00)
RMSEA .07 .21 .27
CFI .98 .82 .77
NFI .97 .81 .76
NNFI .97 .81 .75
AIC 1769.82 1 1034.31 16958.40
Improvement in AIC -9264.49 -15188.6

 

 

 

 

 

Note. Lower AIC value is indicative of good fit; Negative value for the “Improvement in
AIC” indicates worse fit; RMSEA < .08 indicates reasonable to good fit; CFI, NF I and

NNFI > .90 indicates good fit

129

 

i v V r N ~

WUun~FHI~VMn Nam—..D-wHW-UMM 7:5 ECAv:-_U.~i~3rU..I..~3w.C~

 

A Ti. ESQ—.4 :C..::C..> ..ICL

V~

L

.MCCZ-umxrnte huLQUCnZW .2sz mpiuuwndwuvc~

MU~ F~ nevihr

.226— o>5 55 0.88 5:5 83mg.» @250 .3256
0.8 .85 me 038 cove—oboe 25 E Bea—05 coon we: 96: 39: Essen :38 e5 25 5:23.: 28323258 2:- mfieowfie

 

05 no one when? Homage 808 meteofiem 282: 553 53» 5; mo “.38 e so 03 83mg; momm-E m Bob mow—HE Z 2:- $82

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hoganom
a :$ :3 :3. :8 :3: :mm :2 :: :2 :2 ...: :8 :2 2; v: 2,289.8“. as 3
3. :3. :R. :8. :3. :8. :3. ..mn. :3. :8. no. :2. .:. m: «.3. ...-gen 2

a. we. on. 2.. em. a. 2. om. 3.. 8. .2. 3. $2 21. Eases-”32802 2

 

 

R. :2. ..mm. :2. :2. :2. .:. :3. on- S.- S.- m: «3 38358022 :
a. :2. ..:.. ..s. :2. :3. .8. ..s. ..a. :3. .2 a.” 352.2 2
3. :8. :2. :2. .2. 8. :2... :3. :3. 2.2 2....- mamqoam-z a
8. :fi. ..NN. 3. 8.- :2. ..N4. :3. 3.2 22 3280-2 m
3 2 2 : 2 a w b e n v m N _ em :82 3802.. have mom
2. ..mm. :8. :8. :a. :z. :3. 2: 3m 382:3”...me s
a. 9. R. a. mm. mm. 8. 2% ...-gen 0

O. O. I. O. I.

3. mm. 8. E. S. 8. an 808502392 m

 

 

a. .2. S. 3. mm; a: anemogeozi 4
3. :2. :3. 2... 5m 2.82-2 m
a. :6. 2: 3m 3223-2 N
as. :2 8a ease-z _
2 2 2 : 2 a w s e n v m a . mm :82 83238..

 

 

8383mm b:3m:od Ea SeafloboU-BHE .meoueSoD 935% .522 $3835
2 2an

130

8251

111631

1116111

equal
same
mora
eomr
negal
behm
and t‘
181511
needs
be en

is 611

Exan

dffinl
Ohea
910n-

mngr

Basic Descriptives

In the following section I present the descriptive statistics. Table 15 indicates the
means, standard deviations, correlations and alphas for all the study variables. The
means, SD, correlations and alphas were in the expected direction. The scales had alpha’s
ranging between acceptable values of 87-97. All the scales had standard deviations
equal to or above .90 (ranging between .90-1.83), indicating more than adequate
variance. In terms of the impact of violations on the victim’s need satisfaction, need for
moral meaning was most impacted followed by need for belongingness, identity and
control. Similarly, the affective dimension of relationship quality (i.e. presence of
negative emotions) was most affected post violation followed by trust and supportive
behaviors. As expected there was an overall decrease in the means for all the four needs
and the three relationship quality dimensions (indicating repair) after the repair attempt
versus after the violation. Although there were some significant correlations between the
needs measures and the measures of relationship quality dimensions; these variables can
be empirically discriminated and theoretically conceptualized into different constructs as
is evident from the confirmatory factor analyses results (See previous section).

Hypothesis Testing

Examining the Notion of Congruence

In the literature, “Congruence” and “Fit” are often used interchangeably and are
defined as “the degree to which the characteristics (e. g., needs, demands, goals,
objectives, structures) of one component are consistent or similar with the characteristics
of another component (Nadler & Tushman, 1980; p. 45). Research studies examining

congruence and fit tend to evaluate the effect of “congruence/fit” on other outcomes. For

131

 

 

€112

151

am

or.

pro

1111'
Dir

has

dim
PTO
dim

a11<

example, how value-congruence (i.e. similarity in values between two entities) influences
satisfaction and other positive outcomes at work. In the context of this study, congruence
is examined differently from how it has been examined in other studies in the literature.
Instead of using congruence between components as a predictor of distal outcomes,
congruence itself is the interest in this study. For the purpose of this research,
“Congruence” is defined in terms of “effectiveness”, i.e. the degree to which a repair
attempt is effective in repairing a certain profile of needs and relationship quality
dimensions following a particular type of violation. For example, an empowering
apology is hypothesized as the most congruent repair attempt for a relational violation as
it is expected to be more effective in repairing the needs and relationship quality
dimensions most affected after a relational violation (such as, N—belongingness, N-
identity, emotions, and non-obligatory supportive behaviors) compared to all other types
of repair attempts (such as, denial, simple apology, extenuating rectification and virtuous
promise).

In the context of this study, there are three types of components that are under
investigation. The first is the “Violation Type”; second, “Needs and Relationship Quality
Dimensions” and third, “Repair Attempt Type”. The notion of congruence in this study is
based on two assumptions regarding these three components:

1. Difirerent types of violations aflect diflerent needs and relationship quality
dimensions. For example, a “relational violation” is hypothesized to affect a certain
profile of needs (such as, Need-Belongingness, Need-Identity) and relationship quality
dimensions (such as emotions and supportive behaviors) more compared tothe effect of

all other types of violations (e. g. transactional and moral).

I32

2. Difilerent types of repair attempts repair diflerent needs and relationship quality
dimensions. For example, an empowering apology has been designed to repair a certain
profile of needs (such as, Need-Belongingness, Need-Identity) and relationship quality
dimensions (such as, emotions and supportive behaviors) more compared to the repair of
these needs and relationship quality dimensions following all other types of repair
attempts (such as, denial, simple apology, extenuating rectification and virtuous promise).

Thus, the notion of congruence can be conceptually understood and statistically
examined in two steps:

Step I-Exantining the difl'erential effects of different types of violations on the
needs and relationship quality dimensions. Different types of violations differentially
violate the needs of the victim and quality of the relationship between the victim and the
violator. Figure 4 below depicts the hypothesized differential effects of different types of
violations.

Step 1- Analytical Strategy. In order to examine if types of violations had
differential effects on the hypothesized needs and relationship quality dimensions, the
best analytical strategy is to examine a full-factorial model using Multivariate Analysis of
Variance with “violation type” as the between-subject independent variable and the seven
“needs and relationship quality dimensions” as the dependent variables in the model.
Following a significant main effect for “violation type”, planned comparisons can reveal

whether the hypothesized violation (e.g. Relational violation) leads to greater violation of
hypothesized needs and relationship quality dimensions (e. g., belongingness, identity,
emotions and supportive behaviors) compared to the effect of all other types of violations

(e.g. transactional and moral) on those hypothesized needs. The multivariate test provides

133

information about the extent to which the IV (types of violation) is associated with the
pooled DV (combination of needs and relationship quality dimensions). The test indicates
if the type of violation has a systematic effect across the range of DV’s. Later in the
results section, I report the results from the omnibus multivariate between-subjects test as

well as the results from the planned comparisons based on a-priori comparison of means.

Figure 4
Differential Effects of Types of Offenses

l Types of Offenses ' What it is hypothesized to
. impact?

N-Control

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transactional
offense Trust

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral offense N—Moral Meaning

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behaviors

 

 

Emotion

 

 

 

 

Relational offense

 

 

 

 

 

N-Identity

 

 

 

 

 

N-Belongingness

 

Once this has been statistically demonstrated, we have examined the first half of
the congruence model, i.e. different violations differentially affect the needs and
relationship quality dimensions. If these hypothesized relationships are not found to be
Significant or are found to be partially supported, the notion of congruence as proposed in

this study can only be partially supported. It is important that the hypothesized needs and

134

relationship quality dimensions are affected as expected, as the repair attempts
hypothesized to be most appropriate (congruent) for the type of violation have been
designed to repair the hypothesized needs and relationship quality dimensions. Thus, the
first necessary step to evaluate congruence is to demonstrate that the hypothesized needs
and relationship quality dimensions are different across types of violations (in the
direction expected).

Step 2-Examining the differential effects of different types of repair attempts on
the needs and relationship quality dimensions. Once we know that a certain type of
violation affects certain needs and relationship quality dimensions compared to other
types of violations, the next question is to ask which repair attempt would be most
congruent (i.e. effective for repairing those affected needs and relationship quality
dimensions) for that particular type of violation. In other words, if we know that a
relational violation leads to “lack of feeling valued” (N -belongingness is violated), then
the next question would be- which repair attempt is most appropriate to repair that need
(i.e. “make the victim feel more valued”)?. The repair attempts examined in this study
have been designed to repair specific types of needs and relationship quality dimensions
such that they are most congruent with a certain type of violation. In other words, an
“empowering apology ” is expected to be the most congruent repair attempt for a
“relational violation” based on two assumptions:

1. That a relational violation affects certain victim’s needs (N -belongingness & N-
identity) and certain relationship quality dimensions (such as emotions and supportive

behaviors) more than other types of violations.

135

2. The

belt

because
relation
of rep-ii

of rep-ii

differen
dimensi
the “re;
hspothe
model.
Whether
ltpalmn
1iolatio-
reduetic

lOllOWir

0“ the
allt‘mpr

13mm:

2. That an “Empowering Apology” is designed to increase the victim’s sense of
belongingness; increase the victim’s sense of identity; reduce the levels of negative
emotions and increase the level of supportive behaviors.

An Empowering Apology is expected to be “Congruent " to a relational violation
because it is expected to work better at repairing the specific damaged needs and
relationship quality dimensions following a relational violation compared to other types
of repair attempts. Figure 5 depicts the hypothesized differential effects of different types
of repair attempts on the needs and relationship quality dimensions.

Step 2- Analytical Strategy. In order to examine if types of repair attempts had
differential effects in repairing the hypothesized needs and relationship quality
dimensions, the best analytical strategy would be to run separate analysis of variance with
the “repair attempt type” as the between-subject independent variable and the specific
hypothesized needs and relationship quality dimensions as the dependent variables in the
model, for the hypothesized type of violation. In other words, if we have to evaluate
whether an “empowering apology” is the most congruent (effective) repair attempt in
repairing the damaged needs and relationship quality dimensions after a relational
violation, we will need to show that given that type of violation (e.g. relational), there a
reduction in the sense of violation of the needs and relationship quality dimensions
following an “empowering apology” compared to all other types of repair attempts.

Statistically this entails finding a significant main effect of “repair attempt type”
on the dependent variable of repair. Following a significant main effect for “repair
attempt type”, planned comparisons can reveal whether after a relational violation, the

hypothesized repair attempt (e.g. Empowering apology) leads to greater repair of

136

hypothesized needs and relationship quality dimensions (e.g., belongingness, identity,
emotions and supportive behaviors) compared to the effect of all other types of repair

attempts (e.g. denial, simple apology, virtuous promise and extenuating rectification) on

those hypothesized needs.

Figure 5
Differential Effects of Types of Repair Attempts

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Types of Repair What it is hypothesized to
Attempts repair?
N-Control
Extenuating
Rectification Trust

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virtuous Promise 4" N-Moral Meaning
Behaviors
Emotion
Empowering
Apolo
gy N-Identity
Simple A 010
p gy N-Belongingness
Denial

 

 

 

Once this has been statistically demonstrated, we have examined the second half
of the congruence model, i.e. different types of repair attempts differentially affect the
needs and relationship quality dimensions following a certain type of violation. If these
hypothesized relationships are not found to be significant, the notion of congruence as

prOposed in this study will not be supported.

137

Ill

Omnit

[Tile 0'
This it
partial
1’a113l11
factors
these r.
pooled
dimens
report .

Test 01

on all 5

means

needs -'

and res

MANOVA Results: The Effect of Violation Type on the Four Needs and Three
Relationship Quality Dimensions

Omnibus Multivariate Test

The omnibus multivariate test indicated a significant overall effect of violation
type on the pooled DV’s (combination of needs and relationship quality dimensions).
This was evident from the significant Wilk’s Lambda value of .43; F=22.92, p<.01. The
partial eta—squared was .35. This estimate of effect size indicates the proportion of total
variation attributable to the between-subject factor, partialling out (excluding) other
factors from the total non-error variation (Pierce, Block & Aguinis, 2004, p. 918). In
these results it indicates that the IV (type of violation) explains 65% of the variance in the
pooled DV. Thus we can conclude that a significant variance in the DV (needs and
dimensions of relationship quality) can be explained by the type of violation. Below I
report the between-subjects effects from the MANOVA analysis.
Test of Between-Subjects Effects

The test of between-subject effects indicates a significant effect of violation type
on all seven dependent variables.

Planned Comparisons for Specific Hypothesis Testing. Planned comparison of
means was done to test specific hypotheses about the effects of violation type on specific
needs and relationship quality dimensions. In the section below, I outline the hypotheses
and results regarding the differential effects of violation type on the four needs.

H1: Transactional offense will violate the need for control in the victim

relatively more than a relational and moral offense.

138

H1 Results: Planned contrasts indicate that transactional violation (Mean: 2.91) does not
produce a greater negative effect on need for control as compared to relational and moral
violation (Mean = 2.96). The mean difference of -.05 was not statistically significant.
Thus H1 was not supported and transactional violation did not result in a greater violation
of need for control compared to a relational and moral violation.
H2a: Relational offense will violate the need for belongingness in the
victim more than a transactional or moral offense.
H2b: Relational oflense will violate the need for identity in the victim
more than a transactional or moral oflense.
H2a Results: Planned contrasts indicate that relational violation (Mean = 4.43) produced
a greater negative effect on need for belongingness compared to transactional and moral
violation (Mean = 3.79). The mean difference of .64 was statistically significant (p=.01).
The part of hypothesis 2 about need for belongingness was supported such that relational
violation resulted in a greater violation of need for belongingness compared to a
transactional or moral violation.
H2b Results: Planned contrasts indicate that relational violation (Mean: 3.94) produced a
greater negative effect on need for identity compared to transactional and moral violation
(mean= 2.50). The mean difference of 1.44 was statistically significant (p<.01). The
second part of hypothesis 2 about the need for identity was supported such that relational
violation resulted in a greater violation of need for identity compared to a transactional or
moral violation. Overall Hypothesis 2 was supported.
H3: Moral oflense will violate the need for moral meaning in the victim

relatively more than a transactional or relational offense.

