psychological contract breach and freelance outcomes: the

Psychological Contract Breach and Freelance

Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Corporate

Reputation

MSc. Business Administration – Marketing Track

Mick Hendrikx - 10003325

KEYWORDS Psychological Contracts ■ Job Satisfaction ■ Organizational

Commitment ■ Organizational Citizenship Behavior ■ Corporate

Reputation ■ Project-Based Industries ■ Intermittent Employment

Field Corporate Branding

Supervisor Dr. Karin Venetis

Date January 27th, 2017

M. HENDRIKX

1

Abstract

This study examines the effect of freelancers’ perceptions that their psychological contract

breach has been breached by their employer on their attitudes and behavior. Furthermore, this

study investigates whether corporate reputation moderates this effect. Finally, to determine

whether this moderation truly comes from corporate reputation, the moderating effect of

corporate brand sensitivity on the moderation by corporate reputation is studied. A survey

was conducted by means of a standardized questionnaire and data was obtained from 149

freelancers active in the creative industries. It was found that perceived breach had a negative

effect on the attitude measures: job satisfaction and organizational commitment but that no

effect on citizenship behavior was present. An explanation was that freelancers did not act

upon breach because regarding the continuance of the relationship they are more dependent

on their employer than fulltime employees. Furthermore, the study found that corporate

reputation did not have an effect on any of the depicted contract breach- freelance outcome

relationships. Moreover, it was found that the predicted moderation by corporate brand

sensitivity on the moderation by corporate reputation was not supported. A finding worth

noticing was the high correlation between contract breach and corporate reputation. An

explanation from congruity theory was borrowed which explained that the perception of

corporate reputation may affected the perception of breach. Theoretical and managerial

implications together with directions for future research are provided.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH AND FREELANCE BEHAVIOR

2

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Mick Hendrikx who declares to take full responsibility for the

contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources

other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of

completion of the work, not for the contents.

M. HENDRIKX

3

Acknowledgments

This thesis represents the culmination of months of personal and professional growth. For

this, I have three parties to thank. First, I am indebted to my supervisor Dr. Karin Venetis,

who continuously improved my analytical skills by challenging my thinking and who I

perceive as a role model for her ability to think critically. She helped me tackle difficulties

that arose and provided me with the energy and enthusiasm required for lifting me up when I

got stuck in my process. I am mostly grateful for the environment of continuous support and

understanding she provided me with, when personal circumstances emerged. Second, I would

like to thank my co-student Twan Lauwerijssen, who reassured me in moments of doubt and

who I could always rely on in discussing ideas and directions and general support. Finally, I

would like to extend my personal thanks to my ex-colleagues and friends with Eyesight;

Alexandra Avalone and Edward Ross. Through them I obtained my first professional

experience in the creative and project-based industry, which made me experience the

dynamics and led to my topic choice. Moreover, they helped tremendously in my

understanding of these dynamics by sharing their invaluable insights of the industry with me.


4

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6

2. Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 10

2.1. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS ............................................................................. 11

2.2. FREELANCE OUTCOMES ......................................................................................... 13

2.2.1. Job Satisfaction ...................................................................................................... 13

2.2.2. Organizational commitment................................................................................... 15

2.2.3. Organizational citizenship behavior ...................................................................... 17

2.3. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH AND FREELANCE OUTCOMES ..... 19

2.4. CORPORATE REPUTATION ..................................................................................... 22

2.5. CORPORATE REPUTATION AND THE CONTRACT BREACH – FREELANCE

OUTCOME RELATIONSHIP ............................................................................................ 25

2.6. CORPORATE BRAND SENSITTIVTY AND THE MODERATING EFFECT OF

CORPORATE REPUTATION ............................................................................................ 27

3. Method ................................................................................................................................ 30

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................. 30

3.2. PRETEST ...................................................................................................................... 32

3.3. MEASURES.................................................................................................................. 33

3.3.1. Psychological Contract Breach .............................................................................. 33

3.3.2. Job Satisfaction ...................................................................................................... 34

3.3.3. Organizational Commitment .................................................................................. 34

3.3.4. Organizational Citizenship Behavior ..................................................................... 34

3.3.5. Corporate Reputation ............................................................................................. 35

3.3.6. Corporate Brand Sensitivity ................................................................................... 36

3.4. CONTROL VARIABLES............................................................................................. 36

3.5. PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................... 38

3.6. SAMPLE ....................................................................................................................... 39

3.7. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES ......................................................................................... 40

3.7.1. Regression Models ................................................................................................. 40

3.7.2. Estimation Method ................................................................................................. 46

4. Results ................................................................................................................................. 46

4.1. PRE-ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 46

4.1.1. Scale Reliability ..................................................................................................... 46

4.1.2. Manipulation check ................................................................................................ 47

4.1.3. Group Differences .................................................................................................. 48

4.1.4. Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................................. 49

M. HENDRIKX

5

4.1.5. Correlations ............................................................................................................ 52

4.1.6. Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 53

4.1.8. Noticeable remarks ................................................................................................ 56

