指導(dǎo)者監(jiān)督者和行為榜樣：他們會減少心理契約違背的影響嗎？[文獻(xiàn)翻譯]2011-01-04

1、外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯譯文一、 外文原文原文Mentors, supervisors and role models: do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach?Thomas J. ZagenczykRay GibneyChristian KiewitzSimon Lloyd D. RestubogPsychological contract breach has become a significant problem for many organisations in todays business environment

2、 because it fosters a belief within employees that the organisation does not support them. Accordingly, we examine whether organisations can diminish the negative impact of psychological contract breach on perceived organisational support (POS) by providing employees with mentors, supportive supervi

3、sors and role models. In Study 1, we found that mentor relationships moderated the relationship between psychological contract breach and POS six months later. In Study 2, we showed that mentor relationships and supervisor support reduced the negative impact of contract breach on POS. Contrary to ex

4、pectations, employees who maintained relationships with role models reported lower levels of POS in response to psychological contract breach than those employees who reported that they did not have role models in their organisations. Implications for research and practice are discussed.INTRODUCTION

5、At first glance, the employeremployee relationship (EER) seems to be a simple one in which the employer offers compensation for performance of job duties.Yet employees often perceive that the employer makes promises related to training, promotions or other factors not explicitly recognised in formal

6、 contracts, particularly during recruiting and socialisation periods. These perceived promises form the basis of psychological contracts, defined as relatively stable mental models that encapsulate the perceived promises employees believe the organisation has made to them in exchange for their effor

7、ts on behalf of the organisation (Rousseau, 1995). Importantly, when organisations fulfil these psychological contracts, employees tend to have higher levels of organisational commitment and performance (Zhao et al.,2007). In contrast, failure to fulfil psychological contracts termed psychological c

8、ontract breach (PCB; Morrison and Robinson, 1997) usually results in reducedperformance, negative attitudes and withdrawal behaviours (Kiewitz, 2002; Zhao et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2008; Restubog et al., 2008). The negative ramifications of PCB have rendered the topic important for scholars and p

9、ractitioners alike, especially as empirical studies show that the majority of UK and US employees report experiences of breach (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000), with some estimates being as high as 89% (Rousseau, 1995). The high percentage of perceived PCBs and the asso

10、ciated problems pose a particular concern for organisations as downsizing, outsourcing and rapid change make it increasingly difficult for them to fulfil the obligations of employees (e.g. Rousseau, 1995). Because these trends are likely to continue (Rousseau, 1995), avoiding PCB is a difficult and

11、perhaps an impossible task for todays organisations. Yet organisations need to address this important issue, which naturally raises the question of how to do so. We advocate taking a proactive approach to the issue, as this promises a greater chance to diminish negative consequences in comparison to

12、 a passive or reactive approach. To this effect, we suggest that organisations actively utilise some of the human resource (HR) initiatives that are employed to facilitate newcomer socialisation and the creation of supportive work environments. More precisely, we posit that employees relationships w

13、ith other key individuals in the organisation including mentors, supervisors and role models may substantially weaken the negative effects of PCB. Our rationale is that these third parties may shape employees perceptions of psychological breach by offering explanations for why breach occurred or by

14、helping employees cope with it. In order to empirically test this notion, we explore whether relationships with mentors, supervisors and role models moderate the negative relationship between employees perceptions of PCB and perceived organisational support (POS; i.e. Eisenberger et al., 1986). We e

15、xplore POS because research indicates that it influences a host of work-related behaviours, including job performance and turnover (review in Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). In the following sections, we elaborate on these notions and delineate a theoretical framework that accounts for the potential

16、 of mentors, supervisors and role models to moderate the relationship between PCB and POS. We then present results from two empirical studies and close with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications.LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESESIn recent years, psychological contract theory (Rousseau

17、, 1995) and organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) have emerged as the dominant approaches in research on the EER (Guest and Conway, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005). These theoretical approaches both aim to contribute to our understanding of the EER, yet view this relationshi

18、p from different perspectives. Psychological contracts theory has largely focused on explaining employee attitudes and behaviours as a function of employees perceptions regarding the extent to which the organization has breached the promises that they believe it has made to them. Conversely, organis

19、ational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) suggests that employees evaluate the favourability of the treatment that they receive from the organization and form global perceptions regarding the extent to which the organisation values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenb

20、erger et al., 1986). When employees believe they are treated favourably by the organisation, they respond by holding attitudes and behaving in a manner that helps the organisation (Rhoade and Eisenberger, 2002). Thus, psychological contract theory draws on a specific aspect of the EER (contract fulf