I39

113 Re
greater
transae
signilii
greater

\‘iolatit

effects

Opposii
produc.
Was no
as com
and mi
lilies 0
e1Tpecte
CTTCCI (

SlallSIic

H3 Results: Planned contrasts indicate that moral violation (Mean = 6.33) produced a
greater negative effect on need for moral meaning compared to relational and
transactional violation (Mean= 5.32). The mean difference of 1.00 was statistically
significant (p<.01.). Thus H3 was supported such that moral violation resulted in a
greater violation of need for moral meaning compared to a transactional or relational
violation.
In the section below, I outline the hypotheses and results regarding the differential
effects of violation type on the three relationship quality dimensions.
H4: Transactional oflenses will decrease the level of trust between the
victim and the oflender relatively more than a relational oflense.
H4 Results: Planned contrasts indicate that transactional violation (Mean = 5.45) did not
produce a greater negative effect on trust as compared to a relational violation (Mean=
5.72). The mean difference of .27 was statistically significant (p=.01) but was in the
opposite direction to what was hypothesized. Results indicate that relational violation
produced a greater negative effect on trust compared to a transactional violation. Thus H4
was not supported and transactional violation did not result in a greater violation of trust
as compared to a relational violation. Since it was hypothesized that transactional (H4)
and moral violation (H6a) will both result in violation of trust, I compared these two
types of violation with the expectation to find no difference in their effect on trust. As
expected, planned comparisons indicates that the mean difference of .15 between the
effect of transactional violation (Mean = 5.45) and moral violation (Mean=5.60) is not

statistically significant.

140

H5a: Relational oflense will increase the amount of negative emotions the
victim feels towards the offender relatively more than a transactional and
moral oflense.
H5a: Relational offense will decrease the level of non~obligatory
supportive behaviors the victim is willing to do for the offender relatively
more than a transactional oflense.
H5a Results: Planned contrasts indicate that relational violation (Mean= 5.79) produced a
greater negative effect on the victim’s emotions towards the offender as compared to
transactional and moral violation (Mean = 5.36). The mean difference of .43 was
statistically significant (p<.01). The part of hypothesis 5 about the emotions was
supported such that relational violation resulted in greater negative emotions as compared
to a transactional or moral violation.
H5b Results: Planned contrasts indicate that a relational violation (Mean= 4.20) produced
a greater negative effect on non-obligatory supportive behaviors of the victim towards the
offender as compared to a transactional violation (Mean= 3.38). The mean difference of
.81 was statistically significant (p<.01). Thus the second part of hypothesis 5 about the
non-obligatory supportive behaviors was supported such that relational violation resulted
in lesser non-obligatory supportive behaviors as compared to a transactional violation.
Since it was hypothesized that a relational (HSb) and a moral violation (H6b) will both
result in fewer non-obligatory supportive behaviors, I compared these two types of
violation with the expectation to find no difference in their effect on non-obligatory

supportive behaviors. As expected, planned comparison indicates that the effect of both

141

relational violation (Mean = 4.20) and moral violation (Mean= 4.24) on non-obligatory
supportive behaviors is not statistically different (Mean difference: .04; n.s.).
Hypothesis 6a: .Moral oflense will decrease the level of trust towards the
oflender relatively more than a relational oflense.
Hypothesis 6b: Moral offense will decrease the level of non-obligatory
supportive behaviors the victim is willing to do for the oflender relatively
more than a transactional oflense.
H6a Results: The effect of moral violation on trust was compared with the effect of
relational violation on trust. Results indicate that there was no difference between moral
violation (Mean= 5.60) and relational violation (Mean=5.72) in terms of their effect on
trust (Mean difference =.12, n.s.). Thus the part of hypothesis 6 about trust was not
supported.
H6b Results: The effect of moral violation on non-obligatory supportive behaviors was
compared with the effect of transactional violation on non-obligatory supportive
behaviors. Results indicate that there was a statically significant difference between
moral violation (Mean= 4.24) and transactional violation (Mean = 3.38) in terms of their
effect on non—obligatory supportive behaviors (mean difference=.86, n.s.). Thus the part
of hypothesis 6 about non-obligatory supportive behaviors was supported, such that
moral violation led to fewer non-obligatory supportive behaviors as compared to
transactional violation.
Effect of Repair Attempt on the Four Needs and Three Relationship Quality

Dimensions for Different Types of Violations

142

In order to test the specific congruence hypothesis I will compare the effect of the
specific hypothesized congruent repair attempt with other repair attempts on the
hypothesized needs for a particular violation type. The overall broad hypothesis about
congruence was as follows:

Hypothesis 7*: The effectiveness of offender repair attempts in facilitating

relationship repair will be determined by the multidimensional

congruence between what is impacted in the victim and in the relationship
quality and what is repaired by a certain type of repair attempt.

This hypothesis has three sub-hypotheses that specify what type of repair attempt
is expected to be most congruent for different types of violations. The overall broad
hypothesis was tested using an omnibus multivariate test of between-subject interaction

effect. While, the sub-hypotheses were tested using planned contrasts of means. The

results are discussed below:

MANOVA Results: The Effects of Repair Attempts
Omnibus Multivariate Test

The omnibus multivariate test indicated a significant overall interaction effect of
violation type and repair attempt type on the pooled DV’s (combination of needs and
relationship quality dimensions). This can be inferred from the significant Wilk’s
Lambda value of .84; F: 1.40, p<.05. The partial eta-squared for the interaction effect
was .03. This estimate of effect size indicates the proportion of total variation
attributable to the interaction factor, partialling out (excluding) other factors from the
total non-error variation (Pierce, Block & Aguinis, 2004, p.918). Based on the generally

accepted benchmark (Cohen, 1992; 1988), the interaction effect in this study has a small

143

effect size. However, based on the significant interaction effect, we can conclude that
significant variance in the DV (needs and dimensions of relationship quality) can be
explained by the interaction between type of violation and type of repair attempt. As a
follow-up to this omnibus test, I conducted several planned comparisons of means
examining the relationships proposed in the sub-hypotheses.
Hypothesis Testing- Using Planned Comparisons
Planned comparison of means was done to test specific hypotheses about the
effects of violation type on specific needs and relationship quality dimensions. In the
section below, I outline the second step for testing the proposed notion of congruence.
Steps to Test Specific Congruence Hypotheses (7a, 7b, 7c): In order to test the
notion of congruence, I ran several planned contrasts of means based on a-priori
expectations to identify the extent to which the effects of specific repair attempts differed
from other types of repair attempts and between different types of violation. In order to
test the notion of congruence, it is essential to demonstrate that there was a greater
positive effect of the hypothesized repair attempt (e.g., empowering apology) on the
hypothesized DV’s (e.g., N-belongingness, N-Identity, Emotions and Non-obligatory
supportive behaviors) compared to the effect of all other types of repair attempt on the
hypothesized DV’s for that type of violation (e.g., after a relational violation). The
figures in the following section indicate the results of planned contrasts along with the
means for each of the conditions. Higher negative values indicate greater repair.
Hypothesis 7a: In the aftermath of a transactional offense, an
“Extenuating Rectification ” message will be more effective in repairing

the damaged needs (need for control) and dimensions of relationship

r44

quality (level of trust) compared to the eflectiveness of other types of

repair attempts.
Results for Hypothesis 7a- Comparing across different types of repair attempts

Need for Control. The test of between-subject effect was significant (F=5.25; p
<.01; partial eta-squared = .11). This indicates that there were differences across types of
repair attempts in their effectiveness in repairing need for control after a transactional
violation. Planned contrasts revealed that an extenuating rectification message after a
transactional violation led to greater repair of need for control (Mean= -.40) compared to
the repair following all other types of repair attempts (Mean=.30). Thus the part of
hypothesis 7a about the need for control received support. Figure 6, plots the mean repair

for need for control for “Extenuating Rectification” message and all other types of repair

attempts.

Figure 6
Need-Control: After a Transactional Offense and Extenuating Rectification

Need for Control

0.80
0.60
\‘l
0.40 a.
Amount 0'20
of 0.00

Repair .0_ 20

 

-0.40
-0.60
-0.80 . _ ,
Transactro Relational - Moral i
. nal :‘ J
l-O—Extenuating Rettification : -O.4O -0-27 l 0-13 1
-- -All other repairaftempts -1 I i 0.59 9 -0-73 f 0-07 U i ll

...-H—c._ . ..., ..

Note: Negative values indicate greater repair

I45

Trust. The test of between-subject effect was significant (F=15.33; p <.01; partial
eta—squared = .27). This indicates that there were differences across types of repair
attempts in their effectiveness in repairing trust after a transactional violation. Planned
contrasts revealed that an extenuating rectification message after a transactional violation
did not lead to greater repair of trust (Mean= -.56) compared to the repair following all
other types of repair attempts (Mean=-.7 3). Thus the part of hypothesis 7a about trust did
not receive support. Figure 7, plots the mean repair for trust across different type of
violations for both an “Extenuating Rectification” message and all other types of repair
attempts. Further exploration of post-hoe tests revealed that “denial” had a negative effect
on trust repair. While, a “virtuous promise”, “simple apology” and empowering apology”
had equally positive effects on trust repair which was significantly more than the trust

repair following an “extenuating rectification” message.

 

 

Figure7
Trust: Afier a Transactional Offense and Extenuating Rectification
Trust
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30 f
—0.40 - / . —
Amofunt -050 . - . . .. _
o . 0.60 .. H -- -. .4": _- -..
Repair .
-0.70 ' ‘ / '
-0.80 i \rx... .2
. N A"
-0.90 3"
-1.oo .1 - . , .. . . .
.1 Transactional - Relational ' Moral
f-t-ExtenuatingRectification —0.56 - -0.57 .' .051... -
;,'-- --All other repair attempts: -O.73 ' ~O.89 ‘ -O.23

146

Hypothesis 7b: In the aftermath of a relational offense, an “Empowering

Apology " message will be more effective in repairing the damaged needs

(need for belongingness and identity) and dimensions of relationship

quality (level of negative emotions and non-obligatory supportive

behaviors towards the offender) compared to the efibctiveness of other

types of repair attempts.
Results for Hypothesis 7 b- Comparing across different types of repair attempts

Need for Belongingness. The test of between-subject effect was significant
(F=7.48; p <.Ol; partial eta-squared == .14). This indicates that there were differences
across types of repair attempts in their effectiveness in repairing need for belongingness
after a relational violation. Planned contrasts revealed that an “empowering apology”
message after a relational violation led to greater repair of need for belongingness
(Mean= -l .33) compared to the repair following all other types of repair attempts (Mean=
-.84). Thus the part of hypothesis 7b about the need for belongingness received support.
Figure 8, plots the mean repair for need for belongingness across different type of
violations for both an “Empowering Apology” message and all other types of repair
attempts.

Need for Identity. The test of between-subject effect was non—significant (F=l .06;
n.s). This indicates that there were no significant differences across types of repair
attempts in their effectiveness in repairing need for identity after a relational violation.
Planned contrasts revealed that an “empowering apology” message was not better than all

the other types of repair attempts in repairing need for identity after a relational violation.

147

Figure 8
Need-Belongingness: After a Relational Offense and Empowering Apology

 

 

Need for Belongingness
0.00 , ,, , -- -»—m-~-—_ WWr—u—fi -
-0.20
-0.40
Amount -0‘60 p
of 5
. -O.80 : /’ A
Repair
-1.00
-1.20
H
4.40 ~ Wt -- - -v --
Relational Transactional Moral
EFF-Empowering Apology -1.33 -1.24 = —0.44
L— --All other repair attempts —O.84 -O.48 -0.05

Note: Negative values indicate greater repair

 

Figure 9
Need’Identity: After a Relational Offense and Empowering Apology
Need for Identity
0.00
#020 /
-o.4o I. _.
Amount -050
of
Repair ‘0-30
-1.00
-1.20
4.40 . . . __
Relational . Transactional .- Moral
§+sapowee‘aag Apology : -1.20 1 0.32 .‘ 0.26
‘V-- -Al|otherirgpalfafit—tempts’ ' -1.08 -o.so p.31 ' W,

Note: Negative values indicate greater repair

148

Thus the part of hypothesis 7b about need for identity did not receive support. Figure 9,
plots the mean repair for need for identity across different type of violations for both an
“Empowering Apology” message and all other types of repair attempts.

Emotions. The test of between-subject effect was significant (F=8.23; p <.01;
partial eta—squared = .15). This indicates that there were differences across types of repair
attempts in their effectiveness in repairing (reducing) negative emotions after a relational
violation. However, planned contrasts revealed that an “empowering apology” message
after a relational violation did not lead to greater repair of negative emotions (Mean= -
1.88) compared to the repair following all other types of repair attempts (Mean= -l .50).
Thus the part of hypothesis 7b about emotions did not receive support. Figure 10 presents
the mean repair for emotions across different types of violations for both an
“Empowering Apology” message and all other types of repair attempts.

Further exploration of post—hoe tests revealed that “Virtuous promise”,
“Extenuating Rectification”, “Simple Apology” and an “Empowering Apology” had
equally positive effects on reducing negative emotions following a relational violation.
However a “Denial” message had significantly lower effectiveness in reducing negative
emotions following a relational violation compared to all other types of repair attempts.