4.2. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 57

4.3 POST-HOC FEEDBACK ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 67

5. Discussion............................................................................................................................ 70

5.1 Answer to research question .......................................................................................... 70

5.2 Alternative explanations results ..................................................................................... 71

5.3 Managerial Implications ................................................................................................. 74

5.4 Limitations and Future Research.................................................................................... 74

6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 75

References ............................................................................................................................... 79

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 88


6

1. Introduction

Driven by globalization, the marketplace and the competitive arena have become increasingly

dynamic and uncertain (Starkey et al., 2000). Continuous overproduction and uncertainty

regarding the success of the production outcome, cause these threats to be even more present

in the creative industries (Hirsch, 1972, 2000; Peltoniemi, 2015). Firms need to be flexible to

survive these threats (Porter, 1996).

As a response, firms are moving towards hybrid forms of organization, manifested

between hierarchies and markets, to optimize the cost and benefits each continuum allows

(Hennart, 1993; Powell, 1987; Starkey et al., 2000). Network organizations are such hybrid

forms that ‘reduce costs by externalizing in-house activities, and guarantee minimum quality

by holding out the promise of repeat contracting upon satisfactory performance’ (Ebbers &

Wijnberg, 2009; Starkey et al., 2000, p. 299). Network organizations are present in the

project-based industries, the context of this thesis, where freelancers are hired as new projects

come in (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009; Starkey et al., 2000).

This globalization and restructuring alter contemporary employment relationships and

give rise to the importance of psychological contracts (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009; Robinson,

1996). Psychological contracts are ‘individual beliefs in a reciprocal obligation between the

individual and the organization’ (Rousseau, 1989, p. 121). Because psychological contracts

allow firms to commit to freelancers in the long run implicitly, rather than explicitly by

means of a long-run employment contract, firms can easily step away from the promises

made and breach the contract. The ability for firms to breach is beneficial in the short run

because it provides flexibility and it does not obligate the firms to pay for freelancers when

projects do not come in (Robinson, 1996).

However, there is a negative side effect to firms that breach psychological contracts.

This side effects is that the high performing freelancers a firm wants to hold onto step away

M. HENDRIKX

7

or do not longer want to work for the particular organization. From the contract literature, it

was found that psychological contract breach has a negative impact on an individual’s job

satisfaction (Robinson & Rousseau 1994; Zhao et al., 2007), organizational commitment

(Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Lester et al., 2002; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley &

Feldman, 1999; Zhao et al., 2007) and organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson &

Morrison, 1995; Turnley et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2007). First, job satisfaction has several

positive consequences that include a positive effect on individual’s job performance,

organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Judge et al. 2001;

Bateman & Organ, 1983; Roehling, 1997). Second, organizational commitment is of great

importance because it allows companies to be more flexible and prevent cost such as

searching, contracting, controlling and human opportunism to incur (Simon, 1991;

Williamson, 1975). Moreover, costs related to turnover are avoided because organizational

commitment contributes to the physical and psychological presence of employees (Matthieu

& Zajac, 1990; Tett & Meyer, 1993; Steers, 1977; Mowday et al., 1979). Another implication

of commitment is that it is positively influences citizenship behavior, organizational tenure

and individual motivations that in turn benefit the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996;

DeCotiis & Summers, 1987; Organ & Ryan 1995; Mowday et al., 1979). Third,

organizational citizenship behavior promotes the effective functioning of the firm (Organ,

1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie 1997). In addition, citizenship behavior increases the

performance of a firm (Koys, 2001; Organ et al., 2005). Individual’s job satisfaction,

organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior are argued to be a

necessity for a firm’s survival (Katz, 1964).

Given the fact that firms benefit from breach in the short run and that there is a

negative side effect present; is this side effect for every firm similar or are there particular

circumstances under which firms may suffer less from this effect? Perhaps corporate


8

reputation plays a role in the negative effect of psychological contract breach on job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Depending

on the perceived benefits freelancers derive from working for a highly reputable firm, they

may feel less inclined to react on breach.

If corporate reputation truly weakens the negative effect of psychological contract

breach on freelance outcomes, it is expected that when freelancers have a high sensitivity

towards the corporate brand this weakening impact increases. More specifically, freelancers

that engage with a highly reputable firm and are sensitive towards corporate brands may be

even less prone to react on breach.

In summary, faced by an increased dynamic and uncertain environment more firms

move towards hybrid forms of organization, such as network organizations present in project-

based industries, to gain flexibility (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009; Hennart, 1993; Powell, 1987;

Starkey et al., 2000). Due this transition psychological contracts play a more dominant role.

Psychological contracts are beneficial for firms because it allows them to breach the contract

and benefit from the flexibility it provides in the short run (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009;

Robinson, 1996). However, there is also a negative side effect present. The freelancers a firm

wants to hold onto might step away or do not longer want to work for the firm following

breach. It is argued that dependent on the corporate reputation a firm enjoys, firms may suffer

less from this effect. In addition to its corporate reputation, firms may even suffer less when

freelancers have a high sensitivity towards the corporate brand. Therefore, in this thesis an

answer will be given to the following research question: What is the moderating effect of

corporate reputation on the psychological contract breach- freelance outcome relationship?

