5% G in) .111... r......\: \ 9. ran. . 5. .i IL A:‘ I}... ’0‘... .i3.:“dfl>flh .3 5:...ka i... I‘.. #3 .r trivr. :1”. .5... a 9 .2: ‘u. . i. hulxx... a 3.... 5.1133; 3:. . .1. .. ,1. K a u h5§Wd , (a . L... I .2 ' a. r :15. a :5. 10...? .3; a”... . .03.. as... .. ILKIS «.1 a THESlQ 300’ LIBRARY ‘ machigan Sat: University .7.” This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Psychological Contracts: Assessing Similarities and Differences in Perception of Quality Communication and Work-Life Promises for Blue- Collar and White-Collar Employees presented by Jennifer Butler Ellis has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in annnnination MW Major professor Date 8/9/0/ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771 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. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE r‘ PM I A A‘s: 11 11 L - ‘1 r r T v .' fir 7 IV V LuU gm; 09139é 6/01 c-JCIRC/DataDuepSS-pts PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS: ASSESSING SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTION OF QUALITY COMMUNICATION AND WORK-LIFE PROMISES FOR BLUE- COLLAR AND WHITE-COLLAR EMPLOYEES By Jennifer Butler Ellis A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department Of Communication Arts and Sciences 2001 ABSTRACT PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS: ASSESSING SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTION OF QUALITY COMMUNICATION AND WORK-LIFE PROMISES FOR BLUE- COLLAR AND WHITE-COLLAR EMPLOYEES By Jennifer Butler Ellis Organizations Often rely on contracts tO define and explain the employee- employer relationship. However, some contracts are psychological in nature and may be understood by only one Of the contracting parties. This one-sided understanding may lead to the perception Of broken promises and frustrating work scenarios. Psychological contracts involve beliefs about Obligations that are grounded in promises (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). Promises regarding quality communication and work-life issues (Ellis, 2001) may be increasingly important in today’s changing organizations (Buzzanell, 2000). These workplace changes may influence the employee-employer relationship and lead employees to place a higher value on perceived quality communication and work-life promises. This study used the theoretical framework of psychological contracting (Rousseau, 1995) and role theory (Biddle, 1979) to explore group differences based on occupational workforce membership in the promises and promise violations employees perceive employers have made to them about quality communication and work-life issues. One hundred and Sixty-three full-time employees from 30 different organizations completed a survey assessing perceived quality communication and work-life promises and promise violations. As predicted, the data revealed that quality communication and work-life issues formed two separate factors Of the psychological contract. A valid set Of indicators was Obtained for both the factors Of quality communication (alpha = .89) and work-life issues (alpha = .84). Furthermore, this study’s findings augment the utility of role theory. As predicted, the data suggest that white-collar employees perceive more quality communication promises than blue-collar employees. On the other hand, as predicted there were no significant differences between blue-collar and white-collar employees for work-life issues. Finally, this study considered quality communication and work-life promise violations. In contrast to what was predicted, participants reported positive promise violations rather than negative violations. Again, similarities and differences emerged for blue-collar and white-collar employees. White-collar employees perceived more positive communication violations than blue-collar employees, however, when considering perceived work-life violations, there were no significant differences between blue-collar and white-collar employees. Study implications and future research steps are discussed. With much love to Linton L. Ellis, my husband, soul mate, lover, best friend, and dawg. YOU made me laugh when I needed to laugh, and work when I needed to work. Thanks for your constant support and encouragement. I never would have completed this project without you. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Momma Lin, thank you for the countless hours you spent playing with my precious DJ—Our “tornado”, cooking meals for my family, and holding the Ellis household together. Without your incredible sacrifice Of time (living with us for over four months), I would still be trying to finish my dissertation...Thanks! Jillie Beans, what can I say. You were my right hand woman during this project. Thanks for all your help with data collection. The amount Of hours you spent helping me are tOO many to count, and the word “thanks" is really not enough. Please know how much I appreciate you, your help, your friendship, and your endless number Of contacts. Your networks never cease to amaze me. Thanks girlfriend! A special thanks to my friend and advisor, Sandi. Thanks for always believing in me. Your constant words Of encouragement and level-headed Observations kept me and my project on track. Thanks so much! TO my awesome committee Gwen, Linn, and Tim...you are a fabulous group Of people and your areas Of expertise provided the perfect balance and wisdom for this project. Thanks for your direction, encouragement, and enthusiasm for my project. You ALL truly made this project a better study. THANKS! Thanks also to all the people who helped me coordinate data collection...Ginger—thanks sis, Mr. Jensen, Stacie, Andy, and Dave 0. I couldn’t have done it without you all...Thanks! Finally, thanks to my dear parents. Mom and Dad, thanks for raising me to dream big and gO for it. Your constant support has meant SO much to me. I love you both. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & LITERATURE REVIEW .......................... 6 Theory Of Psychological Contracting ................................................. 6 Role Theory ........................................................................................ 7 Blue-Collar Employees ....................................................................... 8 White-Collar Employees ..................................................................... 9 Differences in Blue-Collar and White-Collar Employees ................... 10 PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS ............................................................... 14 Psychological Contract Assessment Review .................................... 14 Psychological Contract Assessment Framework .............................. 17 Quality Communication Assessment ................................................ 22 Work-Life Issues Assessment ........................................................... 22 HYPOTHESES & RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................... 23 Scale Development ............................................................................ 23 Assessing Workgroup Similarities and Differences ............................ 24 CHAPTER 2 METHOD ....................................................................................................... 33 Overview ............................................................................................ 33 Participants ........................................................................................ 33 Variables ............................................................................................ 34 Instrumentation .................................................................................. 34 Quality Communication Promises ........................................... 34 Work-Life Promises ................................................................. 35 Violations ................................................................................. 35 Explicit vs. Implicit Promises ................................................... 36 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS .................................................................................................... 37 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................ 37 Internal Consistency ............................................................... 37 Parallelism .............................................................................. 38 CFA Results ........................................................................... 38 Preliminary Analyses ........................................................................ 40 Assessing Blue-Collar and White-Collar Differences ........................ 41 vi CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 45 Scale Development .......................................................................... 45 Workgroup Differences and Similarities ........................................... 46 The Question Of Positive Violations .................................................. 53 Managerial and Organizational Applications ..................................... 55 Study Limitations and Future Research ............................................ 56 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 59 FOOTNOTE .................................................................................................. 66 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................ 72 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................ 85 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................ 87 APPENDIX D ................................................................................................ 90 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1—DrOpped Scale Items Due to Problems With Internal Consistency or Parallelism Table 2—Retained Scale Items, Factor Loadings, and Descriptive Statistics viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Mean number Of perceived promises by blue-collar and white-collar employee groups for quality communication and work-life issues. Figure 2. Mean number of perceived promise violations by blue-collar and white- collar employee groups for quality communication and work-life issues. Figure 3. Mean number for the direction Of perceived promises by blue-collar and white-collar employee groups for quality communication and work-life issues. INTRODUCTION Words are nothing but words; power lies in deeds. —Mali griot Mamadou Kouyate (quoted in Rousseau, 1995, p. 180) Empty promises Often leave individuals feeling frustrated, betrayed, and dissatisfied. When individuals believe that promises have been made tO them they typically rely on those promises and trust others to keep their word. Contracts are grounded in promises and provide important information and guidelines for individuals as well as organizations. Organizations Often rely on written contracts to define and explain the employee-employer relationship. However, some contracts are psychological in nature and may be understood by only one Of the contracting parties (i.e., employer or employee). Rousseau (1995) defined psychological contracts as sets Of “individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms Of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization” (p. 9). When psychological contracts are perceived to be violated by an employer this may lead to employee feelings Of frustration, hurt, betrayal, and job dissatisfaction. These feelings may then lead tO lower levels Of Productivity, increased rates Of absenteeism, a decrease in employee morale and organizational loyalty, burnout, alienation from the organization, and turnover. However, people Often perceive promises differently. What one person Perceives as a promise may not be cognitively processed at all by another orQar‘lizational member. This makes it more difficult for organizations to understand the terms Of many employee psychological contracts. Thus, it is important tO examine the contractual aspects of the employer—employee relationship and assess the promises and promise violations employees perceive employers have made to them. Psychological contracts involve beliefs about Obligations that are “predicated on the perception that a promise has been made” (e.g., continuing one’s employment or providing opportunities for career advancement) (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998, p. 679). Scholars have examined a variety of organizational promises employees perceive about salary, pay raises, bonuses, training, advancement Opportunities, career development, overall benefits, retirement benefits, health care benefits, decision-making input, job responsibility, job challenge, feedback on job performance, supervisory support, organizational support, and job security (Rousseau, 1990; Turnley & Feldman, 2000). Furthermore, Robinson and Morrison (1997) conducted a longitudinal study exploring the promises employees perceive their employers have made to them implicitly or explicitly. The following Six global themes or content areas emerged: sufficient tools and resources, enriched job, good employment relationship, competitive compensation, advancement and development, and performance based rewards. Although scholars have explored a variety Of psychological contract content areas, two new areas that may become increasingly important in today’s organizations deal with promises concerning quality communication and W0rk~life issues. Until recently, the content areas Of quality communication and work-life issues have not been investigated. Ellis (2001) used focus groups to explore promises employees believe have been made to them concerning quality communication and work-life issues. These promises may be important for better understanding the employer-employee relationship and interaction at work, as well as how daily work-related tasks are accomplished. Furthermore, these promises may be particularly important to employees in lieu Of the perception that the employment relationship is undergoing a period Of dramatic change (T urnley & Feldman, 1999). Rousseau explained that “shifts in broad social understandings regarding employment contracts come about because of a critical mass Of individual and organizational changes (Rousseau, 1995, p. 202). Furthermore, Buzzanell (2000) noted that “over the last couple Of decades, a new career and social contract have become newsworthy because managers and professionals joined the ranks Of those who were unemployed, displaced, and underemployed” (p. 2). These workplace changes may influence the employee- employer relationship and lead employees tO place a higher value on perceived communication and work-life promises. As the workplace changes, communication becomes increasingly important for keeping employees abreast Of the organizational changes and the way these changes may affect their employment relationship. Quality communication is also critical for organizational coordination, team-based work- groups, and participative decision-making. In addition, quality communication is important when providing performance feedback and organizational information. SPeCifIcally, the way performance feedback and organizational information is co"N“r‘Iunicated often separates effective from ineffective managers. As communication plays an important role in organizational life, employees may perceive more promises with regard to receiving prompt, up-tO-date information and performance feedback; as well as promises related to communication style (e.g., my manager promised to communicate with me in a friendly manner). Thus, it is important to build on the work of Ellis (2001) which investigated promises employees perceived their employer had made to them with regard to quality communication. Promises that address work-life issues may also become increasingly important in today’s organization. As dual-earner families and single parents increase, employees may come to value and rely on the promises their employer has made to them about work-life issues (i.e., time-Off to care for a sick child). In addition, technology advances have made longer working hours possible, telecommuting more prevalent, and home Offices increasingly common. Lobel, Googins, and Bankert (1999) conducted a study where they asked 28 large corporation “thought leaders” to identify major