Non-Obligatory Supportive Behaviors. The test of between—subject effect was
significant (F=9.42; p <.01; partial eta-squared = .17). This indicates that there were
differences across types of repair attempts in their effectiveness in increasing non-
obligatory supportive behaviors afier a relational violation. Planned contrasts revealed
that an “Empowering Apology” message afler a relational violation lead to greater

increase in non-obligatory supportive behaviors (Mean= -l .82) compared to the repair

149

Figure 10
Negative Emotions: After a Relational Offense and Empowering Apology

Negative Emotions

 

0.00 p . -. fi—
-050 . . . - /"
-1.00
'1
Amount :'
-1.50
of
Repair
-2.00
-250 l ------- . ~ ~ - - ~
: Relational Transactional Moral
EFFEmpOWering Apology I: -1.82 r -2.16 i -0.71
-- -‘All other repair attempts .150 4.16 .041

Note: Negative values indicate greater repair

 

Figure 11
Supportive Behaviors: Afier a Relational Offense and Empowering Apology
Supportive Behaviors
0.20
0.00
-0.20
Amount
of -0.40
Repair
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00 . .
Relational Transactional ; Moral
;-..saaoweang Apology Z 4134 , 4135 -. 0.03
‘- -All other repairflattempts ; -O.31 _ 0.12 -O.11

Note: Negative values indicate greater repair

150

following all other types of repair attempts (Mean=-21.50). Thus the part of hypothesis 7b
about non-obligatory supportive behavior received support. Figure 11 plots the mean
repair for supportive behaviors across different type of violations for both an
“Empowering Apology” message and all other types of repair attempts.
Hypothesis 7c: In the aftermath of a moral oflZInse, a “Virtuous Promise "
message will be more eflective in repairing the damaged needs (need for
moral meaning) and dimensions of relationship quality (level of trust and
non—obligatory supportive behaviors) compared to the e[fectiveness of
other types of repair attempts.
Results for Hypothesis 7c- Comparing across different types of repair attempts
Need for Moral Meaning. The test of between-subject effect was significant
(F=5.7; p <.01; partial eta-squared = .11). This indicates that there were differences
across types of repair attempts in their effectiveness in repairing need for moral meaning
after a moral violation. Planned contrasts revealed that a “Virtuous Promise” message
after a moral violation led to greater repair of need for moral meaning (Mean= -l.55)
compared to the repair following all other types of repair attempts (Mean= -.78). Thus the
part of hypothesis 7c about the need for moral meaning received support. Figure 12 plots
the mean repair for need for moral meaning across different type of violations for both a
“Virtuous Promise” message and all other types of repair attempts.
Trust. The test of between-subject effect was significant (F=6.86; p <.01; partial
eta-squared = .14). This indicates that there were differences across types of repair
attempts in their effectiveness in repairing need for moral meaning afier a moral

violation. Planned contrasts revealed that a “Virtuous Promise” message afier a moral

151

violation was only marginally more significant (Mean Difference -.34; p =.08) in
repairing trust (Mean= -.56) compared to the repair following all other types of repair
attempts (Mean= -.22). The part of hypothesis 7c about trust repair did not receive
support. Figure 13 plots the mean repair for trust across different type of violations for
both a “Virtuous Promise” message and all other types of repair attempts.

Further exploration of post-hoe tests revealed that “Virtuous promise”,
“Extenuating Rectification”, “Simple Apology” and an “Empowering Apology” had
equally positive effects on repairing trust after a moral violation. However a “Denial”
message had significantly lower effectiveness in repairing trust afier a moral violation
compared to all other types of repair attempts.

Figure 12
Need-Moral Meaning: After a Moral Offense and Virtuous Promise

 

Need for Moral Meaning
0.00
-0.50
"a
“1.00 ("‘“x‘
Amount \\
0f 7“" 'o.‘ . _,._ u.” ” M”.._a-"""".'
Repair -1.50
a
-2.00 ‘
’2'50 Moral » . I Transactional ; Relational __ ‘
g-O—VirtuousPromise -1.55 _ _ -1-95 , “1'87 . 3
,- -Al|othefir repair attempts -0.78 , . '1-35 _ I “1'23

Note: Negative values indicate greater repair

152

Figure 13
Trust: After a Moral Offense and Virtuous Promise

 

Trust
0.00
-o.2o
-0.40
-060
Amount ;
0f. -o.so 9
Repair
-1.oo ‘
—1.20
-1.40
-1.60 . . . - -
Moral Transactional Relational
—o— _ Vifiasbg’pwgé” ’ 7 -O.561 . 91.38 ' -1.26
.- --All other repair attempts -0.22 -O.53 -072

Note: Negative values indicate greater repair

Non-Obligatory Supportive Behaviors. The test of between-subject effect was
significant (F=7.26; p <.01; partial eta-squared = .15). This indicates that there were
differences across types of repair attempts in their effectiveness in increasing non-
obligatory supportive behaviors afier a moral violation. Planned contrasts revealed that a
“Virtuous Promise” message after a moral violation led to greater repair of non-
obligatory supportive behaviors (Mean= -49) compared to the repair following all other
tYPes of repair attempts (Mean= -.O3). Thus the part of hypothesis 7c about non-

obligatory supportive behaviors received support. Figure 14 plots the mean repair for

153

non’obligatory supportive behaviors across different type of violations for both a

“Virtuous Promise” message and all other types of repair attempts.

Figure 14

Supportive Behaviors: After a Moral Offense and Virtuous Promise

Supportive Behaviors
0.20 -. -.-__ H--- ”wists”--. , _
0.10 i
0.00
-o.1o

-0.20

Amount _0_ 30
of
Repair

—O.40
-O.50
-0.60
-O.7O

 

-0.80

-0.90 . l _. . - ~ - .
Moral Transactional ‘ Relational

-o- Grind-ti; Promise ' ' p.49 ears 1 ”-0.80

 

g... ~All other repair attempts I 0.00 0.10 H ".032

Note: Negative values indicate greater repair

154

DISCUSSION

Much of the attention in the area of relationship repair over the past few decades
has focused on documenting the isolated effects of offender repair attempts on a limited
set of outcomes (such as, trust, emotional reactions, forgiveness, justice perception,
retaliation etc). Research studies have not systematically attempted to examine the
phenomenon of relationship repair from a multidimensional perspective (Dirks et al.,
2009). Past research has not explicitly examined the impact of different types of
workplace offenses, simultaneously on both the victim (such as, the impact on victim’s
need for control, belongingness, identity and moral meaning) and on aspects of the
relationship quality with the offender (in terms of the presence of negative emotions,
distrust and supportive behaviors). Similarly we know little about which type of offender
repair attempt is more effective in repairing the different dimensions of relationship
repair in the aftermath of different types of offenses. The purpose of this study was to
apply a multidimensional lens in examining the phenomenon of relationship repair at the
workplace. This study suggests that congruence between the type of violation and the
type of repair attempt may be a useful framework for understanding relationship repair
because it sets the stage for looking at remedies that are best suited given the nature of
the violation and the extent to which certain victim needs and relationship quality
dimensions are affected. The qualitative and quantitative studies were designed to
provide critical data for different components of the proposed multidimensional
congruence model of relationship repair.

In the section below, the results from the qualitative and quantitative studies will

be briefly discussed along with the implications of the findings. This will be followed by

155

a section on the challenges of doing mixedamethod research and the ways in which data
fi'om these two different methods can be integrated to develop a more comprehensive
understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Following that, the complexities inherent in
the phenomenon of relationship repair at the workplace will be discussed. Finally, the
limitations of this research study and avenues for future research in this area will be
presented.

Qualitative Study: What Did We Learn?

The primary purpose of conducting the qualitative study was to gather rich
narratives from individuals with work experience, regarding the types of offensive
situations that occur in the workplace and how they impact both the victim needs and
dimensions of relationship quality with the offender. The qualitative study was also
aimed at gathering data on the efficacy of different types of repair attempts for different
types of offenses as well as the reasons why certain repair attempts are more effective in
relationship repair. The results from the qualitative study provide knowledge about three
important aspects of relationship repair:

What are the Types of Incidents that Strain Relationships at Work?

The qualitative critical incident technique enabled the collection of data on the
types of offensive situations that are likely to occur between colleagues at the workplace.
The rich incidents data helped in the development of the taxonomy of offenses. The list
of reported offensive incidents was categorized into three meaningfully different offense
categories: Transactional offenses, relational offenses and moral offenses. The qualitative
data also revealed in more detail the nature of violations that characterize these three

broad types of offenses (See Table 4 for details). This detailed taxonomy of offenses

156

provides a comprehensive understanding of the situations at work that leads to strained
relationships between colleagues.

The majority of the taxonomies of offenses/violations that exist in the literature
are not focused on the types of offensive incidents that occur between colleagues who
exist at the same level of the organizational hierarchy and do not have differences in
power and status. The qualitative data from this study reveals that the types of offensive
incidents between colleagues may be different from those that occur between people at
different levels in the hierarchy. For example, it is likely that situations where another
colleague attempts to impose authority may be perceived as offensive while a similar
situation with a supervisor may not be perceived as offensive (as superiors are expected
and often given the power and authority to delegate). Similarly, it is likely that
individuals are more sensitive to inequity in resources with respect to their own
colleagues versus with respect to those who are at higher levels in the organizational
hierarchy. There are likely to be several other differences in the way relationship repair
plays out between colleagues versus between supervisor and subordinates. Relationships
with other colleagues are characterized by low power distance and low status difference
thus making it easier for both the victim and the offender to approach and even confront
each other. However when a relationship between an employee (victim) and his/her
supervisor (offender) is strained, it is less likely that the victim will directly confront the
offender specially if the offender is in a powerful position or has higher status in the
organization. Similarly from an offender’s point of view, there can be organizational
restriction to the extent to which an offender is allowed to divulge information or provide

detailed explanations to the victim specially when the offender is at a senior position in

157

the organization. Most middle-level to senior-level managers are required to be discreet
in the extent to which they share company policies and other important information with
employees at lower levels in the organization. These restrictions and often legal
implications of divulging information may restrict the range of repair attempts that can be
expected from offenders in the workplace. Future research on taxonomy of offensive
situations at work should seek to identify the differences in the types of offenses and the
types of repair attempts with respect to people at different levels of the organizational
hierarchy.

The taxonomy of offenses deve10ped in this study provides contextual data
regarding the characteristics of the situations that leads to strained relationships at work.
Such contextual information will allow researchers in the field of relationship repair to
take into account the facts of the situations and be more specific in examining the type of
damage that occurs following specific incidents. Such a taxonomy will also allow
researchers to examine the person-situation interactions and how it impacts relationship
repair at work.

The taxonomy of workplace offenses developed in this study is a contribution to
the literature on relationship repair. This taxonomy is a direct response to the call made
by various established researchers in the field, for taking into account the nature of the
offense in examining relationship repair (e.g., Gillespie & Dietz, 2009, Kim et al., 2004,
Reb et al., 2006; Ren & Gray, 2009; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). The taxonomy of offenses
with its rich level of specificity about the types and nature of workplace offenses has im-
portant implications for both research (e.g., developing more specific and congruent

repair attempts) and practice (e.g., helping individual employees become sensitive to

158

understanding that such types of incidents can lead to strained relationships). On the
whole, the overarching and inclusive taxonomy of workplace offenses developed in this
study provides a common framework to consolidate past research across different areas
and to create consistency in categorization of offenses for future research.

What is Affected in the Aftermath of Offenses at Work?

The qualitative interviewing method of probing participants to talk about their
emotions, thoughts and behaviors led to the taxonomy of dimensions that are impacted in
the aftermath of offenses at work. This taxonomy of dimensions that are impacted in the
aftermath of workplace offenses is a contribution to the literature on relationship repair. It
delineates the various dimensions (in terms of victim’s needs and aspects of relationship
quality) that need to be examined to understand relationship repair. This taxonomy
provides reasons for adopting a multidimensional framework in examining both damage
and repair. It provides rich information about the dimensions that can inform selection
and operationalization of indicators of relationship repair in future research studies.

Apart from identifying the broad dimensions that are affected in the aftermath of
offenses at work, the qualitative data also suggests the sub-dimensions of impact. For
example, the qualitative data suggests that offenses at work can violate need for control
in two ways: one by affecting the victim’s control over work-related projects and
secondly by affecting the victim’s control over their image at work. Similarly, the
qualitative data suggests that victim’s trust with respect to the offender can be affected in
two ways: one in terms of trust for work-related projects and two in terms of trust for
taking into account the victim’s welfare. These are interesting findings that point to the

fact that there can be several other facets within the broad dimensions identified in this

159

study (The broad dimensions are indicated in Table 6). Future research should seek to
explore how these sub-dimensions of victim’s needs and aspects of relationship quality
are affected in the aftermath of different types of offenses and repair attempts and how
they relate to one another.

What are Effective Ways of Repairing Strained Relationships at Work?

The interview data provides rich and detailed information regarding the
effectiveness of offender repair attempts for different types of offenses. This data
provides an understanding of the components of the repair attempt that make it effective
in facilitating relationship repair in the aftermath of different types of offenses. Apart
from this, the qualitative data also provides knowledge about the steps in the process of
relationship repair. The qualitative knowledge about the process by which relationships
can be repaired at the workplace is an important contribution to the literature. The
existing theoretical frameworks about relationship repair have been developed using data
from individuals who are in non-working relationships (such as victims of violent crimes
and the criminal, marital partners, siblings and other close relationships). The literature is
not well developed in terms of its understanding of how the process of relationship repair
unfolds between colleagues at the workplace. The rich qualitative information regarding
the steps in the process of repair has implication for future research and practice. The
steps identified in this study from a grounded theory perspective, can be further examined
using quantitative empirical studies wherein the steps are manipulated and measured over
time. Similarly, the knowledge gained from this study with respect to the reasons why
certain types of repair attempts are more effective in repairing relationship can be used to

design congruent repair attempts for specific types of offenses.

160

On the whole, these three sources of information provide a broad and
comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of relationship repair by systematically
increasing our knowledge about the antecedents of strained relationships at work; the
impact of these antecedents and finally the process by which offender repair attempts can
facilitate relationship repair.

Quantitative Study: What did we learn?

The primary purpose of conducting the quantitative study was to evaluate the
multidimensional congruence model of relationship repair by testing a-priori hypotheses
regarding the differential impact of types of offenses and types of repair attempts on the
various dimensions of relationship repair (i.e. victim’s need and relationship quality). The
experimental design allowed for the random assignment of different types of offense
scenarios and repair attempts; and enabled the measurement of multiple dimensions of
relationship repair. The findings from the quantitative study provide mixed support for
the a-priori hypotheses regarding the differential impact of types of offenses and repair
attempts on the victim’s needs and aspects of relationship quality. The findings are
discussed below.