An answer to the research question will be provided through the following formulated

sub-questions:

M. HENDRIKX

9

- What is a psychological contract and which types are present in project-based industries?

- What types of freelance outcomes are present in project-based industries, and how do they

contribute to the organization?

- What is psychological contract breach, how does it occur and what is the effect on freelance

outcomes?

- What is corporate reputation?

- What is the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the psychological contract breach

– freelance outcome relationship?

- What is the moderating effect of corporate brand sensitivity on the moderating effect of

corporate reputation on the psychological contract breach - freelance outcome relationship?

In the investigation of the negative side effect of psychological contract breach on

employee outcomes, previous research focused solely on fulltime employment (Coyle-

Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley

et al., 2003). In the fulltime context, employer and employee are mostly bound by physical

and psychological contracts. However, in the context of intermittent employment long-term

contracts are not present and because of that employer and employee are mostly bound by

psychological contracts (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009; Robinson, 1996). From a theoretical

point of view, given the dominant role of psychological contracts in this context, it makes it

even more relevant to study the negative side effect in the context of freelancers. First, by

investigating if the same negative effect is present. Second, by investigating whether the

negative side effect depends on the corporate reputation a firm enjoys. By doing so this thesis

attempts to deliver a consensus shifting contribution.

This thesis aims at contributing to managerial practices by showing that when

managers invest in the corporate brand, the balance between the firm’s short-run benefit and


10

the negative side effect following breach becomes more favorable. This thesis proofs whether

corporate reputation plays a role in weakening the negative effect of psychological contract

breach on job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship

behavior.

This thesis proceeds as follows. Chapter 2 consists of a literature review. This review

provides answers to the sub-questions and develops hypotheses. In addition, this chapter

presents the conceptual model in place. Chapter 3 describes the research design, the

constructs in use and the analysis techniques to test the hypotheses. In chapter 4 the results

are discussed and support for each hypothesis is rejected or confirmed. This chapter guides

the answer to the research question. Chapter 5 contains a discussion of the findings, adds

support to existing theory and provides implications for real world practices and future

research. Finally, chapter 6 presents a conclusion.

2. Theoretical Framework

In this chapter the literature is consulted to provide answers to the sub-questions posed in the

introduction. First, psychological contracts are discussed together with the types present in

the project-based industries. Second, the types of freelance outcomes in the project-based

industries and their impact on the organization are explained. Psychological contract breach,

its occurrence and the effect on freelance outcomes is described thereafter. Fourth, the

corporate reputation construct will be touched upon. This is followed by an explanation of the

moderating effect of corporate reputation on the psychological contract breach- freelance

outcome relationship. Finally, the moderating effects of corporate brand sensitivity on the

moderating effects of corporate reputation is discussed.

M. HENDRIKX

11

2.1. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS

Psychological contracts are defined as ‘individual beliefs in a reciprocal obligation between

the individual and the organization’ (Rousseau, 1989, p. 121). More specifically, the

psychological contract consists of the individual’s beliefs regarding his or her promises made

to the organization and the individual’s beliefs regarding the organization’s promises made to

him or her (Turnley et al., 2003). Psychological contracts play an important role in

determining the behavior of actors involved in an exchange relationship (Ebbers & Wijnberg,

2009; Schein, 1980). The psychological contract is characterized by the beliefs of the

beholder that the obligations are mutual and a general understanding of what each party owes

the other (Rousseau, 2001). However, because each party can hold different believes

regarding the existence and content of the psychological contract, these believes do not have

to be mutual and are often subjective and idiosyncratic (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994;

Rousseau, 1990; 1995). Beliefs regarding the obligations are not about individuals’ intentions

of doing things but rather capture the agreements of doing things (Rousseau, 1995). In

addition, they should not be confused with expectations in the sense that psychological

contracts are ‘promissory and reciprocal’ (Rousseau, 1990, p. 390).

Psychological contracts emerge when individuals believe they receive a return from

their organization upon completion of a certain contribution (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994;

Rousseau, 1989). These believes are influenced by social cues that includes shared norms and

beliefs regarding a firm’s action and intend (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). The

existence of psychological contracts provides benefits to both individuals and organizations.

Due its functioning in the broader context of goals, these contracts increase productivity of

both parties (Rousseau, 1995). Moreover, these contracts foster mutual predictability which

contribute to the coordination and planning of activities (Rousseau, 1995).


12

Psychological contracts can be distinguished between two ends of a contractual

continuum: transactional and relational contracts (MacNeil, 1985; Rousseau, 1989).

Transactional contracts involve economic exchanges, have a closed-ended/ specific time

frame and are publicly understood, whereas relational contracts involve economic and non-

economic exchanges, have an open-ended/ indefinite time frame and are subjectively

understood (MacNeil, 1985). In addition, transactional contracts are short-term focused and

contain specified performance terms, whereas relational contracts are long-term focused and

contain unspecified performance terms (Rousseau, 1995). Moreover, transactional contracts

tend to be more explicit, whereas relational contracts tend to be more implicit (Baker et al.,

2002; Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009). Finally, obligations can be linked to each end of the

continuum. Transactional obligations included hard work in return for high pay and career

advancement and relational obligations included loyalty and minimum length of stay in return

for job security (Rousseau, 1990).