environmental trends that may affect work/life policies and practices. Thought leaders identified four environmental trends: globalization, technological change, increasing organizational flexibility, and changing family structures. These environmental trends may affect the promises employees perceive their employers have made about work-life issues, as well as increase the importance employees place Upon these promises. The overriding goal of this paper is to explore, through the theoretical framework of psychological contracting (Rousseau, 1995) and role theory (Biddle, 1979), group differences based on occupational workforce membership in the promises and promise violations employees perceive employers have made tO them about quality communication and work-life issues. To accomplish this goal, this study builds upon the focus group research of Ellis (2001) by (1) developing scale items to assess specific promises employees perceive their employer has made to them about quality communication and work-life issues, and (2) assessing similarities and differences in perception of promises and promise violations for blue-collar and white-collar employees by using a larger sample and survey methodology. CHAPTER ONE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & LITERATURE REVIEW Theory of Psychological Contracting The creation Of psychological contracts may be influenced by a variety Of factors. Rousseau (1995) developed a theory Of psychological contracting that identified internal and external factors which may affect the creation and development Of the psychological contract and the perception of promises. External factors are messages and social cues from co-workers or workgroups, while internal factors are individual internal interpretations and predispositions. Rousseau (1995) defined social cues (i.e., an external factor) as information acquired from coworkers or workgroups. According tO the theory of psychological contracting (Rousseau, 1995), social cues play three important roles throughout the contracting process. First, social cues provide messages for contract creation. Second, social cues Often convey social pressure to conform to the group’s understanding of promises or contract terms, and third, social cues may shape how an employee interprets the organization’s actions (Rousseau, 1995, p. 39). This theory provides a simple and parsimonious explanation Of factors that may influence the psychological contracting process. Specifically, this study examines the external factor of employee workgroup and its effect on an employee’s perception of promises and promise violations. Social cues from an emIYJloyee’s workgroup may stem from his or her workforce membership (i.e., blue-collar vs. white-collar employee). Role Theory Role theory provides an additional rationale for examining differences in perception Of promises for blue-collar and white-collar employees. One of the most widely used concepts in role theory is the “notion Of position.” The term position Often suggests a category of individuals, with widespread reference to occupational designations (e.g., teachers, engineers, physicians) (Biddle & Thomas, 1966, p. 28). In addition, the concept Of a role implies that individuals in certain social positions can be expected to enact certain behaviors and avoid others (Liazos, 1985). Specifically, roles are defined as sets Of “prescriptions defining what the behavior Of a position member should be” (Biddle & Thomas, 1 966, p. 29). Individuals in society occupy positions, and their role performance in these positions is determined by social norms, demands, and rules; by the role performances of others in their respective positions; by those who Observe and react to the performance; and by the individual’s particular capabilities and personality. (Biddle & Thomas, 1966, p. 4) Role theory provides a theoretical framework for examining similarities and differences between the roles individuals enact. First, roles can help us identify certain types Of behaviors that can be expected. Second, the study of roles Often involves the “examination Of patterns Of behavior that are characteristic of persons in a specific context” (Biddle, 1979). One role e"IPIC’yees may play is the role defined by their occupational workgroup (i.e., blue-collar vs. white-collar employees). Occupations survive, in part, by ‘moulding’ their members, indoctrinating them with characteristic habits, concerns, values, and motives which help them meet the demands of their work. TO equip themselves for their work, people develop emphases, discriminations, attitudes, etc. Special preferences, dislikes, fears, hopes apprehensions, idealizations are brought to the fore. (Burke as cited in Hall, 1994, p. 112) Occupational roles may affect the promises and promise violations perceived by blue-collar and white-collar employees due tO group norms, values, ‘moulding' by other group members, as well as a number Of job characteristics and design factors. Thus, the nature Of blue-collar and white-collar roles may lead employees to perceive different promises and promise violations regarding quality communication and work-life issues. Blue-Collar Employees Halle (1987) identified the blue-collar occupational group as skilled workers, factory workers, transport workers, and nonfarrn laborers. After examining a variety Of blue-collar jobs, Halle (1987) identified five features Of most blue-collar jobs. 1 . Work that is Often dirty and sometimes dangerous and that requires light or heavy physical labor. Hence the need to wear special, protective clothes—the “blue collar.” 2. Work that is repetitive and therefore dull. Exceptions include the job Of mechanic or truck driver. 3. Work that is clearly connected to the creation Of a tangible product. This includes factory and construction jobs. Exceptions include the work Of train, bus and truck drivers, who do however produce Obvious services. 4. Work that Offers little chance Of upward mobility. Workers may rise to first-line supervision, but above that level lack Of educational qualifications poses a serious barrier. 5. Work that is supervised, in an obtrusive or unobtrusive manner. There is human supervision, and there is the mechanical supervision Of a time clock. (Halle, 1987, p. 186) These five features help to define the role Of a blue-collar employee. Most blue- collar jobs possess several, but not necessarily all Of these features (Halle, 1987, p. 186). Specifically, this unique group Of employees is strongly influenced by their workplace which has “its own distinctive flavor and quality” (Spencer, 1977, p. 38). White-Collar Employees In contrast, white-collar occupations are typically described as professional, managerial, clerical, secretarial, and sales (Halle, 1987). Caplow (1954) defined white-collar occupations as a “large heterogeneous category Of clerical and technical workers, such as stenographers, bookkeepers, typists, draftsmen, salespeople, and others whose work is primarily managerial and nonmanual” (p. 36). White-collar occupations are “not typically dirty or dangerous and [do] not involve heavy and physical labor" (Halle, 1987, p. 186). Upward mobility is usually available to white-collar employees and they are usually not supervised in the same way as blue-collar workers. White-collar tasks typically contain more variability than blue-collar occupations which tend to be more repetitive and dull. Distinctions may also be made between upper- white-collar employees (i.e., professionals and managers) and lower-white-collar employees (i.e., clerical workers, secretaries, and salespeople). However, other fl”. academic scholars have grouped upper- and lower-white-collar employees when comparing blue-collar and white-collar employees (Buchholz, 1978; Morris, f ‘ Conrad, Marcantonio, Marks & Ribisl, 1999). Adam Smith stated “but the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments” (as cited in Kanter, 1993). If one’s workgroup Shapes employment experiences and the roles employees play, then scholars can expect to find differences in perception, attitudes, and behaviors for blue-collar and white-collar employees. Differencesfii Blue-Colla_T_and White-Coll_ar Employees Various studies have found differences in perception and behavior for blue-collar and white-collar workers. Morris et al. (1999) found differences in worksite health climate perceptions between blue- and white-collar workers. Compared with blue-collar employees, white-collar employees reported more positive perceptions of the health climate. Kirchler (1998) investigated differential representations of taxation and tax payers. He found that blue-collar and white collar workers have different associations with the words “tax" and “tax payers”. For example, white-collar employees reported associations with ideas Of 10 exchanges and fairness, while blue-collar employees reported general dissatisfaction with politicians. When comparing stress levels, white-collar employees reported significantly greater job-related stress levels than blue-collar employees (Hope, Kelleher & O’Connor, 1999). In addition, Hope et. al. (1999) found that white-collar workers were more likely to use medical coping strategies to reduce stress than blue-collar workers. Wright, Bengtsson and Frankenberg (1994) compared blue-collar and white-collar workers and found blue-collar workers tO have significantly more complaints about the physical work environment, more worry about health hazards, and less satisfaction with their total situation (i.e., work and economy) than white-collar workers. Thus, a variety Of studies have demonstrated differences for blue-collar and white-collar workers with regard to their perceptions, stress levels, coping strategies, and workplace behaviors. Differences may also emerge when considering blue-collar and white-collar employees’ psychological contract with their employer. Researchers must enhance prior psychological contract research assumptions by investigating the promises perceived by both blue-collar and white-collar employees. Previous psychological contract research has considered traditional, white-collar employees and MBA student samples (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999; Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Rousseau, 1990; Rousseau & Anton 1991; Shore & Barksdale, 1998; Turnley & Feldman, 1999, 2000;). However, Turnley and Feldman (1999, 2000) encouraged the exploration Of different factors that may influence the creation Of the psychological contract and perceptions Of violations. ll Occupational workforce membership (i.e., blue-collar vs. white-collar employees) may be one factor that influences the development Of the psychological contract and an employee’s perception Of promises and promise violations. The promises perceived by blue-collar workers may be very different from the promises perceived by white-collar employees, due to their social position . and the roles they carry out. First, the nature Of blue-collar work is very different from white-collar work. Blue-collar work is Often dirty and sometimes dangerous. It typically requires light or heavy physical labor (Halle, 1987, p. 186). In FA contrast, white-collar work is not typically dangerous, dirty, and most Often does not involve heavy and physical labor. Thus, the setting for blue-collar and white- collar jobs is Often very different. The blue-collar work setting may be noisier than a typical white-collar Office setting. These different settings may lead to different norms and appropriate methods of communication. Second, the need for evaluative feedback may differ for blue-collar and white-collar employees. Feedback from the job “refers to the degree to which carrying out work activities required by the job results in the individual’s Obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance” (Hackman, 1979, p. 5). Blue-collar work Often provides clues and evidence about whether or not they are performing their job well (e.g., produce 100 widgets), while white-collar jobs may not provide immediate tangibles that can give feedback about job performance (i.e., conducting a training session). This lack Of immediate tangibles may lead white-collar employees to experience more uncertainty. Thus, the nature of white-collar work may lead white-collar 12 employees to rely more heavily on a supervisor to provide job performance feedback. In contrast, blue—collar workers may not rely on regular feedback from a supervisor, because they may Obtain job feedback from other sources. These differences in blue-collar and white-collar work may lead these employees tO perceive promises about quality communication to different degrees. Third, blue-collar and white-collar work may differ in the area Of employee r autonomy. Hackman (1979) defined autonomy as “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in w scheduling work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (p. 5). Blue-collar work is typically supervised and there is less freedom, independence, and the ability to control one’s schedule. In contrast, white-collar work (i.e., particularly Upper-white-collar work) is typically not supervised in the same way as blue-collar work. White-collar tasks often contain more variability than blue-collar work which is Often dull and repetitive (Halle, 1987). Furthermore, increased autonomy for white-collar employees may lead them to have more flexibility in controlling work-life issues that may arise. In contrast, blue-collar employees may rely more heavily upon a supervisor to “OK” time Off for various work-life issues. Different levels Of autonomy may influence the perception of promises which may lead white-collar and blue-collar employees to perceive promises differently. In sum, blue-collar and white-collar work differs on a number of dimensions (i.e., nature Of the job and setting, feedback, and autonomy) which may lead employees to perceive promises and promise violations in different ways. 13 The scope of this study includes promises blue-collar and white-collar employees perceive their employer has made to them with regard to quality communication and work-life issues. These two areas Of an employee’s psychological contract may be critical for helping employees and employers know how to act in daily work-related situations in order to develop successful employer-employee relationships (e.g., how tO communicate with each other, how to deal with time-off for unexpected situations that arise, receiving performance feedback). Before assessing workgroup similarities and differences in perceived quality communication and work-life promises and promise violations, a method Of assessment must be developed. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTACTS Psycholmical Contract Assessment Review TO assess employees’ perceptions Of employer promises and promise violations, psychological contract studies have used a variety Of methods. However, more work is needed in the area of assessing promises employees perceive their employers have made to them. Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1998) explained that “research is needed tO develop appropriate measurement models for holistic assessment Of contract content” (p. 689). This section will begin by reviewing some of the ways psychological contracts have been measured and Operationalized in the past, and then Offer a proposed method for assessing quality communication and work-life promises. Several studies have attempted to measure and Operationalize the psychological contract (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999; Porter, Pearce, Tripoli, & Lewis, 1998; Shore & Barksdale, 1998; Thomas & Anderson, 1998), yet there is little consistency in the way psychological contracts have been studied or measured. Some studies have discussed psychological contracts theoretically in terms Of fairness and trust (Nicholson & Johns, 1985; Parks & Schmedemann, 1994; Rousseau 8. Anton, 1991 ). Both third party perceptions Of the contract and employee perceptions Of contract fairness and/or trust violations are Often used to assess the aspects of contract fairness and trust. Parks and Schmedemann (1994) and Rousseau and Anton (1991) used third-party perceptions Of I .. organizational Obligations with regard to fairness in employee relations. However, third-party assessments seem to be tapping what Rousseau (1995) identifies as an implied contract (i.e., interpretations by third parties regarding contractual terms) rather than the psychological contract. This third-party approach is vastly different from approaches that seek tO assess perceptions Of individuals or employees holding the psychological contract. Guzzo, Noonan, and Elron (1994) Operationalized the psychological contract by measuring employee perceptions of the extent to which employer practices (i.e., employee benefits) differed from what employees perceived that organizations were obligated to provide them in the areas Of financial inducements, general suppOIt, and family-oriented support. Specifically, Guzzo et al. (1994) used self-report data indicating employee perceptions involving the sufficiency or fulfillment Of the psychological contract. Rousseau (1990) assessed employer Obligations by asking recruits to self-report the extent to which their employer was obligated to provide them with promotions, high pay, IS training, long-ten'n job security, career development, and support with personal problems. However, no reliability was reported for this scale measurement. Robinson, Kraatz and Rousseau (1994) later used a questionnaire that sought to measure participant beliefs about employer and employee Obligations. Specifically, this study considered beliefs about employer Obligations involving rapid advancement, high pay, pay based on current level Of performance, P training, long-temi job security, career development, and support with personal problems. This study reported a scale reliability Of .80. In sum, these studies assessed the psychological contract by considering a variety of specific promises such as job security and career development perceived by employees. Although many studies examined psychological contracts by looking at contract fairness and specific promises perceived by employees, other studies examined the contract more globally. Larvvood, Wright, Desrocher, and Dahir (1998) developed a 3-item scale measuring perceptions Of fit to the psychological contract. This Operationalization does not measure the specific content Of the contract, but rather, general employee expectations regarding job duties, perceived organizational promises, and the extent Of satisfaction with regard to the organization fulfilling promises. Scholars have used a variety Of assessment tools when studying the psychological contract. Recently, Rousseau and Tijoriwala ( 1998) proposed a framework for organizing the various Operationalizations Of the psychological contract. The following section discusses this psychological contract assessment framework. Psycholggical Contract Assessment Fgmework Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1998) explained that three types Of assessment have been used to study psychological contracts: content meafsurgs, fe_atiie_ measures, and evaluation measures. Content measures seek to examine the content Of the contract by analyzing the specific terms or promises Of the contract (i.e. ‘jOb security’, ‘fair pay’, or “career development’) and the interrelations between or among contract terms. Feature-oriented measures approach the contract more broadly by comparing the contract tO various attributes or dimensions (i.e., the degree to which the contract is implicit/explicit or stable/unstable over time). Parks and VanDyne (1995) as cited in Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1998) explored feature measures including contract scope (i.e., the extent to which the contract spills over into the employee’s personal life) and emergence (i.e., static vs. dynamic). In sum, feature measures seek tO use adjectives that summarize the contract features and how the contract was established (i.e., ‘explicit’ or ‘implicit’), while content measures “can be thought Of as comprising nouns (e.g., ‘jOb security’ or ‘career development’) (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). Evaluation-oriented assessment seeks to examine the degree to which the contract has been fulfilled, changed, or violated. Specifically, evaluation-oriented measures utilize individuals’ judgments and compare the individual’s organizational experiences to the contract itself. Measures examining contract violations (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1999, 2000) and assessments pertaining to whether or not contract items or promises were actually fulfilled (Robinson, 1996) are considered evaluation- 17 oriented assessments Of the psychological contract. Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1998) noted that there is need for further measurement development in all three areas. In 2000, Rousseau produced a technical report proposing a tool for assessing the generalizable content Of the psychological contract for organizational research as well as a self-scoring assessment to aid in executive and professional education. Rousseau's psychological contract inventory contains both content and evaluation measures. Specifically, Rousseau (2000) considered four dimensions Of the psychological contract: relational, balanced, transactional, and transitional. A relational dimension refers to long-term or Open-ended employment arrangements that are grounded in mutual trust and loyalty. Rousseau Operationalized the relational dimension of psychological contracts by generating a scale that measures stability (i.e., employees are obligated to stay at the organization and enact their job, and the employer is responsible to provide stable wages and long-term employment) and loyalty (i.e., employees must support the organization, be loyal and committed to the needs and interests Of the organization, while the employer is obligated to support the employee and their family by keeping their well-being and interests in mind). A balanced contract refers to a dynamic and Open-ended employment arrangement contingent Upon the economic success of the organization and “worker Opportunities to develop career advantages” (Rousseau, 2000, p. 4). Employees and employers seek to help each other learn and develop, and employee rewards are performance based. Rousseau Operationalized the balanced l8 dimension by measuring external employability, internal advancement, and dynamic performance. The transactional dimension Of the psychological contract is characterized by employment arrangements that are short-term or for a limited duration. Transaction terms typically focus upon economic exchange, explicit employee duties or responsibilities, and limited employee organizational involvement. TO assess transaction terms of the psychological contract, Rousseau (2000) measured both narrow (i.e., limited set Of duties and involvement) and short-term (i.e., no Obligation to remain with the firm) aspects Of the psychological contract. Finally, transitional terms Of the psychological contract are defined by Rousseau as “not a psychological contract form itself, but a cognitive state reflecting the consequences of organizational change and transitions that are at Odds with a previously established employment arrangement” (p. 4). To measure the transitional terms Rousseau generated scales assessing mistrust, uncertainty, and erosion. Finally, Rousseau concluded the psychological contract inventory by including evaluation-oriented items that seek to globally assess employer and employee fulfillment of the contract as well as global satisfaction and perceptions Of contract responsibility. Another proposed method Of psychological contract asSessment has been suggested by Robinson and Morrison (1997). Specifically, they suggested an identification of specific Obligations or terms pertaining to the content assessment of the psychological contract. This approach calls for the development of scales that measure a variety Of contract terms (i.e. enriched job or competitive compensation). Robinson and Morrison conducted a longitudinal study and 19 began by asking MBA students to list eight things (i.e. Open-ended survey) they felt their organization was obligated tO give them. The Obligations generated were then grouped into categories and further revised and pre-tested by using two more MBA student samples. TO conclude their study, a sample of MBA graduates were used to assess these specific promises and Obligations. Specifically, Robinson and Morrison (1997) asked participants to rate the extent to which their employer implicitly or explicitly promised to provide a variety Of things within the organization. Interestingly, they found the following six themes: sufficient tools and resources, enriched job, good employment relationship, competitive compensation, advancement and development, and performance based rewards. Using exploratory factor analysis, they found that 22 items clustered conceptually under these six factors. The six subscales yielded the following alpha reliabilities: sufficient tools and resources, .89, enriched job, .75, good employment relationship, .80, competitive compensation, .73, advancement and development, .78, and performance based rewards, .87. In addition to measuring employer obligations, they sought to measure employee Obligations as well. Robinson and Morrison found seven factors dealing with employee Obligations: loyal responsibility, involvement, flexibility, positive presence, interpersonal integrity, effort, and intentions to stay. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they were obligated to provide a particular item for their employer. Twenty-three items clustered conceptually under seven factors which yielded the following reliabilities: loyal responsibility = .70, involvement = .72, 20 flexibility = .78, positive presence = .70, interpersonal integrity = .61, effort = .62, and intentions to stay = .67. In reference tO the Robinson and Morrison content assessment, Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1998) claimed that “this approach promises more stable, generalizable measures Of discrete contract terms across populations, an advantage for those researchers interested in specific Obligations such as pay or promotion” (p. 688). Furthermore, Rousseau and Tijoriwala stated that “continued work is needed to Operationalize the content Of the psychological contract in ways that produce generalizable and theoretically sound measures” (p. 688). It is difficult to assess promise violations when the specific promises are undefined. Content assessment allows one to define promises and identify the specific terms or promises of the contract. After the specific promises have been assessed (i.e., content measures), researchers can then assess features Of those promises (i.e., implicit vs. explicit), and violations of those promises (i.e. evaluation measures). This study seeks to develop a content, feature, and evaluation measure to assess blue-collar and white-collar employee perceptions of quality communication and work-life promises. The content measures for quality communication and work-life promises were developed from Ellis’s (2001) focus group findings. The measure to assess the contract feature Of implicit vs. explicit quality communication and work-life promises, were adapted from the work Of Robinson and Morrison (1997). Turnley and Feldman (1999) developed a method for assessing violations. This method was used for assessing 21 perceived quality communication and work-life promise violations. These measures will be described more thoroughly in the following sections. _Q_u_alitv Communication Assessment Using the focus group method, Ellis (2001) explored the promises blue- collar and white-collar employees perceived their employer had made to them about quality communication. The following 11 themes or promises emerged from this study regarding quality communication: open-door policy/access tO supervisor, timely responses, humorous-informal communication, open and honest communication, pleasant communication, team-oriented communication, confidential communication, performance appraisals (i.e., formal performance reviews), mutual feedback, one-on-one communication, and performance feedback (i.e., informal feedback about job performance). This study used these themes as scale items tO assess quality communication promises (See Appendix A). Work-Life Issues Assessment Ellis (2001) also asked blue-collar and white-collar employees to identify promises they perceived their employer had made tO them about work-life issues. Results indicated that promises were made concerning time Off for the death Of a family member or friend, family situations, emergencies, recreation, medical appointments, childcare, matemity/paternity leave, community service, and discretionary flex-time. TO further assess these promises, this study used these promises as scale items to assess employee’s perception Of work-life promises made to them by their employer (See Appendix A). 22 Robinson and Morrison (1997) included the following two items when assessing a variety Of perceived employer promises: (a) feedback on your performance and (b) support with personal problems. However, both Of these items were dropped when they did not load on any Of the following factors: resources, good job, good employment relationship, competitive compensation, advancement and development, and performance based rewards. Although factor analysis revealed that these items did not load on the previously identified factors, these items may actually belong to different factors that were not assessed (i.e. quality communication or work-life issues). Thus, these items were also included in this study’s assessment Of quality communication and work-life promises, respectively. HYPOTHESES 8 RESEARCH QUESTIONS Scale Development One goal Of this study is to develop scale items to assess the extent to which employees perceive their employer has made specific promises tO them about quality communication and work-life issues. To develop the content for the questionnaire items, definitional terms and phrases were adapted from the existing literature to represent the two constructs proposed (Ellis, 2001; Robinson & Morrison, 1997). Appendix A provides scale items that stem from themes Ellis (2001) found when exploring quality communication and work-life promises employees perceived their employer made to them. This study proposes random-ordering all scale items found in Appendix A, however, for ease Of 23 understanding, Appendix A has grouped quality communication items separate from work-life promises. Specifically, this study predicts that H1: Quality communication and work-life issues will form two separate factors consistent with the data. Assessing Workgroup Similarities and Differences This study defines white-collar employees as individuals whose p occupations may be described as professional, managerial, sales and secretarial (Halle, 1987). Although the distinction may be made between upper-white—collar F- employees (i.e., professionals and managers) and lower-white-collar employees (i.e., clerical workers, secretaries, and salespeople), other academic scholars have grouped upper and lower white-collar employees when comparing blue- collar and white-collar employees (Buchholz, 1978; Morris et. al., 1999). However, upper-white-collar employee work “differs in a number Of ways from blue-collar work and, though less so, from lower-white-collar work” (Halle, 1987, p. 187). For example, upper-white-collar work is not typically “supervised” in the same way as factory or secretarial work. In addition, upper-white—collar employees Often have more mobility within an organization than their fellow lower-white-collar and blue-collar workers (Halle, 1987, p. 187). Thus, by grouping upper and lower white-collar employees, group differences may be attenuated. Therefore, the following research questions are proposed: RQI: Are there differences in perception of quality communication and work-life promises for upper-white-collar and lower-white-collar employees? 