Impact of Different Types of Offenses

The results are summarized and discussed in terms of the three types of offenses:

Transactional offenses. It was hypothesized that a transactional offense would
lead to violation of victim’s need for control and would decrease trust towards the
offender, relatively more than a relational and moral offense. The results suggest that the
victim’s need for control was equally affected by different types of offenses. Thus a

transactional offense did not result in a greater violation of need for control compared to

161

a relational and moral offense. Contrary to what was hypothesized, a relational offense
led to a greater decrease in trust towards the offender compared to a transactional
violation. The hypotheses regarding the differential impact of transactional offenses on
the victim’s needs and dimensions of relationship quality did not find support.

Relational offenses. It was hypothesized that a relational offense would lead to
violation of victim’s need for belongingness and identity, relatively more than a relational
and moral offense. Similarly, a relational offense was hypothesized to increase the
presence of negative emotions and the withdrawal of supportive behaviors towards the
offender, relatively more than other types of offenses. In support of the hypotheses, the
results suggest that a relational offense leads to greater violation of the victim’s need for
belongingness and identity compared to a transactional and moral offense. Similarly, a
relational violation leads to an increase in the presence of negative emotions, relatively
more compared to a transactional and moral offense. As hypothesized a relational
violation also leads to withdrawal of supportive behaviors, relatively more compared to a
transactional violation. All the hypotheses regarding the differential impact of relational
offenses on the victim’s need and dimensions of relationship quality found support.

Moral offenses. It was hypothesized that a moral offense would lead to violation
of victim’s need for moral meaning relatively more than a relational and transactional
offense. A moral offense was hypothesized to lead to withdrawal of supportive behaviors
more than a transactional offense. A moral offense was also hypothesized to lead to
decrease in trust towards the offender, compared to a relational violation. In support of
the hypotheses, the results suggest that a moral offense leads to greater violation of

victim’s need for moral meaning compared to a relational and transactional offense.

162

Similarly, as hypothesized a moral offense leads to withdrawal of supportive behaviors,
relatively more compared to a transactional offense. Contrary to one of the hypotheses,
trust was equally affected in the aftermath of a moral and relational offense. Two out of
the three hypotheses regarding the differential impact of moral offenses on the victim’s
need and dimensions of relationship quality found support.
Impact of Different Types of Repair Attempts

Extenuating rectification. It was hypothesized that in the aftermath of a
transactional offense, an extenuating rectification message would be most effective in
repairing the violated needs (Need for control) and dimensions of relationship quality
(Trust) compared to all other types of repair attempts examined in this study. In support
of the hypothesis, an extenuating rectification message after a transactional offense led to
greater repair of need for control compared to the repair following all other types of
messages. Contrary to the hypotheses, an extenuating rectification message after a
transactional offense did not lead to greater repair of trust compared to the repair
following all other types of messages. Instead the “virtuous promise”, “simple apology”
and empowering apology” messages had equally positive effects on trust repair which
was significantly more than the trust repair following an “extenuating rectification”
message.

Empowering apology. It was hypothesized that in the aftermath of a relational
offense, an empowering apology message would be most effective in repairing the
violated needs (Need for belongingness and identity) and dimensions of relationship

quality (Negative emotions and Supportive behaviors) compared to all other types of

repair attempts examined in this study. In support of the hypothesis, an empowering

163

apology message after a relational offense led to greater repair of victim’s need for
belongingness and increased the victim’s willingness to engage in supportive behaviors
more than all the other types of messages. However contrary to the hypothesis, the repair
in victim’s need for identity and the decrease in the presence of negative emotions after
an empowering apology was not greater than the repair following other types of repair
attempts. Thus two of the four hypotheses regarding the impact of an empowering
apology received support.

Virtuous promise. It was hypothesized that in the aftermath of a moral offense, a
virtuous promise message would be most effective in repairing the violated needs (Need
for moral meaning) and dimensions of relationship quality (Trust and Supportive
behaviors) compared to all other types of repair messages examined in this study. In
support of the hypothesis, a virtuous promise message after a moral offense led to greater
repair of victim’s need for moral meaning compared to all the other types of messages.
Similarly, a virtuous promise message after a moral offense led to greater willingness on
the part of the victim to engage in supportive behaviors towards the offender compared to
all other types of messages. Contrary to the hypothesis, in the aftermath of a moral
offense, the repair in victim’s level of trust was not greater after a virtuous promise
message compared to all other types of messages. Two out of the three hypotheses
received support.

Implications of the Quantitative Findings

The results from the quantitative study provide data about several of the

components in the process of relationship repair. First, it suggests some of the ways in

which different types of offenses affect the victim’s needs and aspects of relationship

164

quality. Second it suggests how different types of offender repair attempts impact these
violated needs and dimensions of relationship quality. The notion of congruence received
mixed support as some of the hypotheses regarding the differential impact of offense and
repair attempts did not find support. However, as hypothesized an extenuating
rectification message led to greater repair of need for control in the aftermath of
transactional offense. Similarly, an empowering apology message was effective in
repairing dimensions such as need for belongingness and supportive behaviors that were
expected to be affected in the aftermath of the offense. These finding partially support the
notion of congruence and the idea that the choice of repair attempt should be in line with
the type of damage that is caused after the offense. Similarly for moral offense, for most
part a virtuous promise was congruent in repairing the damaged needs and aspects of
relationship quality, except for trust repair. Out of all the dimensions of relationship
repair examined in this study, the hypotheses regarding trust repair did not receive
support. The qualitative data also suggests that trust is one of the most difficult
dimensions of relationship quality to repair and that merely receiving a repair attempt
message from the offender does not influence trust repair as much as observing change in
behavior over time (See page 126 for the quote on “Actions speak louder than words”).
On the whole, the quantitative results suggest that multidimensional repair is a complex
process. The notion of multidimensional congruence has received partial support as the
results suggest that different offenses at work result in different profiles of damage and
the repair attempts designed to be congruent to the profile of damage are most effective.
Altematively, one can conceive of a simpler model of relationship repair that entails the

offender making an attempt to repair the relationship by going through the steps

165

identified in the qualitative data. These steps combine a variety of repair attempt
messages and in combination can be expected to positively affect all the states (victim
needs and aspects of relationship quality). The jury is still out about the notion of
multidimensional congruence. Future research needs to specifically examine this notion
of multidimensional congruence by comparing it to other simpler models where more
comprehensive repair attempts are compared with strategically designed congruent repair
attempts. Future studies also need to more specifically examine how the different types of
offenses (as outlined in the taxonomy of offenses developed in this study) affect the
victim’s needs and aspects of relationship quality. Once we understand how these
multiple dimensions are affected, only then can we design congruent repair attempts that
combine different types of messages to repair the damage.
Challenges in Mixed-Method Research Studies
Mixed—method researchers identify the integration of the two different interpretive
lenses as one of the biggest challenges of doing mixed-method research (e.g., Bryman,
2006). Researchers have pointed out several barriers of integration. Some of which are
based on phiIOSOphical issues such as the ontological divide between the two methods,
While others stress on practical issues arising from the differences in the scope of the
studies which makes it difficult to report all the ways in which the rich and broad
qualitative data complements the often narrow results from the quantitative studies and
vice-versa (e. g., Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Niglas, 2004).
Woolley (2009) defines integration as follows: “Quantitative and qualitative
components can be considered “integrated” to the extent that these components are

explicitly related to each other within a single study and in such a way as to be mutually

166

illuminating... (p. 7)”. Integration is not just limited to combining and linking results to
develop a holistic conclusion, rather integration should occur at various stages of the
research process (e.g., O’Cathain et al., 2007; Yin, 2006). Mixed-method researchers
have stressed on the need to integrate through all the steps in a mixed-methods study— i.e.
the research questions being addressed, the definition and operationalization of the
constructs, the samples being studied, the instrumentation and data collected, and the
analytic strategies being used (e.g., Yin, 2006; O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2007).

The three crucial steps of integrating different methods in a mixed-method
research study are as follows. The first step is to provide rationale for why a mixed-
methods approach was adopted to address the research objective. The second step is to
describe the ways in which the different approaches were used in the process of research-
i.e. how they were used in the research design, methods, and corresponding data
collection efforts. The third and final step is to provide the linkages in results from the
two methods and to discuss how the findings from the two methods can be viewed
holistically.

The rationale for using a mixed-method approach and the process by which the
two methods were integrated into the research design and data collection efforts in this
study have been discussed in detail in the methods section of this document (see pages
65—70). The decisions and the rationale behind the decisions were instrumental in
achieving a genuinely integrated mixed—methods approach (See pages 71-77 & 85-92). In
the following section I will discuss how the findings from the two inquiries diverge or
converge and how they can be integrated to develop a more holistic understanding of

relationship repair at the workplace.

167

Integrating Results from the Two Methods

Quantitative and qualitative methods provide different perspectives on a subject.
In combination they enable a researcher to engage in flexibility in investigative
techniques by using a bi-focal interpretive lens to get at the what, how and why behind a
phenomenon of interest (e.g., Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). In the context of this study,
quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to address different as well as
overlapping aspects of the research problem, such that a fuller picture of relationship
repair could be developed. The quantitative study primarily examined a-priori hypotheses
regarding the relationships between variables and the qualitative study explored some of
the reasons behind those relationships (e.g., Bryman, 1988, 1992). The use of both
methods was intended to be complementary rather than purely validatory (e.g., Kelle,
2001). Figure 15 depicts how the use of different methods to study a phenomenon of
interest results in overlapping knowledge as well as complementary knowledge (e.g.,
Gorard & Taylor, 2004). The findings in A, B and C sections in Figure 15 are all valuable
sources of information. Together, they increase the amount of evidence available to us
and represent the power of combining methods.

So far, I have discussed the results and the implications of findings that fell into
section A and B as depicted in Figure 15. In the following section I will discuss the
results that fall into section C (as depicted in Figure 15), i.e. some of the ways in which
data from one method led to a better understanding of data from another method and how
that provided a more holistic picture of relationship repair at the workplace.

How Data From The Two Methods Complement Each Other?

The notion of multidimensional congruence found mixed support in the

168

Figure 15
Integration in Mixed-Method Research

   
   

Object of study

   

Qualitative
approaches

Quantitative
approaches

    
 

  

quantitative study. Some of the hypotheses found support while others did not. In most
mono-method quantitative studies, when non—significant results are found, researchers
often provide plausible explanations for why the results did not turn out in the expected
direction. In the case of this mixed-method research study, the qualitative data provides
some of the explanations for why the quantitative results turned out in the expected
direction and why they did not. It is important to note at this point that the data from the
qualitative study provides knowledge about a variety of psychological mechanisms and
moderating variables that are of importance in the study of relationship repair at the
workplace. Similarly the quantitative data provides knowledge about a variety of
relationships between variables that may or may not have been hypothesized. It is beyond
the scope of any one study to delineate and report every way in which the two types of
data complement each other. In the following section I will discuss some of the ways in
which the results from the two studies complement each other.

1. Contrary to the a-priori hypothesis, a transactional offense did not result in greater

violation of need for control. Transactional offenses were hypothesized to result in

169

greater violation of need for control because they take away resources from the victim
and leave the victim in a compromising and often powerless position at work. For
example, it was expected that when another colleague (the offender) does not deliver
a report to the victim on time or delivers sub—quality work, that it would negatively
affect the victim’s perception of control in the situation. The quantitative data reveals
that the victim’s need for control was least affected and did not differ across the
different types of offenses. Data from the qualitative study suggests one explanation
for this finding. The qualitative data suggests that self-confidence in one’s own
capability to do one’s work could play a role in the general lack of effect of offenses
on victim’s sense of control. For example, interviewees in the verbal protocol analysis
study mentioned that they did not perceive loss of control after offenses at work as
they believed themselves to be capable of influencing their outcomes at work
irrespective of the actions of others (i.e. irrespective of the type of offense). Victims
who have high self—confidence in their skills are less likely to perceive loss of control
after a transactional offense at the workplace as they are motivated to maximize their
efforts to compensate for the lapse in their colleagues effort to achieve the work
goals. Thus, future studies that examine the impact of offenses on victim’s need for
control would need to take into account individual differences in self-confidence and
self-esteem.

The quantitative and qualitative data both provide partial support for the notion of
multidimensional congruence. The quantitative data supports that certain repair
attempts that are designed to affect certain needs and aspects of relationship quality

are indeed more effective in repairing those dimensions. For example, an empowering

170

apology was more effective in repairing the need for belongingness and increasing
supportive behaviors compared to other repair attempts. While an extenuating
rectification message was more effective in repairing the victim’s need for control
compared to other repair attempts. Similarly, a virtuous promise message was
effective in repairing the need for moral meaning and increasing supportive behaviors
compared to other types of repair attempts. The qualitative data also provides support
for these differential relationships between repair attempts and dimensions of repair.
For example, interviewees in the aftermath of a transactional offense reported positive
effects of an extenuating rectification message (See Pages 127 & 128). This is evident
in the following quote, “Something like that (referring to extenuating rectification
message) is definitely good because you know it shows that...they are willing to do
more work later”. The above quote indicates that victims perceived the offer of help
inherent in the extenuating rectification message positively and this could explain
why the message led to repair of victim’s need for control (as evident from the
quantitative study). There are several other exemplary quotes from the qualitative
study (See pages 127-137) that provide corroborating support for the significant
relationships found in the quantitative study.

The above examples are just some of the ways in which the two types of data
complement each other. The qualitative data provides explanations pertaining to “why”
certain results were found in the quantitative study. While the quantitative data presents
more specific data on the level of impact and repair thereby providing corroborating

evidence for the qualitative results. The above examples of complementary data from

multiple sources represent the value of adopting a mixed-methods research approach.

171

Complexities in Relationship Repair at Work

The results from both the methods of investigation reveal that relationship repair
is a complex process. In this section I will discuss some of the complexities of
relationship repair that is evident from the qualitative and quantitative findings. The goal
of this section is to throw light on how the process of relationship repair at work unfolds
and to identify some of the key variables that need to be examined and understood to
fathom this complicated process.

The process of relationship repair can be best understood in terms of the
following components: nature of the offense; impact of the offense in terms of the profile
of damage; the type of repair attempt and finally the profile of repair. Below I present
some of the complexities that are inherent in understanding each of these components in
the process of relationship repair.