In the project-based industries both types of psychological contracts are present. In

these industries, two types of organizations are present: the project-based organization and

the latent organization (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009; Starkey et al., 2000). The project-based

organization is a ‘temporary organization that dissolves as soon as the project is completed

for which it was set up’ (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009, p. 988). The latent organization is a ‘form

of organization that bind together configurations of key actors in ongoing relationships that

become active/manifest as and when projects demand’ (Starkey et al., 2000, p. 299).

Members of a project-based organization are bound through transactional contracts and

members of a latent organization through relational contracts (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009).

However, Sels et al. (2004, p. 463) argue that psychological contracts should not be

distinguished between relational and transactional contracts but rather should be interpreted

based on dimensions, such as time frame or degree of implicitness. They supported their

M. HENDRIKX

13

claim by the inconsistence in measuring the constructs: elements used to measure the

transactional contract in Rousseau (1990) are used to measure the relational contract in

Robinson et al. (1994). In addition, Rousseau (1990) challenged this distinction with the 2x2

model of contemporary contracts, adding transitional and balanced contracts to the

psychological contract spectrum.

In summary, psychological contracts are beliefs regarding reciprocal obligations

between the individual and the organization. These beliefs may differ per party and therefore,

each party may not necessarily hold similar beliefs regarding the exchange agreement. There

is a body of literature that distinguishes between transactional and relational psychological

contracts that differ in terms of focus, time frame, tangibility, performance terms, explicitness

and type of obligations. In the project-based industries transactional contracts are linked to

the project-based organization and relational contracts to the latent organization. Because,

there is disagreement as to what elements belongs to which continuum and the existence of a

continuum, this thesis will focus on the psychological contract in its aggregate.

2.2. FREELANCE OUTCOMES

2.2.1. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined ‘a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants

from one's job and what one perceives it as offering or entailing’ (Locke, 1969, p. 316). From

this definition, job satisfaction can be seen as a measurement of met expectations. Because

met obligations, represented by psychological contract breach, are difficult to distinguish by

met expectations, job satisfaction can be used as proxy to control for this in studies relating to

breach (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). Job satisfaction is determined by several job

characteristics. Hebzberg et al. (1959) distinguished between the actual work itself, the

responsibility received, career advancement, achievement of tasks and recognition of


14

contributions made. They argued that the first three characteristics are the most important

determinant of a lasting satisfaction with the job. Moreover, they argued that recognition does

not necessarily have to come solely from the superiors but that recognition by other parties

such as colleagues, clients or customers also contribute to the level of job satisfaction in the

job. Job satisfaction is also determined by the extent to which the psychological contract is

perceived. Robinson and Rousseau (1994) argued that when what is promised is not fulfilled,

there is dissonance with what was expected and perceived. In line with the definition by

Locke (1969) this negatively impacts the extent to which one is satisfied with their job.

Consequences of job satisfaction include, job performance organizational

commitment and citizenship behavior. A meta-analysis by Judge et al. (2001) consisting of

312 samples showed and concluded that a significant relationship existed between an

individuals’ level of job satisfaction and its job performance. These results confirm the often-

criticized notion of “a happy worker is a productive worker” (Saari & Judge, 2004).

According to Roehling (1997), job satisfaction determined organizational commitment. In

this study, it was argued that for an exchange relationship to be continued, both parties need

to provide mutual satisfaction. When freelancers were not satisfied with their job they did not

have a high intention to continue the relationship with their employer and thus were less

committed to the organization. Moreover, Bateman and Organ (1983, p. 588) found and

argued that job satisfaction determined citizenship behavior through social exchange theory.

They argued that ‘people seek to reciprocate those who benefit them’. Furthermore, they

reasoned that prosocial behavior such as citizenship behavior is most likely to occur when an

individual experiences a positive affective state (Bateman & Organ, 1983). Thus, freelancers

that are satisfied with their job are more likely to exert citizenship behavior.

In summary, job satisfaction can be interpreted as the extent of met expectations and

is defined in this study as: ‘a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants

M. HENDRIKX

15

from one's job and what one perceives it as offering or entailing’ (Locke, 1969, p. 316). Job

satisfaction is construed by several job characteristics that include the work itself,

responsibility, advancement, achievement and recognition (Hebzberg et al. 1959). Finally, it

was found that job satisfaction leads to job performance, organizational commitment and

organizational citizenship behavior (Judge et al. 2001; Bateman & Organ, 1983; Roehling,

1997).

2.2.2. Organizational commitment

Whether individuals in the project-based industries continue working with an organization

depends on how committed they are. Some may work just once with a particular

organization, whereas others may work multiple times with the same organization. In this

thesis, organizational commitment is defined as ‘the relative strength of an individual’s

identification with and involvement in a particular organization’ (Mowday et al., 1979, p.