21、ilment/breach), while organisational support theory is concerned with employees overall assessment of the quality of the treatment they receive from the organisation, regardless of whether or not the organisation has delivered on its promises.While psychological contract and organisational support t

22、heories differ in how they approach the EER, both theories conceptualise the EER as a social exchange relationship in which employers offer rewards and favourable job conditions in exchange for loyalty and work effort from employees (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). Furthermore, both conceive of the

23、EER as being governed by the norm of reciprocity, which obligates individuals to repay others who help them (Gouldner, 1960). Accordingly, an employee who is treated well will repay the organisation by helping it to reach its goals, while negative treatment fosters negative attitudes, emotions and b

24、ehaviours. Noteworthy in this context is that employees anthropomorphise the organisation in order to discern its intentions, such that actions of individuals who represent the organisation are believed to represent the intent of the organisation itself (Levinson, 1965). This phenomenon is relevant

25、for organisational support theory because benevolent actions by organisational agents are posited to signal organisational support to employees (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It also has relevance for psychological contract theory because employees are posited to respond favourably when organisational

26、agents fulfil promised obligations (Rousseau, 1995). While employees tend to aggregate treatment from organizational agents when assessing psychological contract fulfilment and when formulating perceptions of support, they do differentiate the actions of the organisation itself from the actions of s

27、upervisors. For instance, empirical research clearly shows thatindividuals distinguish between PCB stemming from the organisation and supervisors (e.g. Hutchison, 1997; Restubog and Bordia, 2006; Chen et al., 2008) as well as organisational and supervisor support (Eisenberger et al., 2002) and suppo

28、rt originating from supervisors, management and the organisation (Hutchison, 1997). Thus, employees may experience high levels of PCB and have low levels oforganisational support, yet still perceive their supervisors to be supportive.Building on this literature, we advance the argument that PCB resu

29、lts in negative outcomes because it serves as a signal to employees that the organisation does not care about them or value the contributions that they make. In other words, we argue that breach diminishes employees POS. To support our argument, it is beneficial to elaborate on the interplay between

30、 these two constructs. According to Aselage and Eisenberger (2003), employees initial levels of POS are driven by the perceived favourableness of the promises that the organisation has made to them during the recruitment and socialisation process. That is, employees who are offered attractive employ

31、ment packages will likely have higher initial levels of POS. However, the degree to which the organisation fulfils those promises leads to correspondingincreases or decreases in POS (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). For example, Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler (2000) found support for their argument that e

32、mployees beliefs that the organisation had fulfilled their psychological contracts would lead to higher levels of POS (also see Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005; Kiewitz et al., in press). Based on these notions and findings, we contend that employees beliefs about the true intentions of the organisat

33、ion, as exemplified by the attitudes and behaviours of organisational agents, exert a crucial influence on the PCBPOS relationship, capable of either intensifying or alleviating this association.While discussion of the relationship between PCB and POS helps us to understand why breach is damaging, t

34、he main objective of this research is to explore the ways that organisations can buffer the effects of broken promises on negative outcomes. In order to better understand the roles of supervisors, mentors and role models, we need to examine the interaction of individuals within a broader social netw

35、ork of actors (Emerson, 1976). Rousseau (2001) argues that when information is missing or unavailable, employees co-workers provide information that facilitates understanding of signals from the organisation. Accordingly, we argue that when employees perceive a PCB, they will turn to others in the o

36、rganisation to better understand what has occurred, for an explanation or for support. Ho and Levesque (2005) and Dabos and Rousseau (2004) suggest that social influence exerted by co-workers who are sources of friendship and advice influence employees beliefs about what the organisation is obligate

37、d to provide to them and beliefs about the extent to which the organisation fulfils its obligations. In this article, we argue not for social influence but rather for social support (Cohen and Willis, 1985): that supervisors, mentors and role models will help employees to deal with PCB. These indivi

38、duals will shape employees perceptions of PCB by offering explanations for why breach occurred or providing support to help them cope with breach.Mentors may help employees deal with PCB by providing career-related support and psychosocial support (Kram, 1985). Traditionally, mentoring relationships

39、 have been defined as relationships in which a senior person working in the protégés organisation helps the protégé develop personally and professionally. Studies have shown that employees who have mentors have higher salaries, are more likely to bepromoted, tend to be more satis

40、fied with their jobs and are less likely to quit than those who do not have mentors (see reviews by Allen et al., 2004; Dougherty and Dreher, 2007). Mentors usually help protégés by providing them with career-related and psychosocial support (Kram, 1985). Career-related support includes th

41、e provision of sponsorship, exposure, visibility, coaching, protection and challenging assignments. Senior employees use their experience and influence within the organisation to help junior employees acclimatise to the organisation, attract the attention of others and earn promotions. Psychosocial