Complexities Regarding The Nature of the Offense

As is evident from the qualitative data, there are a large number of incidents at
work that can be perceived as offensive and can strain relationships between colleagues.
The taxonomy of offenses developed in this study is just the first attempt to categorize
these types of incidents. There can be many other ways of categorizing these incidents.
Researchers in the field tend to categorize types of violation in terms of their impact. For
example, researchers have differentiated between identity and control violations,
primarily based on the knowledge that these types of violation affect the identity and
control needs of the victim. Others have classified violation based on the offender’s
motive and skill, such the competence and integrity based trust violations. Although these

are meaningful ways of classifying violations, they are also limited in scope. From the

172

variety of incidents reported by interviewees in this study, it is evident that incidents do
not always fall into these narrow types. Researchers in the field of relationship repair
need to pay attention to the differences in these categorizations and need to be more
careful in collapsing these varied incidents into very narrow and non-exhaustive
categories. There is also a need to examine the repercussions of assuming that all identity
based violations or all competence based trust violations function the same way in
damaging the various dimensions such as victim needs and relationship quality. More
attention is required on the situational and contextual factors inherent in the specific types
of offense in order to better understand the most appropriate way to repair. The rich
qualitative data from this study can be conceived as the raw material to develop this
understanding about the nature of offenses at work.
Complexities Regarding The Impact of Offenses

As is evident from both the qualitative and quantitative data, there are multiple
dimensions that are affected in the aftermath of an offense. In order to understand how to
repair a relationship it is important to examine the effect of offenses on these multiple
dimensions. So far, we understand the effects of limited types of offenses on a select set
of dimensions. The present study attempted to examine the impact from a
multidimensional perspective by exploring the effects of different types of offenses on
the four victim needs and the three aspects of relationship quality. However, it is evident
fiom the qualitative data that other dimensions exist as well. For example, firture studies
can examine how offenses affect the level of awkwardness in interactions with the
offender; the level of liking and the amount of small-talks and non-work related

conversations. There is a need to not only simultaneously examine the impact on multiple

173

dimensions but to also study the relationship between these dimensions and to develop a
better understanding of how they relate to one another over time.
Complexities Regarding The Types of Repair Attempts

We know that explanations help in repairing strained relationships at work.
Justice studies have shown that explanations are beneficial in improving justice
perceptions in the aftermath of justice violations (Shaw, et al., 2003). Similarly, trust
researchers have found that explanations such as denial and repair attempts such as
promises help in trust repair, while an apology is detrimental for trust repair (Schweitzer
et al., 2006). Although we understand the isolated effects of different types of
explanations and repair attempts on different outcomes, we know little about how these
explanations affect the multiple dimensions of repair. Researchers in the field of
relationship repair have stressed the need to explore the relative effect of explanations
and to examine the mechanisms by which explanations exert their positive effect on
relationship repair (Bobocel & Zdaniuk, 2005). The qualitative data from this study
suggests several types of ideal repair attempts that interviewees reported for different
types of offenses and the reasons why they thought them to be effective. This data can be
used by future studies to develop more complex yet congruent remedies for relationship
repair given a certain type of offense.

An interesting finding from the qualitative study which speaks to the complexity
in relationship repair is the data that suggests that victims prefer a combination of repair
messages. For example, interviewees mentioned that they would prefer the offender to
admit their mistake, provide explanation for their actions, express concern to mend the

relationship and finally demonstrate behavioral change over time. The repair attempts

174

examined in this study have attempted to combine components of repair messages that
are designed to facilitate repair in the aftermath of specific types of offenses. It is
important to acknowledge the complexity in the process of repair and to incorporate that
complexity in research by examining repair attempts that combine a variety of messages
rather than looking at isolated effects of narrow repair messages. This study lays the
groundwork for developing more of such repair attempts that are specifically designed
keeping in mind the damage that is caused to the victim’s needs and dimensions of
relationship quality in the aftermath of violation situations at work.
Complexities Regarding The Impact of Repair Attempts.

The dominant research paradigm in this area is to investigate the isolated effects
of narrow repair messages on limited set of dimensions. For example, we know that a
denial positively affects trust repair but we do not know how it affect the victim’s needs
and other dimensions of relationship quality (such as, emotions, behaviors) towards the
offender. Although studying the effects of a few repair attempts on a small subset of
outcomes is an effective method for demonstrating causal functioning, it is limited in its
ability to predict how different dimensions of relationship repair are affected in the
aftermath of a repair attempt. The qualitative and quantitative data suggests that different
types of repair attempts are differentially effective in repairing victim’s needs and aspects
of relationship quality. Future research may need to strike a balance between
demonstrating isolated causal effects versus understanding the phenomenon of
relationship repair in its completeness.

If the goal is to understand relationship repair we need to understand how all the

dimensions (i.e. victim’s needs and dimensions of relationship quality) are affected after

175

a repair attempt. We also need to understand how these different dimensions are related
to one another. There is little research to suggest how victim needs satisfaction relates to
dimensions of relationship quality. More research needs to explore the extent to which
need’s satisfaction is essential before dimensions of relationship quality can be repaired.
Relationship researchers need to also debate and empirically examine whether all the
seven states (four victim needs and three dimensions of relationship quality) need to be
repaired to consider a strained relationship as a repaired relationship. Herzberg’s two—
factor theory can provide some possible hypotheses regarding the relationship between
victim needs satisfaction and relationship quality. Victim needs satisfaction can be
considered similar to the hygiene factors as mentioned in Herzberg’s two factor theory.
This means that victim’s needs that are violated in the aftermath of an offense need to be
satisfied first before one can repair the aspects of relationship quality that are damaged.
Victim needs act as hygiene factors as they can be conceptualized as maintenance
dimensions of the relationship that need to be met before any other dimensions such as
one’s emotions, cognitions and behaviors towards the offender are repaired. If a victim
feels violated in terms of their basic needs they are less likely to consider changing their
negative emotions, cognitions and behaviors towards the offender. Future research needs
to adopt a longitudinal perspective in examining the process of relationship repair and
needs to examine whether victim needs satisfaction is the stepping stone towards
repairing relationship quality with the offender.

In the following section I will present some of the practical implications of the
findings from this research. Then I will discuss some of the limitations followed by

avenues for future research.

176

Practical Implications of the Findings

Organizational structure in most modern day businesses is becoming more
horizontal with maximum interactions occurring between employees at the same level in
the hierarchy. Employees not only engage in work-related interactions but also tend to
spend non-work time with their fellow coworkers. Given the frequency of interactions
among coworkers, there is an increased chance of violations and misunderstandings (e.g.,
Susman, Gray, Perry, & Blair, 2003). Studies have repeatedly shown that the stress
resulting from negative interpersonal experiences at work are significant irritants for
working people (Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002; Harvey & Keashly, 2003; Tannock,
2001) and result in lower job satisfaction, organizational commitment and an increased
intention to leave the job (e.g., Williams, 2003; Frone, 2000). Organizations cannot
afford such costly consequences of strained relationships at work and thus need to be
proactive in managing relationships at work. It is important to be cautious in generalizing
fiom one study, yet important practical implications exist based on the findings of this
research study. The results from this study provide a rich understanding of the process of
relationship repair. The taxonomy of offenses developed in this study can be used by
training specialists to inform and educate employees about the incidents at work that can
lead to strained relationships between colleagues. The qualitative findings about the
process of repair and the important components of the offender repair attempt can also be
used to educate employees about the importance of making an effort to repair
relationships at work. Such evidence based training programs can equip the employees
with knowledge and skills that will aid them in constructively handling offenses at work

and adopting repair attempts that are more congruent with the damage caused by the

177

offense. The findings from this study suggest that the choice of repair attempt should be
based on the dimensions that are affected both in terms of the needs that are violated in
the victim and the aspects of relationship quality that are affected.

Limitations

In the following section, some of the limitations of this study are presented. The
first limitation pertains to the mixed—method design adopted in this study. Ideally the
most constructive way of integrating results from qualitative and quantitative methods of
investigation is to have a more complex mixed-method design which includes several
rounds of both concurrent and sequential qualitative and quantitative studies. This allows
the researcher to not only recast questions based on the results from one method but to
also engage in simultaneous collection of data from two methods. Due to practical
constraints of time and limited access to interview participants, the above mentioned
design could not be adOpted in the present research.

The second limitation pertains to the use of a scenario-based research design to
manipulate type of offenses and types of repair attempts. Such designs tend to sacrifice
external validity for internal validity. Scenarios are often designed with limited
contextual factors. It is possible that additional dynamics and factors may be encountered
in the process of relationship repair in the actual organizational context. Future research
should seek to demonstrate the generalizability of the present findings to organizational
contexts. Although there are some limitations of using a scenario-based design, there are
several benefits as well. First, the current design allowed for tight controls over the
manipulation of independent variables as well as control over extraneous factors that

could influence the process of relationship repair. Second, such a design was more

178

practically feasible for studying a phenomenon such as relationship repair and more
specifically for examining the impact of different levels of offenses and repair attempts.
Alternative designs such as a field experiment or an experience sampling method would
require a substantially larger sample size and would not allow for such tight control over
extraneous factors.

It is important to note that special care was taken to ensure that the scenarios were
close to real-life experiences. The scenarios used in the present study were realistic as
they were developed based on the rich narratives gathered from real working employees
(Greenberg & Eskew, 1993). Detailed instructions were given to participants to ensure
that they thought about the scenario from their own perspective rather than imagining the
scenario as happening to someone else. They were also asked to respond to items by
indicating how they would react in the scenario rather than asking them to report how
they would like to react. There is some research to suggest that stronger effects are found
in correlational studies compared to scenario-based studies (e.g., Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Thus, the results from the current study can be viewed as conservative estimates of the
true relationships.

The third limitation pertains to the inability to account for the moderating role of
individual difference variables. There is theory and past empirical research to suggest that
individual differences variables such as belief in a just world, exchange ideology, and
moral attentiveness among others affect the extent to which individuals are sensitive to
violations. Similarly, factors such as offense severity and relationship closeness can
moderate the effectiveness of repair attempts. Given the already broad scope of the

present study, it was difficult to include such between-individual factors into the research

179

design. Future research should attempt to incorporate these moderators to achieve a better
understanding of the boundary conditions for the current findings.
Avenues for Future Research

Shifting the focus from a limited set of dimensions of repair to a more
comprehensive multidimensional perspective raises important issues for theory and
research in the area of relationship repair. In the following section, I discuss some of the
issues that need to be addressed in future research. The suggestions for future research
mentioned below are not meant to be an exhaustive list of research questions, rather they
are meant to be illustrative of where the field needs to move.

The taxonomy of offenses developed in this study is just the first step towards
understanding and taking into account the nature of the offense in examining relationship
repair. In this research, the impact of a selected subset of offenses was quantitatively
examined. Future research studies should seek to examine how the other sub-types of
offenses (that are currently categorized under the broad categories of transactional,
relational and moral offenses) differentially impact the victim’s needs and dimensions of
relationship quality.

Past studies have provided us with an understanding of the isolated effects of a
select set of repair attempts on a limited set of dimensions of repair. This trend of
studying relationship repair has allowed for in-depth examination of specific theoretical
processes and has given us precision in predicting separate dimensions of repair.
However, the effect of repair attempts on multiple dimensions of repair has received less
attention. As pointed out by other relationship repair researchers, examining all the

dimensions of repair in a single study will entail a trade—off between precise theory and a

180

more practical theory (Dirks et al, 2009), nonetheless it is an important direction for
future research in this area. In this study it has been argued that it is important to consider
the multiple dimensions of damage and repair by examining how the victim needs and
aspects of relationship quality with the offender are affected in the aftermath of offenses
and repair attempts. Apart from this focus, future studies should also attempt to explore
how these multiple dimensions interact and influence each other. For example, how does
needs satisfaction affect the dimensions of relationship quality and vice—versa and how
does the influence unfold over time.

Future research studies should explore the steps in the process of relationship
repair as identified in this study. For example, studies need to more thoroughly examine
the role of small-talks and social interactions outside of work in facilitating relationship
repair.

As noted in the limitations section, the impact of violations and repair attempts on
the victim’s need satisfaction and aspects of relationship quality with the offender are
likely to be constrained by individual difference factors and the motivation to move past
the offense. Future studies should attempt to examine the role of individual difference
variables such as equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, perspective taking and belief in a
just world as these variables are likely to affect an individual’s sensitivity and
attentiveness to the components of the repair attempt (e.g., Davis, 1983b; Eisenberger et

al., 1996; King & Miles, 1994; Lerner, 1981). Other individual differences that are
relevant for a particular type of offense and repair attempt should be incorporated into the
studies. There is research to suggest that relationship closeness, frequency of similar

offenses in the past and severity of the offense are important offense related moderators

181

of the effectiveness of repair attempts. Similarly, message factors such as the perceived
sincerity and timeliness of the remedy are important repair attempt related moderators.
Future research studies should attempt to study the different types of offense and repair
attempt moderators to identify the boundary conditions for the findings.

Finally it is important for researchers to debate about the indicators of repair and
to what extent are the dimensions identified in this study exhaustive to represent the
conceptual landscape of relationship repair. Another area of debate could be about the
extent to which repair can be said to occur when some dimensions have been repaired
more than others. For example, is relationship repair- the complete removal of all
negative states or can some positive and negative states co-exist? Researchers also need
to debate the extent to which repaired dimensions post—remedy should be compared to the
state of the relationship prior to the violation. Does repair entail a change from negative
to positive or a change back to the pre-offense level? Future research in this area will
benefit from such debates and the fleshing out of ideas related to the definition of repair
along with some agreement on the dimensions that comprise it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of the current study point to the importance of taking
into account the nature of the offense and the impact on the victim’s needs and aspects of
relationship quality, in deciding the most appropriate repair attempt. Relationship repair
is a complex and multi-faceted problem and thus a multidimensional lens is most
apprOpriate to examine the phenomenon. The multidimensional perspective adopted in
this study is an attempt to examine the subject of relationship repair in its true

complexity. The taxonomy of offenses and dimensions of repair identified in this study is

182

the first step in the creation of a unifying framework for assimilating the diversity in
taxonomies across fields (such, justice, trust, psychological contracts, conflict etc). These
taxonomies along with empirical data indicating partial support for the notion of
multidimensional congruence should stimulate future research in the area of relationship

repair.

183

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
FIRST ROUND INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Introduction: My name is Ruchi Sinha and I’m doing my PhD in Organizational
Psychology at Michigan State University. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this
interview. Let me give you the consent form before I begin with the interview. This is not
a legal or binding document it is only a consent form that is being used to inform you
about the study and take your permission before conducting the interview. Please take a
few minutes to read the document and sign at the bottom of it if you want to continue

participating in this study.