226). Organizational commitment is featured by individuals’ (a) strong belief in and

acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, (b) willingness to exert considerable effort

on behalf of the organization and (c) desire to maintain membership in the organization

(Mowday et al., 1997, p. 226).

Mowday et al. (1982, p. 26) distinguished between attitudinal and behavioral

commitment. Attitudinal commitment captures the extent to which individuals think their

values and goals are in line with those of the organization, whereas behavioral commitment

concerns the extent to which individuals have become locked into an organization and how

they act upon this.

Apart from the attitudinal and behavioral distinction, Meyer et al. (1993) treated

commitment as a psychological state that can be divided into an affective, a continuance and

a normative component. The affective component referred to individuals’ willingness to


16

remain with an organization, the continuance component referred to individuals’ need to

remain with an organization, and the normative component referred to individuals’ belief

they ought to remain with an organization (Meyer et al., 1993, p. 539).

Although the conceptualization of organizational commitment by Mowday et al.

(1979) and Meyer et al. (1993) differed, for measurement purposes both can be used

interchangeably as both measures were highly correlated with one another (Allen & Meyer,

1996). In this thesis, the previous mentioned definition by Mowday et al. (1979, p. 226) that

tapped into commitment-related attitudes and features that are related to behavior was used.

Katz (1964) pointed out the importance of organizational commitment and argued that

individuals should be induced to remain with an organization for the effective functioning

and survival of the firm. However, does this proposition still hold in the new era of

globalization and restructuring? Meyer and Allen (1997) agreed, they argued that success of

the organization still depends on individuals and that in the case of contracting freelancers,

the scope of commitment might be on the contract or project level. In addition, they reasoned

that individuals have a need for commitment so if they lack this towards their organization,

their commitment together with individual’s implications will be directed towards something

else and contributions will not necessarily be directed towards the organization (i.e.

occupation or industry).

There are several consequences linked to organizational commitment that benefit the

organization. First, organizational commitment allowed companies to be more flexible and

prevented cost such as searching, contracting, controlling and human opportunism to incur

(Simon, 1991; Williamson, 1975). Second, in several studies organizational commitment was

found to be negatively related with intention to leave, intention to search, actual turnover and

absenteeism and positively related to attendance at work (Matthieu & Zajac, 1990; Tett &

Meyer, 1993; Steers, 1977; Mowday et al., 1979). A high turnover is costly and individuals

M. HENDRIKX

17

should not just be physically present but also psychologically (Katz, 1964). In other studies,

organizational commitment was positively related to organizational citizenship behavior

(Organ & Ryan 1995), organizational tenure and performance (Mowday et al., 1979), job

satisfaction (Allen & Meyer, 1996) and predicted individual motivation (DeCotiis &

Summers, 1987).

High levels of organizational commitment can also harm the organization. Randall

(1987) argued that high organizational commitment led to the ineffective use of human

resources and made it harder for organizations to be flexible, adopt and innovate.

In summary, in this thesis organizational commitment is defined as ‘the relative

strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization’

(Mowday et al. 1997). In the new era of globalizations and restructuring organizational

commitment still plays an important role. The lack of organizational commitment harms the

firm through an intention to leave, intention to search, actual turnover, absenteeism and lower

attendance at work. Firms can benefit from organizational commitment through its positive

impact on organizational citizenship behavior, organizational tenure and performance, job

satisfaction and individual motivation. Apart from the positive consequences of

organizational commitment, individuals with a very high level of commitment can also harm

the organization through the lack of adoption, innovation and flexibility.

2.2.3. Organizational citizenship behavior

When individuals work on projects in the project-based industries they perform a set of

activities that is expected from them and what their reward is based upon. Accomplishment

of these activities are presented by an individual’s ‘in-role job performance’ (Meyer & Allen,

1997, p. 28). However, sometimes individuals also perform tasks that are not expected from

them and that do not benefit the focal individual. This behavior is referred to as ‘extra-role


18

behavior’ or ‘organizational citizenship behavior’ (Meyer & Allen, 1997 p. 33; Katz, 1964).

More specifically, Organ (1988, p. 4) defined organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as:

‘Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal

reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the

organization’. OCB can be distinguished into five types of behavior: altruism, consciousness,

sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, 1988). Altruism was defined by ‘all the

discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an

organizationally relevant task or problem (Organ, 1988, p.8). Consciousness referred to

‘various instances in which organizations members carry out certain role behaviors well

beyond the minimum required levels’ (Organ, 1988, p. 9). Sportsmanship referred to the

instances where individuals ‘avoid complaining, petty grievances, railing against real or

imagined slights, and making federal cases out of small potatoes’ (Organ, 1988, p. 11).

Courtesy referred to the instances where individuals ‘touch-base with those parties whose

work would be affected by one’s decisions or commitments’ (Organ, 1988, p. 12). Civic

virtue measured ‘an individual’s sense of involvement of what policies are adopted and what

candidates are supported’ (Organ, 1988, p. 12).