42、support includes friendship, acceptance, confirmation and counselling. Such support intends to enhance an individuals sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role (Kram, 1985: 32).We expect that both career-related and psychosocial support provided by mentors will mitigate

43、 the negative effects of PCB. Specifically, mentors may be able to minimise the harmful effects of PCBs by serving as advocates for employees. Influential mentors may be able to persuade the organisation to fulfil its obligations to their protégés. Mentors may also be able to teach employe

44、es how to respond toPCB in an organisationally appropriate way, particularly when breach angers but does not seriously affect employees. Mentors may also assuage employee responses to breach through friendship and counselling. Specifically, when mentors serve as friends or counsellors, they may allo

45、w employees to let off steam and then offer explanations to employees for why the organisation was unable to fulfil its promises. Attribution theory suggests that individuals tend to initially make dispositional attributions for the actions of others, but are more likely to draw situational attribut

46、ions if they take the time to fully consider the circumstances (e.g. Fiske and Taylor, 1991). Discussions with mentors may help employees to more objectively understand the causes of PCB and make attributions that are less damaging when appropriate.CONCLUSIONSIn this article, we explored support mec

47、hanisms that organisations can put in place to lessen the impact that breach has on employee perceptions of their social exchange relationships with the organisation. We hypothesised that supervisory relationships, mentoring relationships and role model relationships would moderate the relationship

48、between PCB and POS. Our findings indicate that mentoringrelationships and supportive supervisory relationships reduce the negative relationship between PCB and employee beliefs that the organisation values their contributions and cares about their well-being. However, employees who maintained relat

49、ionships with role models actually had lower POS in response to PCB. Our results inform scholars examining the effects of context on exchange relationshipsbetween employer and employee as well as practitioners seeking to find methods to lessen the negative fallout of PCB.資料來源：Human Resource Manageme

50、nt 2009(03):P237259二、 翻譯文章譯文：指導(dǎo)者，監(jiān)督者和行為榜樣：他們會減少心理契約違背的影響嗎？Thomas J. ZagenczykRay GibneyChristian KiewitzSimon Lloyd D. Restubog在如今的商業(yè)環(huán)境下，心理契約的違背已經(jīng)成為許多組織中的大問題，因?yàn)閱T工認(rèn)為，組織并不會站在他們的立場上為他們考慮。我們通過向員工提供指導(dǎo)者，監(jiān)督者和行為榜樣，來檢驗(yàn)在組織支持（POS）的基礎(chǔ)上，心理契約違背的負(fù)面影響能否被減少。在試驗(yàn)1中我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，指導(dǎo)型關(guān)系在6個月后，對心理契約違背和組織支持間的關(guān)系開始起到緩和作用。試驗(yàn)2表明了指導(dǎo)型關(guān)系和監(jiān)

51、督者支持減少了契約違背對組織支持的負(fù)面影響。事與愿違的是，資料顯示出來，與行為榜樣維持關(guān)系的員工對組織支持的反饋水平，要低于未與其維持關(guān)系的員工。這些在接下來將會被討論。引言初看之下，雇傭關(guān)系（EER）似乎就是雇主根據(jù)員工的工作業(yè)績支付薪酬這么簡單。然而員工通常認(rèn)為，雇主承諾與培訓(xùn)，晉升或者其他無法在正式合同中體現(xiàn)的因素也有關(guān)系，尤其是在招聘和企業(yè)組織化的過程中。這些承諾建立在心理契約的基礎(chǔ)上，被定義為一種相對穩(wěn)定的模型。員工認(rèn)為組織應(yīng)該為他們行為表現(xiàn)的努力作同等的承諾，這種認(rèn)知便被概括在這一模型里(Rousseau, 1995)。重要的一點(diǎn)是，當(dāng)組織實(shí)現(xiàn)了心理契約，員工對組織的承諾和表現(xiàn)會有

52、更高水平的要求(Zhao等,2007)。相比之下，如果未能實(shí)現(xiàn)，即組織違背了心理契約(PCB; Morrison和Robinson, 1997)，通常會導(dǎo)致員工較差的表現(xiàn)，負(fù)面的態(tài)度和回避的行為(Kiewitz, 2002; Zhao等., 2007; Bordia等, 2008; Restubog等., 2008)。組織契約違背的負(fù)面影響已同樣成為學(xué)者和業(yè)內(nèi)人士關(guān)注的重要話題，尤其是一些針對有過契約違背經(jīng)歷的，英美員工的實(shí)踐性研究(Robinson和Rousseau, 1994; Coyle-Shapiro和Kessler, 2000)，有些估計(jì)甚至高達(dá)89%(Rousseau, 1995)