24 RQ2: Are there differences in perception Of quality communication and work-life violations for upper-white-collar and lower-white-collar employees? The theory Of psychological contracting (Rousseau, 1995) and role theory (Biddle, 1979) provide a theoretical framework for predicting similarities and differences in perception Of promises and promise violations based on work status (i.e., blue-collar and white-collar employees). Specifically, this paper argues that blue-collar and white-collar employees are performing separate and particular roles. Role theory involves studying roles by examining patterns Of behavior that are characteristic of people who play these roles (Biddle, 1979). TO further examine the perceptual patterns Of blue-collar and white-collar employees, this study proposes building on the focus group findings Of Ellis (2001). Ellis found that white-collar employees perceived their employer made more quality communication promises than blue-collar employees. Although organizational communication is likely to occur on a daily basis for both blue- collar and white-collar employees, communication norms and perceived promises may differ for the following reasons: differences in task variety, feedback needs, and autonomy. First, white-collar employees may need more information and communication due to differences in daily task variety. For example, white-collar jobs often involve more job variety (e.g., writing reports, attending meetings, answering phones) and the ability to cope with situations as they arise (e.g., greeting unexpected customers, attending a last minute meeting, giving an extemporaneous report). On the other hand, blue-collar roles Often involve less 25 variety and a more standard routine (e.g., produce 100 widgets per day). The blue-collar standard routine typically does not change on a daily basis, while white-collar tasks may vary significantly from day to day. These job differences between blue-collar and white-collar employees may lead to differences in an employee’s need for communication and information. Specifically, white-collar employees may need more information about the various new tasks they are faced with each day. This may lead white-collar workers tO rely upon communication and information to complete new daily tasks. Blue-collar workers are less likely to face new tasks and thus may need less information and communication. It would be unnecessary for an employer to give the same instructions and information to blue-collar workers everyday, particularly when they are successfully completing the task at hand. Thus, due to differences in task variety for blue-collar and white-collar employees, there may be different communication norms. These communication norms may lead blue-collar workers tO perceive fewer promises about quality communication compared to white-collar employees. Second, the need for performance feedback (i.e., evaluative feedback) may also differ for blue-collar and white-collar employees. Because many blue- collarjobs provide clues about whether or not they are performing their job well (e.g. an employee pushes buttons on a machine and the machine produces the desired product), many blue-collar workers may not rely on feedback from a supervisor as much as white-collar employees. In contrast, white-collar work does not always give an employee information about their performance. For 26 example, a white-collar employee may give a presentation, yet without evaluative feedback from a client or supervisor, the employee may be uncertain whether the presentation was well received and effective. These differences between blue- collar and white-collar work may lead blue-collar employees to perceive fewer communication promises than white-collar employees who rely more heavily on their supervisor to provide feedback about their job performance. Finally, differences in autonomy for blue-collar and white-collar jobs may also produce differences in communication norms and the perception of quality communication promises. Hackman (1979) defined autonomy as “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (p. 5). Blue-collar work is typically supervised and there is less freedom, independence, and the ability to make decisions. In contrast, white- collar work (i.e., particularly upper-white-collar work) is typically not supervised in the same way as blue-collar work. Specifically, white-collar employees are Often given considerable freedom in how they complete tasks. For example, a white- collar employee may be asked to write up a report, yet they Often have the freedom to choose the font size and structure the paper in a way that makes sense to them. Furthermore, a number Of white-collar jobs involve travel (e.g., sales, visiting organizational branches). When employees must travel for their job they Often experience increased amounts Of autonomy because they do not have their supervisor looking over their shoulder periodically throughout the day. However, as autonomy increases, there may also be a greater need for 27 communication between a supervisor and employee. For example, when an employee has been given considerable freedom in completing task, or returns to work after travelling for the company, there is typically a need for the supervisor and employee to discuss the latest happenings, progress, and challenges faced by the employee. This need for communication and information exchange may produce a communication norm for white-collar employees and lead white-collar employees to perceive more communication promises than blue-collar employees. Although perceived promises about quality communication may be different for blue-collar and white-collar employees, other types of promises may be perceived similarly. Role theory provides a framework for not only assessing differences between workgroups, but also similarities in the patterns Of behavior for blue- collar and white-collar employees. Ellis (2001) also found that both blue-collar and white-collar employees were able to recall similar promises regarding work- life issues. Regardless Of workforce status (i.e., blue-collar vs. white-collar employees), employees have various personal issues that will inevitably, at some point in time, interfere with their ability to perform their job or attend work. Both blue-collar and white-collar employees attend funerals, go tO the doctor’s Office, are members Of families, and have emergencies crop up from time to time. These work-life issues are relevant to both blue-collar and white-collar employees and may lead them to perceive promises about work-life issues in a similar manner. This may be a common similarity in the roles blue-collar and white-collar employees play, therefore the following prediction is Offered: 28 H2: Occupational workgroup status will affect the amount Of promises perceived for quality communication (i.e., white-collar employees will perceive more quality communication promises than blue-collar employees), but not for work-life issues. Ellis (2001) found that along with the perception of more quality communication promises, white-collar workers also perceived more negative violations (i.e., received much less than what was promised) of quality communication promises than blue-collar employees. One explanation for this finding would be that as employees perceive more promises, their expectations increase and there is more room for the perception Of a promise violation. On the other hand, if employees (i.e., blue-collar) do not perceive as many promises, there are fewer promises for an employer to break or violate. F urtherrnore, as an employee perceives various promises that are important tO them, these promises may become more salient to them and lead an employee to be more sensitive to minor and major promise violations. White-collar employees may value quality communication promises more than blue-collar employees because they need more evaluative feedback to perform their jobs, while blue-collar employees may rely on other ways of Obtaining evaluative feedback (i.e., machine feedback). The difference in the value employees may place on communication promises may lead to quality communication promises being more salient to white-collar employees than blue-collar employees. Thus, this salience may lead white-collar employees to perceive more quality communication violations than blue-collar employees. 29 In contrast to perception Of quality communication violations, Ellis (2001) did not find either group Of employees (i.e., blue-collar vs. white-collar) reporting violations Of work-life promises. There may be two reasons for this finding. First, work-life issues tend to be emergency-based situations where any employer who has empathy for his or her employees is likely tO allow them time Off tO take care Of the situation. On the other hand, communication promises are not typically tied to emergency situations and thus, employers may place less Of a priority on fulfilling communication promises. Second, it may be easier to fulfill a work/life promise because it Often involves one prominent solution, that is, giving the employee time Off. However, the way in which communication promises are fulfilled may vary significantly (e.g., smile Of encouragement, written note Of praise, words Of instruction and correction). This may be more difficult and time- consuming for employers because it may take more effort and supervisory energy. Thus, the following prediction is Offered: H3: Occupational workgroup status will affect the amount Of negative violations perceived for quality communication (i.e., white-collar employees will perceive more negative communication violations than blue-collar employees) but not work-life issues. Prior psychological contract studies have examined the implicit vs. explicit nature of promises perceived by employees (Robinson & Morrison, 1997, 2000). Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1998) also suggest that there is value in assessing features Of the psychological contract in that it provides general characteristics Of the promises made and an overall description Of the contract. Ellis (2001) 30 examined one feature Of quality communication and work-life promises. Specifically, she asked focus group members to recall if quality communication promises and work-life promises were made directly or indirectly. Ellis found that participants thought that some communication promises were made directly and/or verbally, while others were more indirect and things they learned through Observation. Promises that are made directly vs. indirectly may influence whether or not an employee actually perceives a promise. For example, when promises are made directly, employees may feel more confident that a promise was made, rather, than when indirect promises are made. Indirect promises may lead employees to be more uncertain whether a promise was made and if they can rely on that promise. TO continue exploring this feature Of communication and work-life promises, this study seeks to assess the implicit vs. explicit perception Of promises. Specifically, this study explores if there are differences in whether promises are perceived directly or indirectly based on occupational workgroup. This study seeks to examine if blue-collar employees perceive more direct promises than white-collar employees or vice-a-versa. The answer tO these questions may have many implications for how employers make promises to various groups Of employees (i.e., directly vs. indirectly) and how training and socialization programs are structured. Thus, the following research questions are posed: 31 RQ3: Are there differences in perception Of implicit vs. explicit quality communication and work-life promises for upper-white-collar and lower-white- collar employees? R04: Are there differences in perception Of implicit vs. explicit quality communication and work-life promises for blue-collar and white-collar employees? 32 CHAPTER TWO METHOD Overview Respondents were asked to complete a survey about the psychological contract they have with their employer. They were first asked to indicate the extent to which their employer had made various communication and work-life promises. Next, they were asked tO indicate the extent to which their employer had directly or indirectly made these promises. Finally, participants were asked to indicate the importance and fulfillment of various communication and work-life promises. Demographic information and questions about their work autonomy were also collected, however, no personally identifying information was asked to protect each participant’s confidentiality (See Appendix A). Participants One hundred and sixty-three full-time employees from 30 different organizations volunteered to participate in this study. Eighty-five (52%) were female and 78 (48%) were male. Their ages ranged from 18 to over 60. Twenty- seven (16.6%) were between the ages of 18-23, thirty-six (22.1%) were between the ages Of 24-29, twenty-one (12.9%) were between the ages of 30-34, seventeen (10.4%) were between the ages Of 35-39, twenty-three (14.1%) were between the ages Of 40-44, thirteen (8%) were between the ages Of 45-49, twenty-four (14.7%) were between the ages Of 50-59, and two (1.2%) were 60 plus. Participant tenure ranged from less than one month tO more than twenty years Of work. Six (3.7%) had worked less than 1 month, twenty-three (14.1%) 33 had worked between 2-11 months, forty-eight (29.4%) had worked between 1-3 years, fifty-six (34.4%) had worked between 4-10 years, twenty (12.3%) had worked between 11-20 years, and four (2.5%) had worked for more than 20 years. The overall sample consisted Of forty-five (28%) blue-collar employees, sixty—one (37%) lower white-collar employees, and fifty-five (34%) Upper white- collar employees. Two participants (1%) did not identify their occupational work group status. The majority Of participants were White/Caucasian non Hispanic (91%). Participants belonging to minority groups (i.e., Black/African, Chicano- Mexican American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander) made Up 9% Of the overall sample. Variables The independent variable Of this study was occupational workgroup status (i.e., blue-collar, lower-white-collar, upper-white-collar). These workgroups have been defined in prior sections Of the paper. The dependent variables Of this study include perceived quality communication and work-life promises, perceived quality communication and work-life promise violations, and perceived explicit and implicit quality communication and work-life promises. The following section discusses how these dependent variables were assessed. Instrumentation Qualig Communication Promises. This study assessed perceived quality communication promises by using 10 themes or promises found by Ellis (2001) as scale items, as well as the item included by Robinson and Morrison (1997) 34 regarding feedback on performance. The 11-item scale asked respondents to identify to what extent their employer promised to provide each item using a five- pOint scale ranging from “Not at all” to “TO a great extent” (See Appendix B). Work-Life Promises. Work-Life promises were measured using the nine themes that emerged from Ellis’s (2001) focus group study. These themes or promises were used as scale items to assess the extent to which a participant’s employer has promised to provide each item (i.e. work-life promise). The item used by Robinson and Morrison (1997) assessing “support with personal problems” was also included. Participants used a 5-point scale ranging from “Not at all” to “TO a great extent” (See Appendix B). Violations. Turnley and Feldman (1999) used a multiplicative measure to assess the degree Of psychological contract violation. This study used this same method for assessing violations (See Appendix C). First, participants were asked to indicate the degree Of importance for each item on the quality communication and work-life promises scales by using a scale ranging from 1 (Not important) tO 10 (Extremer important). Respondents then looked at the same items as before, but this time they were asked to consider the amount of each aspect they had actually received compared to the amount that the organization had promised. Responses were made on a scale ranging from —2 (Receive much less than promised) to +2 (Receive much more than promised). The scale’s midpoint was zero indicating the employee had received what was promised. The degree Of psychological contract violation for quality communication and work-life issues was calculated by multiplying the magnitude 35 Of violation for each item by the importance of that same job item. Scores were summed across each factor and a mean was used to assess the psychological contract violation for the content areas of quality communication and work-life issues. Egrplicit vs. Implicit Promis_es_. Robinson and Morrison (1997) asked participants to identify promises that were made explicitly (i.e. either in writing or verbally) or implicitly (i.e., implied, but never stated). This study also assessed implicit and explicit promises, however, the words “indirect vs. direct” were used instead. Ellis (2001) found that focus group participants seemed to prefer the words “indirect” and “direct” rather than “implicit” or “explicit.” Thus, this study asked participants to indicate the extent to which their employer indirectly or directly promised specific items. Responses were made on a scale ranging from 1 (indirectly promised) to 5 (girectlv promis_eg) (See Appendix D). 