The literature suggested several antecedents to the presence of OCB. Firstly, OCB is

positively related to job satisfaction (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Motowidlo, 1984; Smith et al.

1983; Organ& Ryan, 1995). Secondly, perceived fairness regarding organizational behavior

of supervisors and decisions taken positively related to OCB (Moorman, 1991; Niehoff &

Moorman, 1993; Organ & Moorman 1993; Organ& Ryan, 1995). Thirdly, the extent to which

individuals are committed to their organizations related positively also with OCB (Shore &

Wayne, 1993; Organ& Ryan, 1995). However, although each antecedent has an effect on

OCB this is not the case when the relative effects are tested. In a study by Schappe (1998)

M. HENDRIKX

19

where the relative effect of each antecedent was tested, only organizational commitment

explained the unique variance in OCB.

Consequences of OCB were studied as well. A study by Podsakoff & MacKenzie

(1997) on the empirical evidence of four different studies found that OCB was positively

related to organizational effectiveness. Although causality was assumed in all the four

different studies, they suggested an investigation of causality for future research. Later, a

review by Organ et al. (2005, p. 239) concluded that OCB indeed led to organizational

effectiveness but that measurements of this constructs mostly focused on financial measures.

In addition, they argued that OCB increased organizational performance (Organ et al., 2005,

p. 212). Lastly, a longitudinal study by Koys (2001) suggested that OCB led to an increase of

the profitability of the firm. In his study, OCB was a significant predictor of profitability in

the hospitality industry.

In summary, OCB is referred to as behavior performed by individuals that goes

beyond an individual’s job requirements or what is expected from them. This construct

consists of five dimensions including: altruism, consciousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and

civic virtue. Although antecedents of OCB, such as job satisfaction, fairness perceptions and

organizational commitment, have been widely studied, outcomes of OCB studied mostly

focused on its contributions to generic measures of organizational effectiveness and

performance.

2.3. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH AND FREELANCE OUTCOMES

This section builds upon psychological contract theory, discussed in section 2.1, and defines

psychological contract breach first. Thereafter, it is described when and how contract breach

occurs. In addition, how individuals react on breach will be discussed. Finally, a conclusion


20

will be drawn together with the hypothesized effects of contract breach on freelance

outcomes.

When psychological contracts are defined by an individual’s reciprocal believes in the

mutual obligations of an exchange relationship between two parties, breach occurs when one

party perceives that the other one does not fulfill its promised obligations (Rousseau, 1989;

Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Although these parties can include both organizations and

individuals, this thesis focused on individuals only (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009). The terms

‘violation’ and ‘breach’ of the psychological contract were used interchangeably in the

literature, therefore, no distinction was made in this thesis either (Zhao et al., 2007; Coyle-

Shapiro & Parzefall, 2008).

Robinson and Rousseau (1994, p. 246) stated that ‘a psychological contract emerges

when one party believes that a promise of future return has been made, a contribution has

been given and thus, an obligation has been created to provide future benefits’. Obligations

for organizations on each end of the psychological contract continuum includes high pay and

career advancement, related to the transactional contract, and job security, related to the

relational contract (Rousseau, 1990). Breach occurs when one of those obligations are not

fulfilled, depending on which psychological contract type is in place.

Breach of the psychological contract for freelancers in the project-based industries is

likely to occur. Firstly, high pay cannot be guaranteed due the uncertain demand and outcome

of output in creative industries such as event and film production (Menger, 1999). Secondly,

career advancement is not likely to occur because organizations hire freelancers for their

existing skills and do not want to invest in the development of new skills; freelancers get

stuck in the so-called ‘career progression paradox’ (O’Mahoney & Bechky, 2006). Thirdly,

because of its decentralized structure and high flexibility requirements, it is hard for

organizations in the creative industry to provide their freelancers with job security (Sims,

M. HENDRIKX

21

1994). Apart from the distinction between relational and transactional contract breach,

psychological contract breach is likely to occur in the continuous changing circumstances

firms face (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Robinson (1996, p.574) argued that as a result,

firms need to ‘repeatedly manage, renegotiate, and alter the terms of the employment

agreement continually’ and ‘may be less willing or less able to fulfill all of their promises’. In

addition, both Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler (2000) and Robinson & Rousseau (1994) found that

the majority of their samples had perceived psychological contract breach.

Once breach of the contract has occurred, individuals tend to react on this (Robinson

& Morrison, 1995). Turnley & Feldman (1999) stated that psychological contract breach

increased the employee’s intention to leave, the likelihood of an employee to communicate

with upper management to seek for improvement, careless behavior and decreased

employer’s loyalty towards the organization. Robinson & Rousseau (1994) found that

contract breach had a negative effect on individual’s trust, satisfaction and intentions to

remain, and a positive effect on turnover. A study by Lester et al., (2002) showed that breach

had a negative effect on organizational commitment and job performance as indicated by

their supervisors. Zhao et al. (2007) did a meta-analysis on the outcomes following breach.

