Effect of social accounts on stress and trust repair after a psychological contract breach

Pieter Labie

introduction section of the master thesis

Pag.

Research design

2

H1+

Pag.

Research design

3

-H2

H1+

STRESS (y1)

TRUST (y2)

PCB

Pag.

Research design

4

-H2

H1+

Social accounts (x1) (moderator)

 

Pag.

Research design

5

-H2

H1+

STRESS (y1)

TRUST (y2)

H3a-

-H4a

Social accounts (x1) (moderator)

 

Pag.

Research design

6

-H2

H1+

STRESS (y1)

TRUST (y2)

H3a-

-H4a

Appology (x2)> 

Denial (x3) 

Social accounts (x1) (moderator)

 

H3b-

-H4b

TRUST (y2)

Pag.

Psychological contract

7

Pag.

Psychological contract breach

8

• Cognition of a person

• Organization has failed to meet obligations within the psychological contract

• Affect the employee-employer relationship

Pag.

More stress after PC-breach

9

• Conservation of resources model (Hobföll)

• A reaction to the environment in which there is:• the threat of a net loss of resources• the net loss of resources

• For employees, the PC holds a lot of resources

• The loss of one of these resources could lead to a PCB-breach

Pag.

Less trust after PC-breach

10

• Intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another

• Attribution of trust theory• PC-breach anger less willingness to

be vulnerable less trust

• Affective events theory• PCB is a negative event negative

emotions colours cognitive evaluation negative job attitudes less trust

Pag.

Social accounts

11

• A statement made to explain • unanticipated behavior • untoward behavior

• To bridge the gap between actions and expectations

• 4 factors that may play a role in a reconciliation tactic:

• the type of social account • the time at which it is proposed• the perceived sincerity by the victim.• the interactions of these factors

• Infinite social account types • Exampels: denial, excuse, justification,

and apology

Pag.

More trust: appology VS. denial

12

• Attribution theory:• Trust is restored most successfully when:

• apologizing if there is evidence of guilt• denying if there is evidence of innocence• apologizing if their skills are in question• denying their integrity is in question

• Denial: behavior can’t be attributed internally• Questions remain about the future actions of the

trustee

• Apology: behavior is internal and controllable, but it is not stable

• Repentant factor + the resulting damage will not continue.

• Apology > denial

Pag.

Less stress: appology VS. denial

13

• Conservation of resources model: denial and apology offer as resources some clarity

• Denial, loss of recourse: worry• Questions can persist about the guilt of the

trustee• questions remains about the future actions

of the trustee.

• Apology: win of recourse: no worry• The resulting damage will not continue.

• Apology > denial

Pag.

Questions

14