36 CHAPTER THREE RESULTS Confirmatory Factor Analst Construct validity may be defined as representing interplay between the conceptual definition Of a variable and the operational procedure to measure that construct. Furthermore, “construct validation of a variable operationalized with multiple indicators is accomplished by the analysis of the measurement model" (Hunter 8. Gerbing, 1982, p. 269). Although typically exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used to analyze and estimate the parameters of a measurement model, Hunter and Gerbing argued that EFA Often produces fewer factors than there are underlying variables in the data. EFA tends to place all highly correlated variables into the same factor (Hunter & Gerbing, p. 273). Another problem with EFA is that there is not an “error cluster" or place for bad items. This may lead researchers to continue including items that may ultimately hurt the reliability and validity Of a measure. However, to estimate the parameters Of a measurement model more effectively one may conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Hunter & Gerbing, p. 273). Although confirmatory factor analysis is not sufficient for construct validation, it is an informative first step. Specifically, to evaluate the measurement model for unidimensionality, items Of a unidimensional cluster must pass statistical tests Of internal consistency and parallelism (Hunter & Gerbing). lntemal Consistangr. CFA provides a means to test lntemal consistency or item homogeneity, by examining individual scale items for deviation from a 37 particular factor. It is hypothesized that the items from a Single construct will cluster together in a linear fashion as indicators Of the specified underlying construct. A factor will be considered internally consistent when participants’ responses to one item in the factor are similar to their responses made to the other items hypothesized to be part of that factor. A factor may be considered internally consistent if 5% or less Of the deviations between the predicted and Observed matrix are p=.05. Parallelism. The test for parallelism, is a test Of external consistency. Specifically, parallelism tests relations between items measuring one factor and outside factors. Parallelism tests answer the question, do scale items appear to measure a single construct given how they relate to outside factors? Tests of parallelism are stringent tests set at the p = .05 level Of significance to assess deviations between the Observed and predicted correlation matrices. Tests of parallelism allow one to identify scale items that may demonstrate a significantly varied pattern Of correlation with other measures rather than a “flat” structure as required. CFA Results. CFA was used to test hypothesis one. Specifically, this study used four criteria to determine the quality and dimensionality of the quality communication and work-life scales: face validity, internal consistency, parallelism, and reliability. Support was found for hypothesis one after deleting items that did not pass tests of internal consistency and parallelism (See Table 1). Specifically, items producing errors greater than 0.15 were carefully reviewed. Item one was dropped due to problems with internal consistency. 38 There was one large error and two moderate errors associated with item one. Item two was dropped due to problems with parallelism. Five large errors were associated with item two. Item three was also dropped due to problems with parallelism. This item produced five moderate to large errors. Item four was dropped due to problems with internal consistency. Over three moderate to large errors were associated with item four. Item five was dropped due to problems with parallelism and reliability. Only two moderate errors were associated with item five when testing parallelism, however, the scale reliability increased when this item was dropped. Item six was dropped due to problems with internal consistency and parallelism. Tests of internal consistency yielded three moderate errors, and tests of parallelism showed three moderate to large errors. Furthermore, alpha reliability increased by dropping this item. Items seven and eight were dropped due to problems with parallelism. Three large errors were associated with item seven, and seven moderate to large errors were associated with item eight when testing for parallelism. Quality communication and work-life issues were found to form two separate factors. Table 2 provides all scale items retained for this study, their factor loading and descriptive statistics. A valid set Of indicators was Obtained for both the factors of quality communication and work-life issues. Retained quality communication scale items yielded an alpha reliability Of .89, while items for the work-life scale produced an alpha reliability Of .84. All scale means are on a scale from one to five. 39 Preliminapj Analyses The remaining research questions and hypotheses were tested by using the statistical program SPSS. Research question one asked if there are differences in perception Of quality communication and work-life promises for upper-white-collar and lower-white-collar employees. A t-test showed that there was no significant difference for perceived communication promises between lower-white-collar (M=3.83, _SQ=0.76) and Upper-white-collar (M=3.75, S_D,=0.95) employees t(1,114)= .55, pa. When examining perceived work-life promises there was also no significant difference between the two groups Of employees. Specifically, a t-test revealed there was no significant difference between lower- white-collar (M=4.15, _S_D_=.837) and upper-white-collar (_M=4.29, _S_Q=.895) employees t(1,114) = -.866, g. Research question two asked if there are differences in perception of quality communication and work-life promise violations for Upper-white-collar and lower-white-collar employees. Again, the data suggest there are no significant differences between lower-white-collar and Upper-white-collar employees perception Of quality communication and work-life promise violations. Specifically, a t-test revealed that there was no significant difference for perceived communication promise violations between lower-white-collar (M=5.36, _SQ=7.30) and upper-white-collar (_lI_/I_=5.36, §Q=6.59) employees t(1,113) = 0.001, g. Furthermore, when examining perceived work-life violations there was no significant difference between lower-white-collar (_M=8.62, fl=7.58) and upper- white-collar (M=8.4, _S_Q=6.65) employees 1(1 ,1 10) = .173, n_s. 40 Research question three asked if there are differences in perception Of implicit vs. explicit quality communication and work-life promises for upper- and lower—white-collar employees. Again there were nO significant differences found for upper and lower white-collar employees. A t-test revealed that lower-white- collar employees (M=3.47, §Q=.926) did not perceived quality communication promises more directly than upper-white—collar employees (M=3.40, S_D=1.01) t(1,112)= .392, @. Furthermore, when considering work life promises, a t-test revealed that lower-white-collar employees (M=3.74, §Q=1.01) did not perceive promises more directly than upper-white-collar employees (M=3.86, S_D=1.27) t(1,111)= -.55, pa. In sum, these preliminary analyses suggest that it is acceptable tO aggregate across upper and lower white-collar employees because there is no difference between these groups. Subsequent analyses will therefore combine these two white-collar groups. Assessing Blue-Collar and White-Collar Differences Perceived promises were analyzed in a work status (blue-collar vs. white- collar) x promise issue (quality communication vs. work-life issues) mixed factorial ANOVA, with the latter factor being a repeated measure. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. The analysis revealed a main effect indicating that participants perceived more work-life promises (M=4.25, §Q=0.80) than communication promises (M=3.62, §Q=0.90), E_(1,159) = 147.70, p<.0001, r]2 = .15. Furthermore, a significant interaction effect Of status by promise was found E(1,159) = 32.61, p< .0001, n2 = .03, providing support for hypothesis two.1 When looking Specifically at work status, a simple effect revealed that white- 41 collar employees (M=3.79, _S_D=.856) perceived more quality communication promises than blue-collar employees (M=3.16, §_Q=.84) E(1,159) = 18.89, p< .001, n2 = .10. In contrast, a simple effect revealed that there was no significant difference Of perceived work-life promises for white-collar employees (M=4.22, §_Q=.86) and blue-collar employees (M=4.33, §Q=.601) E(1,159) = 0.70, g. Thus providing support for hypothesis two, the data suggest that work status (i.e., blue-collar vs. white-collar) affects the amount Of promise perceived for quality communication, but not for work-life issues (See Figure 1). Hypothesis 3 predicted that work status would affect the amount Of negative violations perceived for quality communication, but not for work-life issues. Perceived promise violations were analyzed in a work status (blue-collar vs. white-collar) x promise issue (quality communication vs. work-life issues) mixed factorial ANOVA, with the latter factor being a repeated measure. The analysis revealed a main effect suggesting that participants’ perceived more work-life violations (M_=8.12, S_D=7.19) than communication violations (M=4.09, S_D=7.02), _E(1,153) = 62.39, p<.0001, n2 = .08. In addition, a significant interaction effect Of work status by promise type was found _E(1,153) = 6.97, p< .009, r12 = .01. Although the data revealed a significant interaction effect, it was not the interaction predicted in hypothesis 3 (See Figure 2). An examination Of the overall means suggest that participants’ reported overall positive violations rather than negative violations (i.e., violations were scored with positive numbers indicating positive violations and negative numbers indicating negative violations with a possible range Of —20 to +20). Quality communication violations ranged 42 from -15.78 to 20.00, and work-life violations ranged from —15.00 to 20.00. One- sample t-tests were conducted to examine if the positive violation scores were significantly above zero. T-tests revealed that both quality communication violation ratings t(1,159)=7.4, p<.0001, and work-life violation ratings 1(1 ,156)=14.15, p<.0001, were significantly above zero, indicating a positive violation (i.e., scores Of zero would indicate that employees were receiving what was promised). Specifically, a simple effect revealed that white-collar (M=5.36, §Q=6.93) employees perceived more positive communication violations than blue-collar (M=0.78, S_D=6.19) employees E(1,153) = 13.59, p<.001, n2 = .09. However, when considering perceived work-life violations, a simple effect revealed no significant difference between white-collar (M=8.51, §Q=7.11) employees and blue-collar (M=7.10, S_D=738) employees _F_(1,153) = 1.29, pa. Research question four asked if there were differences in perception of implicit versus explicit quality communication and work-life promises for white- collar and blue-collar employees. Perceived promise directions (1=gi_di_ra_cj, 5=dir_ect_) were analyzed in a work status (blue-collar vs. white-collar) x promise issue (quality communication vs. work-life issues) mixed factorial ANOVA, with the latter factor being a repeated measure. The analysis revealed a main effect of promise demonstrating that work-life promises (_M=3.88, _S_Q=1.06) were perceived more directly than communication promises (M=3.36, S_D=0.94), E(1,153) =51.87, p<.0001, r]2 = .07. Furthermore, a Significant interaction of work status by promise was found _F_(2,153) = 7.16, p< .001, n2 = .01 (See Figure 3). However, simple effects revealed nO significant differences between the work 43 groups for promise direction (i.e., direct vs. indirect promises). Specifically, simple effect analyses revealed there were no significant differences in the direction communication promises were perceived for white-collar employees (_M_=3.4, §_Q=0.96) and blue-collar (M=3.14, _SQ=.839) employees _E(1,154) = 2.81, pa. Furthermore, there was no significant difference for direction Of work- life promises between work groups. A simple effect revealed no significant difference in the direction that work-life promises were perceived for white-collar (M=3.79, §Q=1.14) and blue-collar (M=4.12, §Q=0.77) employees 50,154) = 3.39, [E- Although no significant differences for perceived directness Of promises were found between work groups, a simple effect revealed that blue-collar employees perceived that work-life (M=4.13, S_D=0.77) promises were made more directly than quality communication (M=3.14, S_D=0.84) promises, _E(1,154)= 21.11, p<.001, n2=.02. Furthermore, a simple effect also revealed that white-collar employees perceived that work-life (M=3.79, S_D=1.14) promises were made more directly than quality communication (_M=3.44, _S_D_=0.96) promises, fi(1,154)=6.92, p<.05, n2=.002. 44 CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION Spaiagevelopment This study found support for hypothesis one which provides a starting point for assessing promises employees perceive their employer has made to them about quality communication and work-life issues. Quality communication and work-life issues formed two separate factors consistent with the data. These two scales provide researchers with relatively valid and reliable methods for assessing perceived promises Of quality communication (alpha = .89) and work- life issues (alpha = .84). A major strength of the assessment measure used in this study is that the items were grounded in a prior focus group study which asked participants to identify quality communication and work-life promises that were made to them by their employer (Ellis, 2001). Thus, these scale items were developed using the words of full-time employees (e.g., direct vs. Indirect promises rather than explicit vs. implicit). Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1998) encouraged scholars to develop appropriate measurement tools for assessing the content, features, and violations Of employee psychological contracts. This study makes a contribution to psychological contract research by developing a content assessment for quality communication and work-life promises. Furthermore, these scale items were also used to assess promise features (i.e., indirect vs. direct), as well as perceived promise violations. 