Soda-Demographics: Collected via a form.

Nature of the Job: I will now ask you a few questions about the nature of your job:
Q. How many years of job experience have you had?

Q. Which industry do you/did you work for?

Q. How would you describe your designation?

Q. How many people work under you?

Q. How often do you work interpedently on projects with these colleagues?

Q. How many people do you consider to be your colleagues?

Critical Incidents:

0 This is not a formal interview where I ask all the questions. . .1 just want to get your
thoughts on relationships at work. In particular I’m interested in understanding how
relationships between coworkers, your colleagues gets strained at work and what are
the type of incidents/violations that lead to damaged relationships. I am also
interested in how relationships can be repaired and what it means to repair such
relationships and what is the process by which this can happen.

Q. Why are relationships strained at work?

Q. What are the kind of incidents or experiences that strain relationships?

184

Q. What does it mean when a relationship is strained at work?

I will now ask you to describe actual incidents or situations at work that have
happened to you in the past where you felt that your relationship with another
colleague was strained or damaged.

I am first interested in hearing about the facts and details of each situation such as:

0 Description of the Situation (critical incident at work): When, where and in what

context?
0 Who is Involved: Who, how many and in what capacity?

Then I will ask you some leading questions about your thoughts, emotions and

behaviors in one of the described situations/incidents.

Questions I asked them when they were describing the incidents in detail (I did not
directly ask each of these questions in the same order and at times left some questions

based on what was said by the interviewee. Example if they already mentioned their

emotions I did not specifically ask them about it.
Q. In what way does this event affect you? Why? Did this event offend/hurt you? What

are you offended about? What is the hurt? Why?
Q. What were some outcomes of this strained relationship? How did things change

between you and this person?
Q. What were your emotions towards the offender? How did you feel about the offender?

Why?
Q. What were your thoughts about the offender? What did you think of the offender?

Why?
Q. What was your behavioral response towards the offender? What did you do right after

the offense situation? Why?
Q. Did the colleague do something to fix the damage in this case? What kind of offender

repair attempts/remedy was offered by the offender?
Q. What was the exact message you received? What did he/she communicate to you?

Q. What did this message convey to you?
Q. If yes, why do you think the repair attempt was effective?
Q If no, why do you think the repair attempt was not enough or did not work?

185

Q. What do you think the offender should have said or done to make it up to you and to
repair this relationship and make it work in the future? In short, what would it take to fix
this relationship?

Q. So what would happen if relationship were not repaired after they have been strained?

I asked them to categorize their reported causes for strained relationships at work

0 Please sort these reported offensive situations into categories.

0 You can choose to categorize them in whichever way you think they fall in. . .based

on the nature of the offense!
Q. What does it take to repair relationships? What is the process by which relationships

can be repaired? What does the process of relationship repair-«look like— where a

relationship was strained and then repaired successfully?

186

APPENDIX B
SECOND ROUND INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Introduction: My name is Ruchi Sinha and I’m doing my PhD in Organizational
Psychology at Michigan State University. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this
interview. Let me give you the consent form before I begin with the interview. This is not
a legal or binding document it is only a consent form that is being used to inform you
about the study and take your permission before conducting the interview. Please take a

few minutes to read the document and sign at the bottom of it if you want to continue

participating in this study.

Soda-Demographics: Collected via a form.

Nature of the Job: I will now ask you a few questions about the nature of your job:
Q. How many years of job experience have you had?

Q. Which industry do you/did you work for?

Q. How would you describe your designation?

Q. How many people work under you?
Q. How often do you work interpedentl y on projects with these colleagues?

Q. How many people do you consider to be your colleagues?

Let me begin by giving you a little background about this research."

0 These interviews are part of a larger research study that I’m conducting as part of my

PhD program. In this research study my primary goal is to understand why
relationships between colleagues at work gets strained and how can they be repaired.
I am interested in listening to your experiences of managing relationship at work.

Let me also give you a little idea about how this interview process might unfold:

0 This is not a formal interview where I ask all the questions. I will begin by asking you
some broad questions. . .which I will follow with more specific questions as you talk
about your experiences. Please don’t take offense if I stop you while you are talking
as it has happened before that interviewee say something very important and if 1 don’t

stop them to ask them more about a certain idea. . .then the thought is lost.

187

o I also want to be honest with you and will like to tell you that one primary purpose of
this interview is to get a deeper understanding of the psychological processes that
goes on in a person’s mind. . ..so I’m more interested in your emotions and thoughts
compared to the factual details of the situation. I will through my questions guide
you to either tell me about what happened or tell me more in detail about what you
felt and thought in the situation. It would be great if you can be as expressive and
open about your feelings and thoughts when you think back to an experience. All this
will seem clearer as we proceed. Everything you say will be kept confidential and
will not be seen by anyone other than me. . .not my husband, fiiend or family.

So I have done approximately 15—20 interviews and after analyzing the data it has
come to my attention that there are primarily three types of violations at work that
leads to strained relationships. These can be grouped into three broad categories:

TRANSACTIONAL VIOLATIONS: Are those incidents/experiences that strain

relationships due to violation of formal work related expectations. Example: when
another colleague does not deliver a task on time, when there is perceived inequity in

workload and pay, when there are misunderstandings about work roles and duties and

finally when colleagues are perceived as partaking in politics.

2. RELATIONAL VIOLATIONS: Are those incidents/experiences that strain

relationships due to violation of social and relational norms of treatment. Example:
when another colleague disrespects another colleague (in private or public); when a
peer ignores, devalue your opinion; When a colleague imposes authority, their
working style or excessive work on you; when does not deliver a task on time, when
two people do not treat each other right due to personality clashes, and when a
colleague tries to ignore the social ritual of providing explanations and discussing
issues.

3. MORAL VIOLATIONS: Are those incidents/experiences that are not directly
targeted at you but are things that you observe in the workplace that could strain
relationships due to violation of basic moral and ethical behaviors. Example: when
you observe another colleague act in a way that you believe violates some basic moral

principle; example you observe a colleague disrespectfully treat another person at the

188

workplace or when you see a colleague engage in unethical behavior (such as, being
dishonest, stealing, lying, taking credit, devaluing someone etc.
It is not limited to these examples and it can be anything that happens that you
observe that affects your relationship with the colleague.

QUESTIONS ON T RANSACT IONAL VIOLA T IONS

0 So let me begin by asking you to think of a time when you had an experience of a
transactional violation.

0 Ideally, I would like you to think of an incident where someone violated your
expectations but also an experience where that person made some effort to repair the
relationship that got strained due to the violation.

0 I want you to first describe to me what happened and give me some details about it.
Then I will ask you more specific questions about the incident/experience. Take your
time. . ..it is difficult to remember things like this. .

QUESTIONS ON RELA T IONAL VIOLA T IONS

0 So let me begin by asking you to think of a time when you had an experience of a
transactional violation

0 Ideally, I would like you to think of an incident where someone violated your
expectations but also an experience where that person made some effort to repair the
relationship that got strained due to the violation.

0 I want you to first describe to me what happened and give me some details about it.
Then I will ask you more specific questions about the incident/experience.

0 Take your time. . ..it is difficult to remember things like this. .

QUESTIONS ON MORAL VIOLA T IONS

0 So let me begin by asking you to think of a time when you had an experience of third
party violation. . .wherein you were not the direct target of something but you
observed another colleagues do or say or act in a way that strained or negatively
affected your relationship with that person. I am looking for instances, incidents
where you thought that your relationship with another colleagues was strained or in
some way was affected negatively when you observed this colleague engage in

something that you thought was not right.

189

Ideally, I would like you to think of an incident where someone violated your
expectations but also an experience where that person made some effort to repair the
relationship that got strained due to the violation.

I want you to first describe to me what happened and give me some details about it.
Then I will ask you more specific questions about the incident/experience.

Take your time. . ..it is difficult to remember things like this. .

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS

What did or would you Feel? Why?

What did or would you Think? Why?

What did or would you Do? Why?

How did or would you Feel? Why?

How did or would you Think about this person and about the situation? Why?

How did or would you behave in this scenario? Why?

DESCRIPTION OF NEEDS AND STATES

In my past interviews a lot people talked about how incidents like this affected their:
Need for Control over the situation: example they talked about how such an event
would affect their influence over work related decisions and outcomes and may also
affect the extent to which they can have control over how others view them and may
not be able to manage other relationships at work. How would you feel in terms of
these thoughts and emotions? Would you feel so? Why or why not?

Need for Belongingness: example they talked about how such an event would affect
the extent to which they felt valued by coworkers and their workgroup. It would
affect the extent to which you feel included and connected to other colleagues at
work. How would you feel in terms of these thoughts and emotions? Would you feel
so? Why or why not?

Need for Self-Esteem: example they talked about how such an event would
negatively affect their self-identity and would make them question their capability at

190

work. How would you feel in terms of these thoughts and emotions? Would you feel
so? Why or why not?

Need for Moral Meaning: example they talked about how such an event would lead
you to feel moral outrage. . .because it would affect your desire to have moral order at
the workplace to have people engage in ethical behaviors. Such an incident would
make you think that the other person does not understand or care about the morally
right things to do. How would you feel in terms of these thoughts and emotions?
Would you feel so? Why or why not?

In my past interviews a lot people ALSO talked about how incidents like this affected
their:

EMOTIONS: example they talked about how such an event would make them feel
angry, upset, frustrated, annoyed, exploited, resentment. How would you feel in terms
of these emotions? Would you feel so? Why or why not?

TRUST: example they talked about how such an event would affect their trust such
that either they would not trust this person to cooperate on future projects or they
would not trust them to support you in uncertain times. Similarly others talked about
how they would not trust this person to take into account your needs and welfare in
future work situations. How would you feel in terms of these thoughts and emotions?
Would you feel so? Why or why not?

BEHAVIOR- OCB: example they talked about how such an event would affect their
behavior towards this colleagues such that they would be less likely to help this
person on future work assignments, they would less willing to pass along new
information or go beyond their job requirements to give feedback to this person for

their developmental growth.

REPAIR ATTEMPT

0 Okay, now I want you to tell me what this person did to repair the relationship.

LEADING QUESTIONS: Afier what person Y did. . ..

What did or would you Feel? Why?
What did or would you Think? Why?
What did or would you Do? Why?

19]

o How did or would you behave in this scenario? Why?

0 How did it affect those things we talked about before like,

0

O

0

You control over work related outcomes and relationships at work?
Your sense of belongingness to the workgroup and other colleagues?
Your sense of competence and identity in the situation?

Your sense of moral meaning?

192

APPENDIX C
THIRD ROUND INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

VERBAL PROTOCOL ANALYSIS

Introduction: My name is Ruchi Sinha and I’m doing my PhD in Organizational
Psychology at Michigan State University. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this
interview. Let me give you the consent form before I begin with the interview. This is not
a legal or binding document it is only a consent form that is being used to inform you
about the study and take your permission before conducting the interview. Please take a
few minutes to read the document and sign at the bottom of it if you want to continue
participating in this study.

Socio-Demographics: Collected via a form.

Nature of the Job: I will now ask you a few questions about the nature of your job:

Q. How many years of job experience have you had?

Q. Which industry do you/did you work for?

Q. How would you describe your designation?

Q. How many people work under you?

Q. How often do you work interpedently on projects with these colleagues?

Q. How many people do you consider to be your colleagues?

Let me begin by giving you a little background about this research:
‘ These interviews are part of a larger research study that I’m conducting as part of my

PhD program. In this research study my primary goal is to understand why

relationships between colleagues at work gets strained and how can they be repaired.

Let me also give you a little idea about how this interview process might unfold:

° This is not like a typical interview where I ask you questions and you talk. We will do
a task that is called a “Verbal Protocol Analysis”. Think of it like you are filling out a
survey but you are talking aloud as you are filling it out. For example (I showed the

interviewee an example. . .where I filled a few sample items and talked aloud about

my thinking process and reasoning for marking the items).

193

Following the example, I gave them the survey. I specified a subset of text for them to
read and then they would talk about those items.

“I want to be honest with you and will like to tell you that one of the primary purpose
of these interviews is to get a deeper understanding of the psychological processes
that goes on in a person’s mind. . ..so I would really appreciate it if you can be as
expressive and open about your feelings and thoughts when you talk aloud. All this

will seem clearer as we work through a few items. Please feel free to ask me any

questions you may have.”

194

APPENDIX D
TEXT USED IN THE ONLINE SURVEY

Background Information, Offense Scenarios and Repair Attempts

Preliminary instructions given to all respondents: This survey should take you
approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. Please complete this survey in one sitting. If
you have any doubt about what a particular item is asking...please re-read the
instructions. If you need more clarification, please contact Ruchi Sinha

(sinharuc@msu.edu).
In order to do this survey meaningfully, it is important for you to read ALL the

Instructions carefully.
INSTRUCTIONS: You will be presented with a scenario that has been found to

commonly occur between colleagues at the workplace. Your task is to do the following:

1. Carefully read the background information about the scenario and the scenario itself.

2. Imagine you are Person X in this scenario.

NOTE: It might be a little difficult to imagine being someone else in the given scenario.
One way in which you can do this is:

1. After reading the background information and the scenario. . ..sit back and imagine the
entire experience in your mind as if it was happening to you. Almost like daydreaming,
wherein you daydream what is described to you as something that is happening with you
right now.

2. When you are imagining the scenario, take note of your emotions, thoughts, attitude

and intentions (you will be asked to report what you feel, think, and intend to do when

you imagine yourself as Person X).

Background information given to all respondents: Imagine that you are Person X in this
scenario. You (person X) have been working at a company called “Atlantic Inc” for 5
years. Person Y is a colleague of yours who has also been in the company for 5 years and
is at the same level as you in the organizational hierarchy. You and person Y have

worked together on several projects before and are likely to work together for a long

195

time. Person Y and you are for the most part work colleagues but you also engage in
friendly conversations related to office and sometimes personal (family and outside
work) matters.
Transactional Offense Scenario
Below is the scenario that happened between you and person Y. Please read the scenario
carefully. To be able to completely imagine the scenario you might want to re-read it a
few times.
ACTUAL SCENARIO: Imagine that you and person Y have been working on an
important project report that has a strict deadline. Person Y had agreed to deliver a
component of the project report by Monday morning. Person Y’s component is an
important part of the larger project report that you are required to compile and deliver by
5:00pm on Wednesday. Person Y did not send you the report by Monday. On Tuesday
afiemoon, Person Y sent you the report by email and the work was of low quality.
Something slightly similar to this occurred one other time. . .a long time ago.
NOW...Please sit back for a minute and imagine this scenario, taking note of how you
would think, feel and behave in such a situation.
Repair Attempt Manipulations Following the Transactional Offense
HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED NEXT: Later on that day (On Tuesday), you happened to
cross paths with Person Y in the hallway. You decided to talk to Person Y about the late
submission of low-quality work. When you confronted Person Y, the response you got
was as follows:
1. Denial message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: "I don't know what
you are talking about. That’s not true...l didn’t do what you believe I did".