They argued that breach was positively associated with violation, mistrust and turnover

intentions and negatively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, in-role

performance and OCB (Zhao et al., 2007). The results from a study by Coyle-Shapiro &

Kessler (2000) showed that psychological contract fulfillment had a positive effect on

employees’ perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and organizational

citizenship behavior. Robinson & Morrison (1995) found that breach had a negative effect on

trust and civic virtue, one of the five dimensions of OCB, and that trust functioned as a

mediator in this relationship. In addition, Turnley et al. (2003) found a similar relationship

with OCB. In their study, psychological contract fulfilment had a positive effect on two types


22

of OCB: OCB directed at individuals within the organization and OCB directed at the

organization (Turnley et al., 2003).

In summary, there is a large body of literature suggesting that psychological contract

breach has a negative effect on job satisfaction (Robinson & Rousseau 1994; Zhao et al.,

2007), organizational commitment (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Lester et al., 2002;

Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1999; Zhao et al., 2007) and

organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Turnley et al., 2003; Zhao

et al., 2007). The following main effects are therefore hypothesized.

H1 There is a negative effect between the level of Psychological Contract Breach

perceived by the freelancer and the level of Job Satisfaction of the freelancer.


perceived by the freelancer and the level of Organizational Commitment of the

freelancer.


perceived by the freelancer and the level of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of

the freelancer.

2.4. CORPORATE REPUTATION

To explore the role of corporate reputation in the psychological contract breach – freelance

outcome relationship, first the defining landscape of corporate reputation is touched upon

together with the identifying traits of this construct. Thereafter, organizational-level benefits

M. HENDRIKX

23

for companies with a high corporate reputation are discussed followed by an analysis of the

benefits for the individual.

There is a lot of research on corporate reputation and most of the research uses

divergent definitions of the construct (Barnett et al., 2006). Fombrun and Van Riel (1997)

integrated six different views on corporate reputation consisting of the economic, strategic,

marketing, organizational, sociological and accounting view. Fombrun and Van Riel (1997,

p. 10) proposed the integrative definition by Fombrun and Rindova (1996): ‘A corporate

reputation is a collective representation of a firm’s past actions and results that describes the

firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders’. In defining the construct,

corporate reputation was often identified as being a perception (Balmer, 1998; Einwiller &

Will, 2002; Roberts and Dowling 2002) subjective (Fombrun, 2001; Fombrun & Van Riel,

1997) and some sort of aggregate (Fombrun & Rindova, 2000; Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997).

Because the trait of the construct being a perception was not sufficiently emphasized by

Fombrun and Rindova (1996), it seemed more appropriate to follow the definition by Weiss

et al. (1999). Weiss et al. (1999, p. 75) defined corporate reputation as an individual’s ‘global

perception of the extent to which an organization is held in high esteem or regard’. According

to them a firm enjoys a high corporate reputation when a firm is considered to be highly

regarded, professional, successful, well-established and stable (Weiss et al., 1999).

There are several organization-level benefits for firms that enjoy a high corporate

reputation. Gray & Balmer (1998) argued that having a high corporate reputation helps a firm

survive. More specifically, having a high corporate reputation is important because it plays an

important role in employees’ pursuit of a particular job (Belt & Paolillo, 1982; Gatewood,

Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993). Moreover, firms benefit because individuals in a network

proof to be more willing to join a particular organization given a high reputation (Turban &

Cable, 2003). One can argue that firms may regard the attraction of labor as irrelevant given


24

the oversupply of labor of which creative industries are characterized by (Menger, 1999).

However, Turban & Cable (2003) provided a counter argument. In their study, firms with a

high reputation did not only attract more applicants but also higher quality applicants (Turban

& Cable 2003). Especially the latter seems crucial for firms to develop a competitive

advantage.

There are also several benefits for individuals that work for a firm with a high

corporate reputation. First, from a branding perspective, when a corporate brand and another

entity are linked to each other a transfer of secondary associations takes place (Keller, 2005).

Corporate reputation can be considered as one of those associations and an individual

working for a company another linked entity (Lei et al., 2008; Yu & Lester, 2008).

Individuals can benefit from working for companies that enjoy a high reputation because the

association of being highly reputable is transferred to the individuals when the company’s

name is present on their resume. Second, a company with a high reputation has a positive

effect on individuals’ trust (Keh & Xie, 2009). Freelancers often provide their employers

with flexibility, by making their resources available without insisting on immediate

compensation (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2009). Although this can be a risky practice, companies

that enjoy a high reputation are able to provide freelancers with trust in the return of their

investment. Another benefit for individuals is the positive influence a high corporate

reputation has on employee identification (Keh & Xie, 2009). Employee identification takes

place when a company is able to fulfill the individual’s self-definitional needs and is

beneficial to the individual because it strengthens the employee- employer relationship

(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

In sum, the defining landscape for corporate reputation is broad and based off

common traits of perception, subjectivity and being an aggregate, the definition by Weiss et

al (1999) was argued to be most suitable. They defined corporate reputation as an

M. HENDRIKX

25

individual’s ‘global perception of the extent to which an organization is held in high esteem

or regard’ (Weiss et al., 1999, p. 75). Organizational-level benefits included, the ability to

survive, the positive role in employees’ pursuit of a particular job and the attraction of not

only higher number but also more qualified applicants (Belt & Paolillo, 1982; Gray &

Balmer, 1998; Turban & Cable, 2003). The individual-level benefits for working for a high

reputable firm were the transfer of reputation from the firm to the individual, the signaling

and perception of trust in the employer and an increased level of identification with the firm

(Keh & Xie, 2009; Keller, 2005; Lei et al., 2008; Yu & Lester, 2008).