45 However, it is important to note that over half Of the potential work-life scale items were dropped. The remaining items seemed to deal more specifically with short-term work-life issues (e.g., time Off for a funeral, emergencies, doctor appointments) rather than long-term work-life issues (e.g., matemity/paternity leave, flexibility with childcare). This may suggest that there are many dimensions to work-life issues such as childcare/parenting issues, commuting/location issues, personal activities and recreation issues, and elder care/family issues. Future research should explore other dimensions tO work-life issues and seek to develop appropriate measurement tools for assessing these various issues. Workgroup Differences and Similarities Another overriding contribution of this study is the inclusion Of blue-collar employees in the sample. Traditionally, psychological contracts have been studied from a white-collar or student perspective (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999; Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994; Robinson 8 Morrison, 2000; Turnley & Feldman, 1999, 2000), yet the workforce consists Of both blue-collar and white- collar employees. Blue-collar occupations account for at least 32% Of the workforce, while Upper-white-collar and lower-white-collar occupations account for 22% respectively. Twenty-four percent Of the workforce is identified as “other” (Halle, 1987). Support was found for hypothesis two which states that occupational workgroup status will affect the amount of promises perceived for quality communication (i.e., white-collar employees will perceive more communication promises than blue-collar employees), but not for work-life 46 issues. This demonstrates that blue-collar'employees may not always perceive promises to the same extent as white-collar employees. These work group differences may be a result Of job differences (i.e., differences in task variety and feedback needs) and levels of autonomy. First, as argued previously, white-collar employees may perceive more communication promises clue to higher levels Of task variety (e.g., writing reports, attending meetings, answering phones). Typically, the blue-collar job involves a more standard routine with less variability than a white-collar job where tasks may vary significantly from day to day. These job differences may lead white- collar employees to rely more heavily Upon information and communication to assist them in task completion, while blue-collar employees may not need as much daily information and communication because there is less variability in their job tasks. Specifically, white-collar reliance upon information and communication to successfully complete a variety of tasks may lead them to perceive more promises related to communication. Second, the need for performance feedback may also differ for blue-collar and white-collar employees due to the nature Of theirjobs. This difference between blue-collar and white-collar employees may also lead white-collar employees to perceive more communication promises than blue-collar employees. For example, many blue-collar tasks provide immediate evaluative feedback (i.e., an employee pushes buttons on a machine and the machine produces the desired product), while white-collar work does not always provide employees with information about their performance (e.g., giving a presentation, 47 writing a report, reading extensive company documents). This lack Of evaluative feedback may lead white-collar employees to seek out feedback from a supervisor in order tO successfully perform their job and make improvements when necessary. In sum, these differences between blue-collar and white-collar work may also lead white-collar employees to perceive more quality communication promises than blue-collar employees. Finally, differences in autonomy for blue-collar and white-collar work may also produce differences in communication norms and the perception Of quality communication promises. Levels Of autonomy, or the “degree tO which the jOb provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion tO the individual in scheduling work and in determining the procedures to be used in canying it out” (Hackman, 1979, p. 5), are Often higher for white-collar employees than for blue- collar employees. Blue-collar work is Often supervised carefully and there is less freedom, independence, and decision-making leeway. On the other hand, white- collar work is typically not supervised in the same way as blue-collar work. This study also included three items from the job design inventory assessing autonomy levels (Hackman, 1979). The three items produced an alpha reliability of .72. Post boo-analysis found there was no significant difference for autonomy between blue-collar (M=15.12, S_D=3.69) and white-collar (M=15.32, _SQ=3.84) employees 1(1 ,130)= -.262, n_s_. Thus, autonomy did not mediate the relationship between occupational work status and perceived quality communication promises. 48 Although autonomy was not found to mediate the relationship between occupational work status and perceived quality communication promises, different levels Of autonomy for employees may influence their perception Of quality communication promises. As autonomy increases there may be a greater need for employees tO communicate and exchange information with an employer. This need for information exchange may lead to the establishment of communication norms for employees and lead them to perceive more communication promises. Post-hoc analyses revealed autonomy was positively correlated with perceived quality communication promises [(1,134) =.18, p<.05), indicating that as autonomy increased, the perception of quality communication promises also increased. There was also an effect of autonomy on perceived quality communication promises E(1,132) = 4.43, p<.04, n2=.002. In sum, occupational work status and autonomy may be two independent predictors of the quality communication promises employees perceive, yet there may be other predictors that affect the promises employees perceive. These findings have many implications for future research and the search for other variables which may predict the perception Of promises or mediate the relationship between occupational work status and perceived quality communication promises. The support found for hypothesis two also has many implications for future use Of the theoretical framework Of Rousseau's (1995) contracting theory and role theory (Biddle, 1979). First, this study may be a starting point for identifying external factors (Rousseau, 1995) that influence employees’ perception Of promises and the creation Of a psychological contract. Specifically, this study 49 found that white-collar employees perceived more quality communication promises than blue-collar employees, yet there were no significant differences between occupational groups for perceived work-life promises. These results demonstrate the importance Of identifying the various content areas Of the psychological contract when examining external factors that may influence the perception Of promises. One potential problem with using Rousseau’s (1995) theoretical model is that it is generic and does not identify specific aspects Of the psychological contract (e.g., quality communication promises, promises Of compensation and benefits, training and advancement) or specific external variables (e.g., levels Of autonomy, education, sex, power) that may or may not influence various areas Of the contract for different groups Of employees (e.g., blue-collar vs. white-collar, volunteers vs. paid staff). Support for hypothesis two in this study suggests the importance of specificity for future psychological contract research because differences were found for blue-collar and white-collar employees when examining perceived promises Of communication, while no differences were found when looking at perceive work-life promises. A theory that specified conditions or variable that may influence the perception Of promises would be helpful in better understanding how psychological contracts are created and developed. Second, support for hypothesis two augments the utility Of role theory. Role theory provides a framework for examining similarities and differences in perception Of promises based on various roles people play. This study found both differences in perception Of promise (i.e., quality 50 communication promises), as well as Similarities (i.e., work-life promises) based on one’s occupational workgroup status. Although this study did not find support for hypothesis three which predicts that occupational workgroup status will affect the amount of negative violations perceived for quality communication but not work-life issues, differences and similarities still emerged for blue—collar and white-collar employees. Again, this provides evidence of role theory’s utility. The data showed that white-collar employees perceived more m communication violations than blue-collar employees. However, no significant differences were found between blue-collar and white-collar employee’s perception Of work-life promise violations. These differences and Similarities between occupational workgroups have two implications for the workplace and employee psychological contracts. The first implication deals with examining ways employers can positively violate promises Of quality communication for blue-collar employees? Second, this study did not assess various outcomes, however, employers must ask, what are the benefits or detriments of positively violating quality communication and work-life promises for blue-collar and white-collar employees. The issue Of positive violations will be further discussed in a later section. Research questions one, two, and three extended the examination of occupational workgroup similarities and differences by asking if it is important to differentiate between lower-white-collar and Upper-white-collar employees. Arguments can be made about the similarities between blue-collar and lower- white-collar employees (i.e., hourly compensation, decreased autonomy), yet this 51 study found that there were no significant differences in the study results by grouping upper and lower white-collar employees. Specifically, the data did not reveal significant differences between lower-white-collar and upper-white-collar employees for perception Of quality communication and work-life promises, promise violations, and whether they perceived these promises were made directly or indirectly. One reason there may have been no significant difference between upper and lower white-collar employees for promises of quality communication is that both Upper and lower white-collar employees may rely on an employer to give them information about new tasks and feedback on their performance. For example, a salesperson (i.e., lower-white-collar) may need to communicate with a supervisor about the new product slhe must sell, as much as an executive (i.e., upper-white-collar) needs to discuss the latest decisions slhe made with the President of the organization. Although both employees are discussing different issues, they both rely upon the communication tO perform their job successfully. Another contribution of this study is the exploration of direct vs. indirect promises. Interestingly, both blue-collar and white-collar employees perceived work-life promises more directly than quality communication promises. These findings may be explained in the following way. First, both blue-collar and white- collar employees reported perceiving more work-life promises than quality communication promises. When later asked if these promises were made directly or indirectly, both employee groups reported work-life promises as being more direct than communication promises. Thus, employees may be more likely 52 tO perceive a promise when it is made directly rather than indirectly. Post-hoc analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between direct and indirect promises and the perception Of promises. Direct quality communication promises were positively related to the perception Of quality communication promises (_r=.58, p<.0001), and direct work-life promises were positively related to the perception Of work-life promises (F67, p<.0001). In other words, direct promises were associated with higher levels Of perceived promises, while indirect promises were associated with lower levels of perceived promises. One implication this finding has for employers is that if employers want tO make a promise that employees understand, they need to be direct and clear rather than use indirect methods. _Th_egpestian Of Positive Violations Other psychological contract studies have considered negative contract violations and undesirable outcomes (Martin, Staines & Pate, 1998; Turnley & Feldman, 1999, 2000), yet this study raises a different question. Overall, participants in this study did not report traditional, negative promise violations. Rather, the data suggest that employees perceive that employers are giving more than what was promised with regard to quality communication and work-life issues. This study used the same tool for assessing violations as in the Turnley and Feldman (1999) study. However, participants in the Turnley and Feldman study reported an overall negative violation rating for their employee psychological contract. Differences between this study and the Turnley and Feldman study may have occurred for several reasons. First, Turnley and 53 Feldman assessed other content areas Of the psychological contract (i.e., salary, advancement opportunities, job security), while the present study only assessed the content areas of quality communication and work-life issues. Employers may find it easier to positively violate or exceed promises related to quality communication and work-life issues. For example, a supervisor may give an employee two days Off work rather than one day Off work. Promises of communication such as communicating pleasantly or informally may also be exceeded by briefly stopping by an employee’s Office once a week and telling them “great job keep up the good work.” On the other hand, it may be more difficult to provide advancement opportunities that exceed ones that are promised. If an employee is promised that they may pursue their graduate education by taking one course a semester, the organization may not have the means to pay for two courses. Second, participants in the Turnley and Feldman (1999) sample consisted Of a number Of employees who were working for either a bank that had recently experienced widespread layoffs, or a state agency that had been significantly restructured and reorganized during the past two years. These major events may have led employees tO perceive more negative psychological contract violations, leading to the different results found in the Turnley and Feldman study and the present research effort. Turnley and Feldman also noted that for participants who had not undergone these major organizational events, their reported violations were modest. Thus, they encouraged the use of broad sampling in future research since there are various degrees Of psychological contract violations. Future research must consider the 54 implications Of positive violations upon the psychological contract. If employers positively violate the employee psychological contract, does this lead to a shift in employee reciprocal Obligations? When employee’s feel their employer has given more than what was promised, employees may then feel that they owe their employer more tO compensate for this show Of “goodwill.” Furthermore, employees may experience guilt if they do not reciprocate by going above and beyond the call Of duty. Future research should also consider how positive violations may lead to a variety of positive (e.g., stronger relationship with one’s supervisor, increased feelings Of organizational support, reduced likelihood Of employee turnover) or negative outcomes (e.g., increased employee feelings Of Obligation or guilt). Specifically, future studies should consider the impact Of positive violations upon various short-term (e.g., immediate feeling of Obligation, guilt, or satisfaction) and long-term (e.g., organizational citizenship, LMX relationship, turnover) outcomes. Managerial and Organizational Applications This study has many practical applications for managers and organizations. First, this study generated valid and reliable scales for assessing perceived employee promises about quality communication and work-life issues. Due to the perceptual nature Of these promises, many employers are unaware Of what employees perceive their employer is obligated to provide them. Furthermore, by identifying these perceived employee promises, managers and employers can make efforts to positively violate promises, while taking measures to avoid negative violations. This may lead to various desirable outcomes in the 55 employee-employer relationship (e.g., strong relationship between employee and supervisor, increased communication), as well as, provide another means for reducing turnover and increasing employee job satisfaction, productivity, and organizational citizenship. Study Limitations and Future Research Although this study used a larger and more diverse sample than the previous psychological contract study examining promises Of quality communication and work-life issues (Ellis, 2001), there are still areas where future research can improve. Because all the data were collected through the use Of employee self-reports, the most significant limitation Of this study is the threat Of common method