2. Simple Apology message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I’m sorry!
It’s my fault.”

3. Extenuating Rectification message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I
know you must blame me for what happened, but I want you to know that it is not my
fault and I’m not responsible for this situation. There were so many other
commitments at work and I did not have any other option but to submit the report

when I did. However, I am willing to make it up to you in any way I can.”

196

4. Empowering Apology message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I’m
sorry! It’s my fault. I know what I did was not right and I should not have done that. I
feel bad that I caused you harm. You did not deserve this. You are right to feel angry
with me. I hope you can forgive me.”

5. Virtuous Promise was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “What I did was

morally wrong. I promise you something like this will never happen again. Please

don’t judge me as a bad person.”

Relational Offense Scenario
Below is the scenario that happened between you and person Y. Please read the scenario
carefully. To be able to completely imagine the scenario you might want to re-read it a
few times.
ACTUAL SCENARIO: Imagine that you and person Y have been working on an
important project for over a year. During a project meeting with your team (a team of five
other coworkers), you make a point about how the project could have been done
differently. In reaction to your point, Person Y stands up and starts criticizing you. Person
Y talks in a rude and inconsiderate manner and starts to highlight instances where person

Y thought that you had not been up to the mark. Something slightly similar to this had

occurred one other time. . .a long time ago.

NOW...Please sit back for a minute and imagine this scenario, taking note of how you

would think, feel and behave in such a situation.

Repair Attempt Manipulations Following the Relational Offense

HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED NEXT: Later on that day, you happened to cross paths
with Person Y in the hallway. You decided to talk to Person Y about their rude and

inconsiderate behavior at the project meeting. When you confronted Person Y about the

meeting, you got the following response:

1. Denial message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: "I don't know what
you are talking about. That's not true...I didn't do what you believe I did".
2. Simple Apology message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I’m way!

It’s my fault.”

l97

3. Extenuating Rectification message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I
know you must blame me for what happened, but I want you to know that it is not my
fault and I’m not responsible for this situation. There were so many other things on
my mind that I did not have any other option but to react the way I did. However, I
am willing to make it up to you in any way I can.”

4. Empowering Apology message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I’m
sorry! It’s my fault. I know what I did was not right and I should not have done that. I
feel bad that I caused you harm. You did not deserve this. You are right to feel angry
with me. I hope you can forgive me.”

5. Virtuous Promise was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “What I did was

morally wrong. I promise you something like this will never happen again. Please

don’t judge me as a bad person.”

Moral Offense Scenario
Below is the scenario that happened between you and person Y. Please read the scenario
carefully. To be able to completely imagine the scenario you might want to re-read it a
few times.
ACTUAL SCENARIO: Imagine that you were working in your cubicle when you saw
Person Y walking into Fred’s cubicle. Fred who is a colleague of yours was not in his
cubicle at the time Person Y walked in. You saw Person Y hesitantly approaching a file
drawer that was marked as “confidential”. You saw Person Y nervously looking through
Fred’s files and picking a particular file. You then saw Person Y quickly walking over to
the copy room and making a copy of the file. You also saw that Person Y discreetly
slipped back into Fred’s office and carefully put the file back in the confidential file
drawer.
Repair Attempt Manipulations Following the Moral Offense
HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED NEXT: After you had seen what Person Y did in Fred's
cubicle, you took some time to think through what had happened. You were sure that
Person Y was engaging in something "fishy". Later on that day, you happened to cross

paths with Person Y in the hallway. You decided to talk to Person Y about what you saw

198

happening in Fred's cubicle. When you confronted Person Y about his actions, you got

the following response:

1. Denial message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: "I don't know what
you are talking about. That's not true...l didn't do what you believe I did".

2. Simple Apology message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I’m sorry!
It’s my fault.”

3. Extenuating Rectification message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I
know you must blame me for what happened, but I want you to know that it is not my
fault and I’m not responsible for this situation. I really needed that file and I did not
have any other option but to do what I did. However, I am willing to make it up to
you in any way I can.”

4. Empowering Apology message was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “I’m
sorry! It’s my fault. I know what I did was not right and I should not have done that. I
feel bad. You are right to feel angry with me. I hope you can forgive me.”

5. Virtuous Promise was presented as follows: Person Y responded: “What I did was

morally wrong. I promise you something like this will never happen again. Please

don’t judge me as a bad person.”

199

APPENDIX E
VICTIM’S NEED SATISFACTION MEASURES

INSTRUCTION: The following items have been designed to capture your thoughts and

emotions. There are no right or wrong answers so please be as honest as possible.

Need for Control Scale
Post Ofleme Item Stem 9Afier what Person Y did, I would
Post Repair Attempt Item Stem -) After listening to Person Y’s response, I would:
1. feel that I have influence over what will happen to my projects at work
2. feel that I have influence over my outcomes/deliverables at work (e.g., completing
projects, doings tasks on time, meeting work quality standards, etc)
3. feel that I have influence over my relationships at work

4. feel that I have influence over how others view me at work

Need for Belongingness Scale
Post Offense Item Stem 9After what Person Y did, I would
Post Repair Attempt Item Stem 9 After listening to Person Y’s response, I would:
I. feel valued by my coworkers
2. feel connected to my coworkers
3. feel included in my workgroup
4. feel part of the workgroup

Need for Identity Scale
Post Oflense Item Stem 9Afier what Person Y did, I would

Post Repair Attempt Item Stem 7" After listening to Person Y’s response, I would:

. not feel good about myself at work

1
2. feel that my self-identity has been undermined at work
3. question who I am as a person at work

4

. question my capabilities at work

200

Need for Moral Meaning Scale
Post Offense Item Stem 9 In the context of this situation, I would feel that person Y’s
behavior violates:
Post Repair Attempt Item Stem 9After listening to what Person Y said, I would feel that
person Y’s response violates:
1. my sense of right and wrong at the workplace
2. what I expect to be basic ethical behavior at the workplace
3. my standards about what is the morally right thing to do at the workplace
4

. my desire to have moral order at the workplace

201

APPENDIX F
RELATIONSHIP QUALITY MEASURES

INSTRUCTION: The following items have been designed to capture your emotions,
thoughts and behaviors towards Person Y. There are no right or wrong answers so please

be as honest as possible. Please indicate your agreement with each of the statements on
the scales provided:

Negative Emotions Scale

Post Oflense Item Stem 9 after what Person Y did, I would feel
Post Repair Attempt Item Stem 9 after listening to what Person Y said, I would feel

I. angry at Person Y

2. upset with Person Y

3. frustrated with Person Y
4. unhappy with Person Y
5.

6.

exploited by Person Y
resentment toward Person Y

Trust Scale

Post Offense Item Stem 9 After what Person Y did, I would
Post Repair Attempt Item Stem 9 After hearing Person Y’s response, I would

l . trust this person to behave in ways that take into account my work-related needs
2. trust this person to 000perate with me on future work-related projects

3. be comfortable letting this person have influence over work-related things
4. trust this person to respect and support me in uncertain times in the firture

5. trust this person to behave in ways that take into account my welfare
6. be comfortable letting this person have influence over things that can affect me

personally

202

Non-Obligatory Supportive Behaviors Scale
Post Oflense Item Stem 9 Afier what Person Y did, how would you behave towards
Person Y in the future? In the future, I would be willing to go beyond my expected job

duties to:
Post Repair Attempt Item Stem 9 After hearing Person Y’s response, how would you

behave towards Person Y in the future? In the future, I would be willing to go beyond my

expected job duties to:
I. help Person Y with his/her work assignments
2. pass along new information that might be useful to Person Y (e.g., like suggesting an

innovative idea that he/she could utilize in a project; informing him/her about a

possibly great opportunity in the company that would help his/her career

development, etc).
3. give feedback to Person Y to help his/her developmental growth.

4. take time out to listen to Person Y's problems and worries.

203

REFERENCES

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317—332.

Akhtar, S. (2002). Forgiveness: Origins, dynamics, psychopathology, and technical
relevance. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 71(2), 175—212.

Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in
organizational settings. Free Press, New York.

Alspaugh, J. W. (1998). Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school
and high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 20—25.

Anderson, J. C., & Narus, I. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer
firm working partnerships. The Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42—58.

Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization:
The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of
Management, 26(2), 171.

Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in
organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive
modeling, and hierarchical status. Orgam’zational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 90( l ), 1 95—208 .

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001a). How employees respond to personal
offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on
revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(1), 52—59.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange
model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267—285.

.Bandura, A. (1995). Self-.efiicacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press,
New York (1995), pp. 202—231. 331.

Barclay, L. 1., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2008). Shifting perspectives: Helping victims recover
fiom organizational justice violations. Research in Social Issues in Management,
6, 155—199.

Barclay, L. 1., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005a). Exploring the role of emotions in
injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629—
642.

Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
204

Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive behavior,
22(3), 161-173.

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. The Guilford Press, New York.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497—529.

Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process
model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(6), 1054.

Bennett, R. .I., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future of workplace
deviance research. Organizational Behavior: The state of the science, 2, 24 7—28 1 .

Bies, R. 1., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of
fairness. Research on Negotiations in Organizations: A biannual research series,

I, 43—55.

Bies, R. 1., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: "Getting even" and the need for
revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds), Trust in organizations. Newbury
Park: Sage.

Bies, R. 1., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and
social dynamics of revenge in organizations. Antisocial behavior in organizations,
18, 36.

Bies, RJ. & Tripp, TM. (2004). The Study of Revenge in the Workplace: Conceptual,
Ideological, and Empirical Issues. In S. F ox & P.E. Spector, (Eds.),
Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets.
Washington DC: APA Press.

Bies, R.J., & Tripp, TM. (2005). Badmouthing the company: Bitter employee or
concerned citizen? In R.E. Kidwell In, & C.L. Martin (Eds), Managing
organizational deviance (pp. 97-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2005). Do explanations influence perceived fairness in
the worlwlace? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 469—498.

Boker, S. M., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2006). Dynamical systems modeling: An application
to the regulation of intimacy and disclosure in marriage. Models for Intensive

Longitudinal Data, 1 95—21 8.

Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murrrighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not
cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation.

205

Organization Science, 497—5 1 3.

Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender

likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management,
25(5), 607.

Branden, N. (1969). The psychology of self-esteem: a new concept of man 's psychological
nature. Bantam Books.

Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.

Brown, J. D. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: Feeling is believing. Psychological
Perspectives on the Self, 4, 27—58.

Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Rhymer, R. M. (1947). P-technique demonstrated in
determining psycho physiological source traits in a normal individual.
Psychometrika, 12(4), 267—288.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysisfirr the behavioral sciences. Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155—159.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-

analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278—
321.

Colquitt, J. A., & Chertkoff, I. M. (2002). Explaining injustice: The interactive effect of
explanation and outcome on fairness perceptions and task motivation. Journal of
Management, 28(5), 591.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. 1., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of procedural
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.

Conlon, D. E., & Murray, N. M. (1996). Customer perceptions of corporate responses to
product complaints: The role of explanations. The Academy of Management
Journal, 39(4), 1040—1056.

Coser, L. A. (1964). The functions of social conflict. New York, Free Press.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Kessler, 1., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring Organizationally

Directed Citizenship Behavior: Reciprocity or ‘It’s my Job'?*. Journal of
Management Studies, 41(1), 85—106.

206

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1993). Assignment of credit and blame for performance
outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 7—27.

Cropanzano, R., Byme, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001a). Moral virtues,
fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164—209.

Crosby L. A., Evans K. R. & Cowles D.(l990). Relationship quality in services selling:
an interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3): 68— 81.

Crutcher, R. J. (1994). Telling what we know: The use of verbal report methodologies in
psychological research. Psychological Science, 5(5), 241.

Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children’s reactions to apologies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 742—753.

Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive
justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324-336

De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of
feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1335.

De Cremer, D. (2004). The influence of accuracy as a function of leader's bias: The role
of trustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 293.

De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between
procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 3 7, 151—218.

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741—749.

Deadrick, D. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1990). Dynamic criteria revisited: A longitudinal
study of performance stability and predictive validity. Personnel Psychology,
43(4), 717—744.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. Springer, New York.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating
internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality,
62, 119—119.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.

207

Organization Science, 12(4), 450—467.

Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Repairing relationships within and
between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. The Academy of
Management Review (AMR), 34(1), 68—84.

Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as
predictors of satisfaction. The Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 44—56.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
The Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331—351.

Dunegan, K. J ., Tierney, P., & Duchon, D. (1992). Perceptions of an innovative climate:
examining the role of divisional affiliation, work group interaction, and

leader/subordinate exchange. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
39(3), 227—236.

Durkheim, E. (1964). The rules of sociological method. Glencoe, Ill. : Free Press.

Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to create and sustain high-quality
connections at work. Jossey—Bass Inc Pub.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. 8..
Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 263-278).

Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2006). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building
a theoretical and research foundation. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

Dwyer, F. R., & Oh, S. (198 7). Output sector munificence effects on the internal political
economy of marketing channels. Journal of Market Research, 2(4):347— 58.

Eaton, J., Struthers, C. W., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). The mediating role of perceptual
validation in the repentance-forgiveness process. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1389.

Ericsson, K.A,. & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data.
Cambridge, MA: MlT Press.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev.
ed. ). Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

Etgar, M (1979). Sources and types of intra-channel conflict. Journal of Retail,
55(Spring):6l—78

Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes:

208

The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding
to integrity-and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(4), 893—908.

Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of
relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9(1), 27—
37.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4),
327—358.

F leeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure-and process-integrated view of personality: Traits
as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(6), 1011—1027.

Folger, R. (1994). Workplace justice and employee worth. Social Justice Research, 7(3),
225—240.

Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. Managerial Ethics: Moral management of
people and processes, 13—34.

Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives On
Organizational Justice, 3—33.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource
management. Sage Publications.

Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between
justice and morality? In J. Greenberg & I. Colquitt (Eds), The Handbook of
Organizational Justice. Pp. 215-245.

Foster, C. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1999). Injustice and power-seeking. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 834.

Frankly, V. E. (1976). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Pocket (original work
published in 1959).

Fridhandler, B. M. (1986). Conceptual note on state, trait, and the state-trait distinction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 169—174.

Fukuyama, F. (1999). The great disruption. Profile Books London.

Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer—seller relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 58(April):l —19.

George, J . M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at

209

work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 299—307.

Ghiselli, E. E., & Haire, M. (1960). The validation of selection tests in the light of the
dynamic character of criteria. Personnel Psychology, 13, 225—23 1.

Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization—level failure. The
Academy of Management Review (AMR), 34(1), 127—145.

Gillison, F., Standage, M., & Skevington, S. (2008). Changes in quality of life and
psychological need satisfaction following the transition to secondary school.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 149—162.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Aldine publishing Company, Chicago.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction rituals. Garden City, NY.

Goffinan, E. (1976). Relations in public: Micro studies of the public order. New York:
Harper Row.

Goffinan, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in society, 5(3), 257—313.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Goldman, B. M. (2003). The application of referent cognitions theory to legal-claiming
by terminated workers: The role of organizational justice and anger. Journal of

Management, 29(5), 705.

Gonzales, M. H., Manning, D. J ., & Haugen, J. A. (1992). Explaining our sins: Factors
influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim responses. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 95 8—971 .

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership

Quarterly, 6(2), 21 9—24 7.

Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The
hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561—568.

Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal
of Management, 16(2), 399-432. -

Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational
determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 89(1), 98 5—1 003.

210

Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis,
11(3), 255.

Hanges, P. J., Schneider, 8., & Niles, K. (1990). Stability of performance: An
interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 658—667.

Hatfield, D. W., & Hatfield, J. D. (1995). Relationships among conflict management
styles, levels of conflict and reactions to work. Journal of Social Psychology, 135,
687-698.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley New York.

Henry, R. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1987). Stability of skilled performance across time: Some

generalizations and limitations on utilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3),
457—462.

Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. Academic Press.

Hodgins, H. S., & Liebeskind, E. (2003). Apology versus defense: Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 297—316.

Hofmann, D. A., Jacobs, R., & Baratta, J. E. (1993). Dynamic criteria and the
measurement of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 194—194.

Hofinann, D. A., Jacobs, R., & Gerras, S. J. (1992). Mapping individual performance
over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 185—195.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1—55.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement
works. Plenum New York.

Hulr'n, C. L., Henry, R. A., & Noon, S. L. 1990. Adding a dimension: Time as a factor in

the generalizability of predictive relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 328-
340.

Huntley, J. K. (2006). Conceptualization and measurement of relationship quality:
Linkng relationship quality to actual sales and recommendation intention.

Industrial Marketing Management, 35(6), 703—714.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Vol. 1 & 2, New York: Holt.

211

Jarvelin, A., & Lehtinen, U. (1996). Relationship quality in business-to-business service
context. In Edvardson B.B., Johnson S.W., Scheung, E.E. (Eds). QUIS 5
advancing service quality. A global perspective, Lethbridge,Canada. Warwick
printing. pp. 243-254.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A Quantitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in
Organizational Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3).

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The
effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on
workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287—
305.

Jockin, V., Arvey, R. D., & McGue, M. (2001). Perceived victimization moderates self-
report of workplace aggression and conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(6), 1262—1269.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed-methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14.

Jones, E. E., Carter-Sowell, A. R., Kelly, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2009). I'm Out of the
Loop': Ostracism Through Information Exclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 12(2), 157.

Jereskog, K. G., & Sbrbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user's reference guide. Scientific
Software.

Kim, W. G., & Cha, Y. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of relationship quality in
hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(4), 321—338.

Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is
better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair
of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49—65.

Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of
suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus

integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104—1 18.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of
moral stages. Harper Collins Publishers. .

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. The
Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656—669.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkarnp, J. E. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on

212

vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1):5— 65.

Kurzynski, M. J. (1998). The virtue of forgiveness as a human resource management
strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 1 7(1), 77—85.

Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F ., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of
intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multidimensional modeling approach.

Journal of Family Psychology, I 9, 314—323.

Lerner, R. M., Brentano, C., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2002). Positive youth
development: Thriving as a basis of personhood and civil society. In C. S. Taylor,
R. M. Lerner, & A. von Eye (Eds), New directions for youth development:
Theory, practice and research: Pathways to positive youth development among
gang and non-gang youth (V 01. 95; G. Noam, Series Ed.). (pp.l 1-34). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the
study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis
(Eds), Social exchanges: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New

York: Plenum

Lewicki, R. J., Bunker, B. B., Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in
organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.

Lewicki, R. J ., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New
relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438—458.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New
York: Plenum Press.

Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's no place like home? The
contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to ernployees' creative
performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757—767.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (n.d.). B. ( I 999) Designing Qualitative research. Sage
Publications Ltd, London.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370—
396.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice
and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on
work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 73 8—748.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on
trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,

213

 

84, 123—136.

Mayer, R., & Gavin, M. (1999). T rust for management and performance: Who minds the
shop while the employees watch the boss? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cogrrition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal,
38(1), 24—59.

McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge University Press.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., &
Hight, T. L. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: 1. Theoretical

elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1586—1603.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., &
Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical

elaboration and measurement. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75,
1586—1603.

McNeil, I. R (1980), The New Social Contract: An Inquiry into Modern Contractual
Relations, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: South Africa's truth and
reconciliation commission. Negotiation Journal, 14(4), 319—355.

Mohr J., & Nevin J. (1990). Communication strategies in marketing channels: a
theoretical perspective. Journal of Marketing, 50(Oct):35— 51.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845—855.

Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of
how psychological contract violation develops. The Academy of Management
Review, 22(1), 226—256.

Mueller, B. H., & Lee, J. (2002). Leader-member exchange and organizational
communication satisfaction in multiple contexts. Journal of Business

Communication, 39(2), 220.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational
behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 35—51.

Nesselroade, J. R. ( I 988). Some implications of the trait-state distinction for the study of

214

development over the life span: The case of personality. Life-span Development
and Behavior, 8, 163—189.

Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual
differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 113—113.

NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 8, 2009.

Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role
in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(2), 219—227.

Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2008). The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards
a unifying fi'amework of justice repair. Advances in Group Processes, 25(1), 291—
326.

Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2009). Punishment as repair of group and offender values
following a transgression: Value consensus through symbolic labeling and
offender reform. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3).

Patrick, A. W., & Zuckerrnan, M. (1977). An application of the state-trait concept to the
need for achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 11(4), 459—465.

Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship
between mood and employee withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management,
25(6), 875.

Pierce, C. A., Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting eta-
squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 64(6), 916.

Ployhart, R. E., & Hake], M. D. (1998). The substantive nature of performance
variability: Predicting inter-individual differences in intra-individual performance.
Personnel Psychology, 5 I (4), 859—863.

Prager, K. J ., & Roberts, L. J. (2004). Deep intimate connection: Self and intimacy in
couple relationships. Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy, 43—60.

Pratt, M. & Dirks, K. T. (2006). Rebuilding trust and restoring positive relationships: A
commitment-based view of trust. In J. Dutton and B. Ragins (Eds) Exploring
Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research FOundation,
(pp. 1 17-136) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J ., Solomon, 8., Arndt, J ., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do
people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological

215

Bulletin, 130, 435—468.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, 1. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of
type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career
attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1 177—1 194.

Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., 8L Cropanzano, R. (2006). Different wrongs,
different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and
interactional injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 31.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95—1 12.

Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and
culture influence the effectiveness of repair rituals. The Academy of Management
Review (AMR), 34(1), 105—126.

Rennie, D. L. (1995). Strategic choices in a qualitative approach to psychotherapy
process research. Research as praxis: Lessons from programmatic research in

therapeutic psychology, 198—220.

Retzinger, S., & Scheff, T. (1996). Strategy for community conferences: Emotions and
social bonds. Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, 315—36.

Riordan, C. A., Marlin, N. A., & Kellogg, R. T. (1983). The effectiveness of accounts
following transgression. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(3), 213—219.

Roberts, K., Varki, S., & Brodie, R. (2003). Measuring the quality of relationships in
consumer services: an empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 3 7(1/2),

169—196.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(4).

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its
manifestations, and its causes. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, 3—

28.

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility
model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934—960.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the
psychological contract: A longitudinal study. The Academy of Management
Journal, 37(1), 137—152.

Rogers, C. R. (1963). The actualizing tendency in relation to “motives” and to

216

consciousness. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 11, pp. 1—24).

Rokeach, M. (1979). From individual to institutional values: With special reference to the
values of science. Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal, 47—70.

Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1—1.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Carnerer, C. (1998). Not so different after
all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3),
393—404.

Scher, S. J ., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to

apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 127—140.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and
interpersonal relations. Brooks/Cole Monterey, CA.

Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(3), 271—278.

Schlenker, B. R., Pontari, B. A., & Christopher, A. N. (2001). Excuses and character:
Personal and social implications of excuses. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5(1), 15.

Schéinbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management or escalation of conflict.
Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior.
Rinehart, New York.

Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006). Promises and lies: Repairing
violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1),
1—19.

Scobie, E. D., & Scobie, G. E. W. (1998). Damaging events: The perceived need for
forgiveness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 28(4), 373—402.

Sedikides, C., De Cremer, D., Hart, C. M., & Brebels, L. (2010). Procedural fairness
responses in the context of self-uncertainty. In R. M. Arkin, K. C. Oleson, & P. J.
Carroll (Eds), The uncertain self: A handbook of perspectives fi'om social and

personality psychology (pp. 142-159). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Seers, A. (1989). Tearn-mernber exchange quality: A new construct for role-making
research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118—

217

135.

Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team
and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group &
Organization Management, 20(1), 18—38.

Shaw, 1. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic
review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 444—
458.

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about
satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325—339.

Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the
differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting
reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 1 l6.

Sigal, J., Hsu, L., Foodim, S., & Betman, J. (1988). Factors affecting perceptions of
political candidates accused of sexual and financial misconduct. Political
Psychology, 273—280.

Sirsch, U. (2003). The impending transition fiom primary to secondary school: Challenge
or threat? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2 7(5), 385.

Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic"
remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367—392.

Skarlicki, D. P. 84 Folger (1997)." Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,

procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434—
443.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549—5 70.

Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes

justify the means? A value protection model of j ustice reasoning. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28( 5), 588.

Spielberger, C. D., Lushene, R. E., & McAdoo, W. G. (1977). Theory and measurement
of anxiety states. In R. B. Cattell & R. M. Dreger (Eds), Handbook of modern
personality theory (pp. 239—253). Washington, DC: Hemisphere

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the
self Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261—3 02.

218

Sta", 1.., Stobart, G., Martin, 5., Freeman, 5., Freedman, E., Sammons, P. and Smees,
R. (2003) Preparing for Change: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Key
Stage 3 Strategy Pilot. London: DfES.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Sage Publications
Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sturman, M. C., Cherarnie, R. A., & Cashen, L. H. (2005). The impact of job complexity
and performance measurement on the temporal consistency, stability, and test-

retest reliability of employee job performance ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(2), 269—282.

Sturman, M. C., Trevor, C. O., Boudreau, J. W., & Gerhart, B. (2003). Is it worth it to
win the talent war? Evaluating the utility of perfonnance-based pay. Personnel
Psychology, 56(4), 997—1036.

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The
application of cogniti ve processes to survey methodology. Jossey—Bass San
Francisco.

Snyder, C. R. and Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses: Their effective role in the negotiation
of reality. Psychological Bulletin, 104, pp 23-25.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33, 47.

Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal
forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. Journal
of Social Psychology, 141(4), 494—508.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited:
Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21—21.

Teddlie. C. 8: Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major Issues and Controversies in the Use of
Alired-rrrut/ror/s in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. In Tashakkori, A. &
Teddlie, C. Handbook ofnulwd-rrrwhorls in social and behavioral research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Tedeschi, J. T., 8c Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. The
Self and Social Life, 293—3 22.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L.
Erlbaum Associates.

Thoresen, C. J., Bradley, J. C., Bliese, P. D., & Thoresen, J. D. (2004). The big five
personality traits and individual job performance growth trajectories in

219

maintenance and transitional job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 835—
853.

Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in
trust repair. The Academy of Management Review (AMR), 34(1), 85—104.

Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation:
Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise.
Journal of Management, 30(2), 165.

Trafimow, D., Bromgard, I.K., Finlay, K. A., Ketelaar, T. (2005). The role of affect in
determining the attributional weight of immoral behaviors. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 935-948

Trickett, S. B., & Trafton, J. G. (2009). A Primer on Verbal Protocol Analysis. In D.,
Schmorrow, J ., Cohn, & D. Nicholson (Eds), The PS1 Handbook of Virtual
Environments for Training and Education, Volume I. (pp. 332-346). Westport,
CT: Praeger Security International. 2008 Trafton, J. G., & Monk,

Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (1997). What's good about revenge? The avenger's
perspective. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, 145—162.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice,
social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 7(4), 349.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology: Volume 25, 115.

Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830—838.

Van den 803, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of faimess
judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1—60.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., Matos, L., & Lacante, M. (2004).
Less is sometimes more: Goal content matters. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 96, 755—764.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational .
justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attrtudes and behavrors.

Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193—203. '

Wanberg, C. R., Bunce, L. W., & Gavin, M. B. (1999). Perceived fairness of layoffs
among individuals who have been laid off: A longitudinal study. Personnel

Psychology, 52(1), 59—61.

220

 

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070.

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive
closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049—1049.

Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J ., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis
of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(2), 316—324.

Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflections on affective events theory. Research on
Emotions in Organizations, 1, 1—21.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at
work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1—74.

Wilson, S. M., & Ferch, S. R. (2005). Enhancing resilience in the workplace through the
practice of caring relationships. Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 45.

Wilson, P. M., Rogers, W. T., Rodgers, W. M., & Wild, T. C. (2006). The psychological
need satisfaction in exercise scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
28(3), 231.

Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: Evolutionary Psychology and everyday life. New
York. Pantheon.

221

 

 

 

11,111

 

1| 1| 111l111.."111ll1111111111111111