53、。高比例的組織契約違背和關(guān)系問題涉及到組織裁員、外包和快速變化等一系列因素，使得組織更難以履行其對員工的職責(zé)(例如Rousseau, 1995)。因?yàn)檫@些因素具有趨勢的持續(xù)性(Rousseau, 1995)，能避免契約違背成為組織的難題。組織必須對這一問題加以重視，否則將會為如何解決它而大費(fèi)周折。與被動或者消極的方法相比，針對這一問題，我們更主張采用前攝性的方法。為了達(dá)到這個效果，我們建議組織積極利用人力資源的主動性，比如雇傭新人的和創(chuàng)造的良好工作環(huán)境。更準(zhǔn)確的說，我們假設(shè)組織中員工關(guān)系，包括指導(dǎo)者，監(jiān)督者和行為榜樣，可能會持續(xù)弱化契約違背的負(fù)面影響。我們的基本原理是，通過解釋契約違背是如何產(chǎn)

54、生的，以及闡明員工應(yīng)該如何處理，使指導(dǎo)者，監(jiān)督者和行為榜樣對員工對于契約違背的認(rèn)知度發(fā)生變化。為了進(jìn)行實(shí)證測驗(yàn)，我們對指導(dǎo)者，監(jiān)督者和行為榜樣是否能夠緩和員工對組織契約違背的認(rèn)識和POS間的關(guān)系做了研究(POS; i.e. Eisenberger等., 1986)。我們之所以對POS進(jìn)行研究，是因?yàn)樗鼘ぷ餍袨橛杏绊?，包括工作業(yè)績和人員流動率(Rhoades和Eisenberger, 2002)。在下面的章節(jié)中，我們將詳細(xì)說明這些概念并描述一個能解釋指導(dǎo)者，監(jiān)督者、行為榜樣緩和PCB和POSS間的關(guān)系的理論結(jié)構(gòu)，并從與理論及實(shí)際意義討論密切相關(guān)的實(shí)證性研究中得出結(jié)果。文獻(xiàn)回顧與假說近幾年來，心

55、理契約理論(Rousseau, 1995)和組織支持理論(Eisenberger等, 1986)已經(jīng)成為研究雇傭關(guān)系的主導(dǎo)方法(Guest和Conway, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro和Conway, 2005)。這些理論方法從不同的角度探討了其中的關(guān)系，促進(jìn)我們對雇傭關(guān)系的理解。心理契約理論主要集中于解釋員工態(tài)度和行為，作為員工關(guān)于組織契約違背認(rèn)知的工具。相反的，組織支持理論(Eisenberger等, 1986)建議員工對組織值得肯定的一面作評價(jià)，并且從全局角度考慮組織對他們福利所做的貢獻(xiàn)和關(guān)心(Eisenberger等, 1986)。當(dāng)員工認(rèn)為自己被組織重視和贊許時，他們就會以

56、組織所期望的態(tài)度和行為表現(xiàn)來回應(yīng)(Rhoade和Eisenberger, 2002)。因此，當(dāng)組織支持理論注重于員工對組織如何對待自己的全面評價(jià)，而不是組織是否有履行契約時，心理契約理論則注重關(guān)于雇傭關(guān)系（契約實(shí)現(xiàn)違背）的另外一面。雖然心理契約和組織支持理論在研究雇傭關(guān)系上采用不同的方式，但它們都將雇傭關(guān)系定義為，員工忠誠和努力工作與雇主提供報(bào)酬和良好工作條件之間的一種社會交換(Aselage和Eisenberger, 2003)。并且，它們都將雇傭關(guān)系設(shè)想為是建立在互惠的準(zhǔn)則上，規(guī)定個人必須向幫助自己的人作出回報(bào)(Gouldner, 1960)。如果員工認(rèn)為自己受到了組織的良好對待，便會全力以赴以實(shí)現(xiàn)組織目標(biāo)。否則，組織的消極對待會促使員工產(chǎn)生消極的態(tài)度，情緒和行為表現(xiàn)。值得注意的是，員工對組織的人性化，是為了了解組織意圖。比如說，員工代表組織的行為被認(rèn)為是代表了組織自身的意圖(Levinson, 1965)。這與組織支持理論是相關(guān)的，因?yàn)榻M織機(jī)構(gòu)的人性化被理解為是組織支持其員工的標(biāo)志(Eisenberger等 1986)。當(dāng)員工心理契約的實(shí)現(xiàn)和組織對自己的支持進(jìn)行評價(jià)時，他們會總和這些信息，對組織自發(fā)的行為和監(jiān)控之下的行為作出辨析。例如，實(shí)證性研究清楚地表明，員工個人會對組織和監(jiān)督者的心理契約違背(例如 Hutchison,