variance. Future research must consider this problem by designing longitudinal studies or collecting data from multiple sources (e.g., supervisor or peer ratings). Efforts should also be made to Obtain a more diverse sample. The present study participants were predominantly White/Caucasian, with a small percentage Of participants’ from minority groups. As the workforce continues to diversity, to achieve representative samples, fUture research must place an emphasis upon recruiting more minority group participants. Future research should also consider other employee workgroups that may influence employee perception Of promises and promise violations (e.g., volunteers vs. paid staff). This is important for employers because if organizations spend time trying to avoid negative violations and go above and beyond to positively violate employee psychological contracts, it is crucial to identify the promises that are most important tO employees. For example, using 56 the findings from the present study, an organization that consists Of both blue- collar and white-collar employees, may need to formulate different strategies for these different workgroups. Otherwise, positive outcomes may result for one group, but not the other. Thus, future research should identify other types Of workgroups or individual differences that may influence the perception Of promises and promise violations. Another area for future research involves examining how and where promises are perceived, as well as, how psychological contracts may change over time. Ellis (2001) found some evidence that employees perceive that many promises Of quality communication and work-life issues are made during the employment interview, throughout training, and during the first few month on the job. However, scholars must ask more questions concerning when employees perceive promises. The answer to this question has many implications for the interview situation, training, and socialization. Furthermore, questions concerning what happens when an employee’s supervisor leaves, Should also be addressed. DO the promises made by the former supervisor still stand or is there a new contract that develops? These questions provide direction for future research as scholars continue to examine various aspects Of the psychological contract. Finally, this study provides a foundation for future research tO consider two new areas Of the psychological contract: quality communication and work-life issues. Specifically, this effort extends the prior Ellis (2001) focus group study by Obtaining a larger and more organizationally diverse sample size. This study further validates many Of the findings from the prior Ellis study (i.e., differences in 57 perception of quality communication promises for blue-collar and white-collar employees and no differences in perception Of work-life promises), yet also reveals the issue Of positive violations. Little is known about how these promises are made, the implications Of these types Of negative and positive violations, or the development of these types Of promises over time. As today’s changing organization seeks to climb upward, issues Of quality communication and work- life may be critical for developing the employer-employee relationship and reaching organizational goals. 58 REFERENCES 59 REFERENCES Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic Press. Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966). Role theory: Cowts ang research. New York: Wiley. Buchholz, R. A. (1978). An empirical study Of contemporary beliefs about work in American society. Journal Of Applied Psychologv. 63 (_2_), 219-227. Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). The promise and practice Of the new career and social contract: Illusions exposed and suggestions for reform. In P. M. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational & managerial communication from feminist perspectives. Sage Publications Inc. Caplow, T. (1954). Sociolomr of Work. Minneapolis, MN: University Of Minnesota Press. Cavanaugh, M. A. & Noe, R. A. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relational components Of the new psychological contract. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, &, 323-340. Ellis, J. B. (2001). Psychological contracts: Promises of QM communication and work-life issge_s_. Michigan State University. Unpublished manuscript. Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A. & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, _79, 617-626. 60 Hackman, J. R. & Lee, M. D. (1979). Redesigning work: A strategy for _ch_apga. Scarsdale, NY: Work in America Institute, Inc. Halle, D. (1987). America’s workinmn: Work, home. and pOlitics among blue-collar property owners. Chicago, IL: The University Chicago Press. Hope, A., Kelleher, C., & O’Connor, M. (1999). Lifestyle and cancer: The relative effects Of a workplace health promotion program across gender and social class. American Journal of Health Promotions, 13 (6), 315-318. Hunter, J. E. & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Resaarch in Organizational Behavior; Vol. 4. (pp. 267-320). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kanter, RM. (1993). Men and women Of tha corporation. New York: BasicBOOks, A Division Of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A res_earcher’s haflbook (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kirchler, E. (1998). Differential representations Of taxes: Analysis Of free associations and judgments Of five employment groups. Journal Of Socio- Economics, 27(1) , 117-131. Larwood, L., Wright, T. A., Desrochers, S., & Dahir, V. (1998). Extending latent role and psychological contract theories to predict intent to turnover and politics in business organizations. Group and Organization Management, _2_3_, 100-123. 61 Liazos, A. (1985). Sociolpgip A liberating perspective. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Lobel, S. A., Googins, B. K., 8 Bankert, E. (1999). The future Of work and family: critical trends for policy, practice, and research. Human Resource Management, 38 (3), 243-254. Martin, G., Staines, H., 8 Pate, J. (1998). Linking job security and career development in a new psychological contract. Human Resource Management m1, 8(3), 20-40. Morris, W.R., Conrad, K. M., Marcantonio, R. J., Marks, B. A., 8 Ribisl, K. M. (1999). DO blue-collar‘workers perceived the worksite health climate differently than white-collar workers? American Journal Of Haalth Promptjon. 13 (6) , 319- 324. Nicholson, N. 8 Johns, G. (1985). The absence culture and the psychological contract—Who’s in control Of absence? Academy Of Management Review, 1_0, 397-407. Parks, M. J. 8 Schmedemann, D. A. (1994). When promises become contracts: Implied contracts and handbook provisions on job security. Hagar; Resource Management, a, 403-423. Porter, L. W., Pearce, J. L., Tripoli, A. M. 8 Lewis, K. M. (1998). Differential perceptions Of employers’ inducements: implications for psychological contracts. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, fl, 769-782. 62 Robinson, 8. L. (1996). Trust and breach Of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, fl, 574-599. Robinson, 8. L., Kraatz, M. S., Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing Obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy Of Management _Jo_ur_na_l,_1fl,137-152. Robinson, S. L. 8 Morrison, E. W. (1997). Thfllevelopment Of psycholpgical contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. New York University. Unpublished manuscript. Robinson, S. L. 8 Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development Of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525-546. Robinson, S. L. 8 Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, _1_5, 245-249. Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions Of their own and their employer's Obligations: A study Of psychological contracts. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, _1_1_, 389-400. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. London: Sage Publications. Rousseau, D. M. (2000) Psycholpgical contract invantorv: Tachnicaj EM- Heinz School Of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. 63 Rousseau, D. M. 8 Anton, R. J. (1991). Fairness and implied contract obligations in job terminations: The role of contributions, promises, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, _1_2, 287-299. Rousseau, D. M. 8 Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, fl, 679-695. Shore, L. M. 8 Barksdale, K. (1998). Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment relationship: a social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, _1_9_, 731-744. Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence” objectively determined and measured. Ameriaan Joarpal of Psychology, 15, 201-293. Spencer, C. (1977). Blu_e_Collar: An internal examination m workplace. Chicago, IL: Lakeside Charter Books. Thomas, H. D. C. 8 Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers' psychological contracts during organizational socialization: a study of recruits entering the British Army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, fl, 745-767. Turnley, W. H. 8 Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Hymn Relations. _5_2_, 895- 922. Turnley, W. H. 8 Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational @avior, 2_1, 25-42. 64 Wipper, A. (1994). The name of the game: Occupational status among professional riders. In A. Wipper (Eds), The Siociology of work: Papers in honogr of Oswald Hall (pp. 112-131). Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press. Wright, I., Bengtsson, C., Frankenberg, K. (1994). Aspects of psychological work environment and health among male and female white-collar and blue-collar workers in a big Swedish industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 177-183. 65 FOOTNOTE 1To address the issue of unequal sample sizes (see Keppel, 1991), participant data was randomly discarded so that the same number of subjects was represented in each of the cell conditions for this analysis as well as the following analyses. However, equalizing the cell size did not change the reported findings. Thus, the decision was made not to discard participant data. 66 Table 1 Dropped Scale Items Due to Problems With Internal Consistency or Parallelism Factor Loading ual' Communication Promises 1. Regular performance appraisals (i.e., formal evaluations) .29“ 2. The opportunities for mutual feedback (e.g., l evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) .40** Work-Life Promises 3. Time Off work for recreational purposes .49" 4. Time off work for community service endeavors .69“ 5. The opportunity to use flex-timelcomp-time for personal reasons .33” 6. Flexibility with childcare .60“ 7. Matemity/Paternity leave .49** 8. Support with personal problems .63" * Item dropped because of a problem with internal consistency ** Item dropped because of a problem with parallelism 67 Table 2 Retained scale itams. actor loadings. angaescriptive statistics Factor Loading Qualig Communication Promises (M=3.62, fl=0.90, a=.89) Open-door policy or access to my supervisor .61 Timely responses to my questions and inquiries .68 Communication that is humorous and informal at work .50 Open and honest communication at work .79 Pleasant communication at work .81 Team-oriented communication .75 Confidential communication (e.g., I trust my supervisor .75 not to share what I say in confidence with other org. members) One-on-one communication with my supervisor .71 Feedback on my performance (i.e., informal feedback) .69 yvark-LifaPromisas 04:425. S_D=0.80, a=.84) Time off work for the death of a family member of close friend .56 Time off work for family situations .70 Time Off work for emergencies that arise .76 Time off work for medical appointments (e.g., doctor, dentist) .55 68 Figure 1 + Blue-Collar - "White-Collar Quality Communication Work-Life Issues 69 Figure 2 + Blue-Calla l' - -White-Congl carousel-exam»: Com Violations Work-Life Violations 70 Figure 3 + Blue-Collar - -White-Collar Direct Com Prom Direct W-L Prom 71 APPENDIX A 72 APPENDIX A Survey Instrument Promises can be defined as an understanding you have with your employer about various issues. These promises or the understanding you have with your employer may be directly stated (i.e., verbal or written promise) or it may be more indirect (i.e., implied but never stated). Keep in mind that what you would like your employer to provide or what you feel they should provide is not the focus here. Instead, focus on what they have promised to provide. For the statements below, _please indicate the extent to which your employer promised you each of the following. 10. 11. 12. Open-door policy or access to my supervisor Timely responses to my questions and inquiries Time off work for the death of a family member or close friend Communication that is humorous and informal at work Time off work for family situations Time off work for emergencies that arise Open and honest communication at work Pleasant communication at work Team-Oriented communication at work Time off work for recreational purposes Time Off work for medical appointments (e.g. doctor, dentist) Confidential communication (e.g. I trust my supervisor not to share what I say in confidence with other organizational members) 73 |..L |_s |_s |=\ |_x [.3 |_s |...s [—3 |_x IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN me; we Promised 100 I0.) IOO Io: l0) I00 Io: I00 I00 I00 l0) IO.) IA lb I-h. l-b lab I-h I-h l-h» l-b l-h IA I-h Em! m 1.9.! find em: 5 5 I01 I01 I01 I01 101 I01 IU'I IUI IO‘I I01 13. Time off work for community service 1 a 3 1 endeavors 14. The opportunity to use flex-time or comp- 1 a § 1 time for personal reasons 15. Regular performance appraisals (i.e. formal 1 _2_ _3_ 1 evaluations) 16. Flexibility with childcare 1 2 § 1 17. The opportunities for mutual feedback (e.g. l 1 a Q 1 evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) 18. One-on-one communication with my 1 a 1 supervisor 19. Maternity/Paternity leave 1 g a 1 20. Feedback on my performance (i.e., informal 1 g 3 1 feedback) 21. Support with personal problems 1 _2_ _3 1 E. Direct and Indirect Promises ‘ I Please indicate the extent to which your employer directly or indirectly promised you each of the following Indicate your responses by circling the number that best represents each promise using the scale below. Lnrllnm Ill—mil! fl!!! Emile! Emlm Anal! 3121! 22. Open-door policy or access to my 1 2 § 1 § NA supervisor 23. Timely responses to my questions and 1 a 3_ 1 5 MA inquiries PM |_x 24. Time off work for the death of a family member or close friend 25. Communication that is humorous and informal at work 26. Time off work for family situations M I-3 I—‘ IN IN l0) loo IA IA 101 I01 Z > [—3 IN loo IA I01 3 > 27. Time off work for emergencies that arise |_x IN loo IA 101 Z > 28. Open and honest communication at work |_s IN loo IA IU'I Z ) 29. Pleasant communication at work 74 101 101 10'! 10'! IO! 101 101 IUI IU'I 30. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. Team-Oriented communication at work Time off work for recreational purposes Time off work for medical appointments (e.g. doctor, dentist) Confidential communication (e.g. I trust my supervisor not to share what I say in confidence with other organizational members) Time Off work for community service endeavors The opportunity to use flex-time or comp-time for personal reasons Regular performance appraisals (i.e. formal evaluations) Flexibility with childcare The opportunities for mutual feedback (e.g. l evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) One-on-one communication with my supervisor Maternity/Paternity leave Feedback on my performance (i.e., informal feedback) Support with personal problems 75 [—5 |_s I—L [—3 [.3 |_L |_s |_s |_s [—1. |_s |_s |=.\. IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN 100 I00 loo IO) 10) I0) l0) It») It» 109 100 103 IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA 101 I01 I01 I01 IO'I I01 I01 I01 I01 101 I01 14./A MA .NLA MA MA MA It}. Perceptions 8 Feelings About Your Job and the Organizationl This section asks you to consider your feelings about your job and the organization you work for. Please use the scale below to answer the following questions. fittest 8221a! Stone: us I! As!!! I! AIM! Plum Arum sable Diana: 43. My organization cares about my opinions _1_ _2 _3_ 4 5 24./A 44. My organization really cares about my 1 2 3 4 5 MA well-being T T T T T 45. If a good friend of mine told me that they 1 2 3 4 5 MA were interested in a job like mine I would T T T T T strongly recommend it. 46. My organization strongly considers my 1 2 3 4 5 M goals and values T T T T T 47. All in all, I am very satisfied with my 1 2 3 4 5 N/A current job T T T T T 48. Help is available from my organization 1 2 3 4 5 him when I have a problem T T T T T 49. In general my job measures up to the sort 1 2 3 4 5 MI of job I wanted when I took it T T T T T 50. My organization would forgive an honest 1 2 3 4 5 m6. mistake on my part T T T T T 51. If given the opportunity, my organization 1 2 3 4 5 MI. would take advantage of me T T T T T 52. Knowing what I know now, if I had to 1 2 3 4 5 _NA decide all over again whether to take my T T T T T job, I would 53. My organization shows very little concern 1 2 3 4 5 N/A for me T T T 54. My organization is willing to help me if I 1 2 3 4 _5_ N/A need a special favor 76 The following questions ask you to consider your exmriences with your current supervisor. Please check the response that most closely represents your experiences with your current supervisor. 55. 56. 57. 58. Do you usually feel that you know where you stand...do you usually know how satisfied your immediate supervisor is with what you do? Always know where I stand Seldom know where I stand Usually know where I stand Never know where I stand How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor understands your problems and needs? Completely Some but not enough Well enough Not at all How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor recognizes your potential? Fully Some but not enough AS much as the next person Not at all Regardless of how much formal authority your immediate supervisor has built into his/her position, what are the chances that he/she would be personally inclined to use power to help you solve problems in your work? Certainly would Might or might not Probably would No chances 77 59. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your immediate supervisor has, to what extent can you count on him or her to “ball you out” at his/her expense when you really need it? Certainly would Might or might not Probably would No chances 60. l have enough confidence in my immediate supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so. Certainly would Maybe Probably would Probably not 61. How would you characterize your working relationship with your immediate supervisor? Extremely effective About average Better than average Less than average The next section asks you to consider your job and the work that you do. Please use the scales below to respond to the following questions. Circle the number that best represents your feelings. 62. How much autonomy is there in your job? That is, to what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own how to go about doing the work? 1-------- --2 3 4 5 6 7 Very little; the job gives Moderate autonomy; many Very much; the job me almost no personal things are standardized and gives me almost complete “say” about how and when not under my control, but responsibility for the work is done. I can make some decisions deciding how and when about the work. the work is done. 78 63. 65. 66. 67. Inaccurate Inaccurate Inaccurate The job denies me any chance to use my personal initiative orjudgment in carrying out the work Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing The job is arranged so that I do NOT have the chance to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work The job itself is NOT very significant or important in the broader scheme of things Very .1. l—l |_L |..L |_s Mostly Slightly Uncertain Slightly Mostly Very 2 IN IN IN IN 79 3 IO) IO) loo I03 5. IA IA IA IA Accurate Accurate Accurate 5 lat 101 I01 101 6 IO) IO) IO) IO) 7 IN IN |\I IV Limportance of Promises 1 Sometimes there are certain promises we value more than other promises because they are important to us. Please indicate the degree of importance for each of the following items using the scale below. Circle the number that best represents how important each promise is to you. 5.9: 3.9mm Exmm Important Important Important 68. Open-door policy or access to my 1 Z 1 1 § 5 Z .8 2 1Q supervisor 69. Timely responses to my questions and 1 Z 1 1 § 6 Z 8 2 10 inquiries 70. Time off work for the death of a family 1 Z 1 1 § 6 Z 8 a 10 member or close friend 71. Communication that is humorous and 1 Z 1 1 .52 .6: Z 1 9 10 informal at work 72. Time off work for family situations 1 .2. 3 1 i 6 Z 8 9 1_Q 73. Time off work for emergencies that arise 1 2 :2 1 § 6 Z 8 2 19 74. Open and honest communication at work 1 Z 1 1 1 6 Z 1 2 1_Q 75. Pleasant communication at work 1 Z 1 1 § 5 Z 8 2 19 76. Team~0riented communication at work 1 .2. 1 1 § 5 Z 1 a 19 77. Time off work for recreational purposes 1 Z 1 1 § 6 Z s 9 19 78. Time off work for medical appointments 1 2 1 1 1 5 Z 1 9 1.9 (e.g. doctor, dentist) 79. Confidential communication (e.g. I trust 1 .2. 3 1 § 6 Z 8 a 10 my supervisor not to share what I say in confidence with other organizational members) 80. Time off work for community service 1 Z 1 1 § 6 Z 8 a 10 endeavors 81. The opportunity to use flex-time or comp- 1 .2. .11 1 § § Z 8 1 m time for personal reasons 82. Regular performance appraisals (i.e. 1 Z .3: 1 15. .6. Z 1 a 10 formal evaluations) 83. Flexibility with childcare 1 Z 1 1 § 5 Z 8 2 1_Q 84. The opportunities for mutual feedback 1 Z .3. 1 § 6 Z 1 a 10 (e.g. I evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) 1 Z :5. 1 § 6 Z 8 2 10 85. One-on-one communication with my supervisor 80 87. 88. Matemity/Paternity leave Feedback on my performance (i.e., informal feedback) Support with personal problems 81 [—5 |...s l—L IN IN IN I0) IA IA IA IUIIUI IGIO) IO) IN IN IN IGIO IO I'D 18 IBIS IE. Fulfillment of Promises I The following section asks you to consider the amognt of each item you have actually received compared to the amount the organization has promised you. Please use the following scale below and circle the number that best represents how much of each promise you have received. 3m 3mm M is! _91IMU M 111191! Anus; LE§§ M MORE. 11: m mm mm mm 89. Open-door policy or access to my 2 i Q 1-_1_ 12 M supervisor 90. Timely responses to my questions and g ;_ Q 1'. :2 M inquiries 91. Time off work for the death of a family :2 -_ Q _+_1 +_2 M member or close friend 92. Communication that is humorous and g i Q fl :2 MA informal at work 93. Time off work for family situations g -_1_ Q fl 3; M 94. Time off work for emergencies that :2 i Q fl 1-_2_ M arise 95. Open and honest communication at g -_ Q 31 :2 M work 96. Pleasant communication at work i -_1_ Q :1 :2: MA 97. Team-Oriented communication at :2 -__ Q 1:1 :2 M work 98. Time off work for recreational g i Q fl :2 l_\I_/_A purposes 99. Time off work for medical g i Q 11 +2 MA appointments (e.g. doctor. dentist) 100. Confidential communication (e.g. l :2 i Q fl +2 LIA trust my supervisor not to share what I say in confidence with other organizational members) 101. Time off work for community service -_2_ :1 Q :1 +_2 MA endeavors 102. The opportunity to use flex-time or -_2_ i Q :1 -_l-_2_ M comp-time for personal reasons 103. Regular performance appraisals (i.e. :g :_ Q i. +_2 LIL/5 formal evaluations) 82 104. Flexibility with childcare g _-_1 Q :1 +2 M 105. The opportunities for mutual feedback g -_ Q L :g LIA (e.g. I evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) 106. One-on-one communication with my :3 :1 Q :1 L2 M supervisor 107. MatemitylPatemity leave ;_2_ -_1_ Q fl. 1.2. M 108. Feedback on my performance (i.e., ;2_ :1 Q :1 1.2 M informal feedback) 109. Support with personal problems -2 -1 0 +1 +2 MA E. Background Information I This section asks some basic questions for background information and demographics purposes. Your answers to these, and all other questions in the survey will remain confidential. 110. Before starting your employment at this organization, did you have a formal interview?_ Yes _ No (If “No” skip to question #113) 1 11. If Yes, who conducted your interview? 112. If Yes, approximately how long was your employment interview 1-30 minutes 31-60 minutes 1-2 hours 1 full day of interviews or more 113. How long have you worked at your current job? 114. How would you describe your current job? Skilled Laborer Professional/Managerial Transport Worker Clerical work, Secretarial, Support staff Factory Worker Sales Nonfarrn laborer Other (please Specify) 115. How are you compensated or paid for your work? Hourly Salary Piece-rate pay Salary and Commission Commission only 83 116. My age group is: 18-23 years 40-44 24-29 45-49 30-34 50-59 35-39 60+ 117. I am: Female Male 1 18. My race/ethnicity is: White/Caucasian non Hispanic Chicano-Mexican Amer. Black/African non Hispanic Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Other 119. What is the highest level of education you have completed? High school 2+ years of college Trade-school 4 year college degree 1 year of college Graduate school THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY. YOUR HELP IS GREATLY APPRECIATEDI 84 APPENDIX B 85 APPENDIX B Quality Communication and Work-Life Scales Promises can be defined as an understanding you have with your employer about various issues. These promises or the understanding you have with your employer may be directly stated (i.e., verbal or written promise) or it may be more indirect (i.e., implied but never stated). Keep in mind that what you would like your employer to provide or what you feel they should provide is not the focus here. Instead, focus on what they have promised to provide. For the statements below, please indicate the extent to which your employer promised you each of the following. “- “ ' . .. ,".;;;?-'-.-.":'.-E:'E,: 15125531163: ' ""-.;--—--'=’-‘.!..1:;'r_-_“ -,—j¢‘,-'._-,:4:37—3‘flgfifigflifififii‘fi2fiififfiiIIEQ‘EE-fifiW-tlfii": 3:?» 7W:£§Zili=.='eI-'Lé.~i_n-i-“W: .rrt'; gaflfiifi '3 a? 12:5?“ :53: - - '1’“ Not Promised Somewhat Promised to a At All Promised Great Extent 1 l 2 3 4 5 Qualig Communication Scale Open-door policy or access to my supervisor Timely responses to my questions and inquiries Communication that is humorous and informal at work Open and honest communication at work Pleasant communication at work Team-Oriented communication at work Confidential communication (e.g., I trust my supervisor not to share what I say in confidence with other organizational members) Regular performance appraisals (i.e., formal evaluations) The opportunities for mutual feedback (e.g., l evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) . One-on-one communication with my supervisor 11. Feedback on my performance (i.e., informal feedback) Work-Lfi Scale Time off work for the death of a family member or close friend Time off work for family situations Time off work for emergencies that arise Time off work for recreational purposes Time off work for medical appointments (e.g., doctor, dentist) Time off work for community service endeavors The opportunity to use flex-time or comp-time for personal reasons Flexibility with childcare Maternity/Paternity leave Support with personal problems 599° NP’P‘PP’N.‘ I _a. O P’P‘PP’N.‘ ACOQN .o. e 0 NOTE: All scale items were randomly ordered in the survey distributed to participants. 86 APPENDIX C 87 APPENDIX C Violation Assessment Sometimes there are certain promises we value more than other promises because they are important to us. Please indicate the degree of importance for each of the following items using the scale below. 99° NP’WPSDN.‘ is: r: Zia—1-81:--.fifirfiz‘gééifiififif'fifl"P‘-”31:?--_g..;=-._='_‘.gig»2,],3533:“13:132‘e+.':;-;.3_;§‘_-3.9.253! Somewhat Extremely Important Important I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 Open—door policy or access to my supervisor Timely responses to my questions and inquiries Communication that is humorous and informal at work Open and honest communication at work Pleasant communication at work Team-Oriented communication at work Confidential communication (e.g., I trust my supervisor not to share what I say in confidence with other organizational members) Regular performance appraisals (i.e., formal evaluations) The opportunities for mutual feedback (e.g. I evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) 10. One-on-one communication with my supervisor 11.Feedback on my performance (i.e., informal feedback) 12.Time off work for the death of a family member or close friend 13. Time off work for family situations 14. Time off work for emergencies that arise 15. Time off work for recreational purposes 16.Time off work for medical appointments (e.g., doctor, dentist) 17. Time off work for community service endeavors 18.The opportunity to use flex-time or comp-time for personal reasons 19. Flexibility with childcare 20.Time off work for Maternity/Paternity leave 21 . Support with personal problems 88 The following section asks you to consider the amount of each item you have actually received compared to the amount the organization has promised you. Please use the following scale below or write N/A if the promise was not made to you or is not applicable: w---—'- n. - .- -_ -. g -- »1«.%1~9#E§ .a Sign, .1??me r: ': s~:hw=*%;‘tmw -' 1:55:15, ea“- magmas-31 Received Much Received Received Much LESS Than What Was MORE Than 3 ' e , 'rII Promised Promised Promised -2 -l 0 +1 +2 22. Open-door policy or access to my supervisor 23.Timely responses to my questions and inquiries 24.Communication that is humorous and informal at work 25.0pen and honest communication at work 26. Pleasant communication at work 27.Team-Oriented communication at work 28. Confidential communication (e.g., I trust my supervisor not to share what I say in confidence with other organizational members) 29. Regular performance appraisals (i.e., formal evaluations) 30.The opportunities for mutual feedback (e.g., l evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) 31 . One-on-one communication with my supervisor 32. Feedback on my performance (i.e., informal feedback) 33.Time off work for the death of a family member or close friend 34. Time off work for family situations 35. Time off work for emergencies that arise 36.Time off work for recreational purposes 37. Time off work for medical appointments (e.g., doctor, dentist) 38.Time off work for community service endeavors 39.The opportunity to use flex-time or comp-time for personal reasons 40. Flexibility with childcare 41 .Time off work for Maternity/Paternity leave 42. Support with personal problems 89 APPENDIX D 90 APPENDIX D Feature Assessment Please indicate the extent to which your employer directly or indirectly promised you the following? Indicate your responses using the scale below or write N/A if the promise was not made to you or is not applicable. -YKawasfiF-rrr-r‘ane-5.234112133??!4:.LfiiratEPiT~e'ii'4:==:-, "w-ifiir-Jg-V212'ftit’..."e«.1i‘.€‘:-i-»=' i'F "if" ‘ =‘ "5'1"" “if 2“1“":‘43:'E"':':‘ ‘5 Directly Promised Indirectly Promised (i.e. implied, but (i.e., verbal or never stated) written promise) I 2 3 4 5 43. Open-door policy or access to my supervisor 44.Timely responses to my questions and inquiries 45. Communication that is humorous and informal at work 46. Open and honest communication at work 47. Pleasant communication at work 48. Team-Oriented communication at work 49. Confidential communication (e.g., I trust my supervisor not to share what I say in confidence with other organizational members) 50. Regular performance appraisals (i.e., formal evaluations) 51 . The opportunities for mutual feedback (e.g., l evaluate my supervisor and my supervisor evaluates me) 52. One-on-one communication with my supervisor 53. Feedback on my performance (i.e., informal feedback) 54.Time off work for the death of a family member or close friend 55. Time off work for family situations 56. Time off work for emergencies that arise 57. Time off work for recreational purposes 58. Time off work for medical appointments (e.g., doctor, dentist) 59.Time off work for community service endeavors 60.The opportunity to use flex-time or comp-time for personal reasons 61 . Flexibility with childcare 62. Time off work for Maternity/Paternity leave 63. Support with personal problems 91 \llllllllllllgllllfilll}Willi)\l