2.5. CORPORATE REPUTATION AND THE CONTRACT BREACH – FREELANCE

OUTCOME RELATIONSHIP

In this section, the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the psychological contract

breach- freelance outcome relationship is discussed. First the impact of corporate reputation

on the attitudes job satisfaction and organizational commitment is discussed together with the

moderating effect of corporate reputation on the contract breach – freelance attitude

relationship. Second, the impact of corporate reputation on organizational citizenship

behavior is explained together with the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the

contract-breach- organizational citizenship behavior relationship.

It is expected that corporate reputation positively determines the attitude of an

individual due the presence of reputation transfer from the firm to the individual (Keller,

2005). The more reputable a firm is the more benefit is perceived and thus satisfaction is

derived. In addition, when an employer is highly reputable freelancers want to spend more

time with this company (commitment) to obtain more transfer of reputation. As discussed

before, when freelancers perceive breach of the contract, they tend to be less satisfied and

committed to the focal organization. However, when the company is considered highly


26

reputable, freelancers may be less inclined to react on breach because benefits of transfer of

reputation outweigh the incurred cost of breach. The following hypothesis captures this

predicted relationship.

H4a The negative effect of Psychological Contract Breach on Job Satisfaction

is moderated by Corporate Reputation, so that this effect becomes weaker as

Corporate Reputation increases.

H4b The negative effect of Psychological Contract Breach on Organizational Commitment

is moderated by Corporate Reputation, so that this effect becomes weaker as

Corporate Reputation increases.

The benefits of trust and identification, linked to working for a highly reputable firm

determine individual’s citizenship behavior. First, according to Robinson & Morrison (1995)

trust had a positive effect on civic virtue behavior. Because civic virtue behavior is one of the

dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior, trust is expected to impact OCB (Organ,

1988). Trust triggers individuals to exert effort beyond that is expected from them. Even

though extra-role activities are not rewarded by the formal reward system, trust in an

organization can assure them that going the extra mile will be reciprocated (Organ, 1988;

Rousseau 1989). Second, when individuals work for a company they identify themselves with

they are more likely to exert citizenship behavior. This is because when identification with

the company takes place, any activity, including extra-role behavior, adds to the fulfillment of

an individual’s self-identification need (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). In short, corporate

reputation has a positive effect on an individual’s citizenship behavior via trust and

identification. A study by Robinson & Rousseau (1994) found that contract breach had a

M. HENDRIKX

27

negative impact on trust, and presumably on the level of identification. Because individuals

that work for a highly reputable company have higher levels of trust and identification,

individuals may feel less inclined to react on breach because a threshold of trust and

identification is not reached. Given this reasoning, the following prediction is made.

H4c The negative effect of Psychological Contract Breach on

Organizational Citizenship Behavior is moderated by Corporate Reputation, so that

this effect becomes weaker as Corporate Reputation increases.

2.6. CORPORATE BRAND SENSITTIVTY AND THE MODERATING EFFECT OF

CORPORATE REPUTATION

This section the moderating effect of corporate brand sensitivity on the moderating effect of

corporate reputation on the psychological contract breach – freelance outcome relationship is

discussed. In order to determine whether the relationship between contract breach and

freelance outcomes are truly moderated by corporate reputation and not something else,

corporate brand sensitivity was included in the model as additional moderator. First, it is

discussed what brand sensitivity is and what role it plays in the context of employment in the

creative industries. This is followed by argumentation for the moderating effect of brand

sensitivity on the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the contract breach – freelance

outcome relationship.

In the context of a customer, Beaudoin et al. (2003, p. 25) argued that a customer can

be considered brand sensitive ‘if the brand plays a significant role in the psychological

process that precedes his/her purchase’ (Beaudoin et al., 2003, p. 25). In addition, Brown et

al., (2010, p. 195) defined brand sensitivity as ‘the extent to which brand names receive

active consideration in organizational buying deliberations’. Because both customer and


28

employees can be considered as users of a brand, the scope of the definition can be altered

towards the context of the employee. In this thesis, corporate brand sensitivity can therefore

be considered as the extent to which the corporate brand receives active consideration in the

psychological process that precedes the individual’s decision to work by an organization

(Beaudoin et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2011). Brands fulfill a role of a “risk-reduction

heuristic” that becomes more important in situations where high levels of risk are present

(Brown et al., 2010). More risk results into higher levels of brand sensitivity and this

relationship is moderated by competition (Brown et al., 2010). Since the creative industries

are characterized by uncertainty regarding the output of production (risk) and a continuous

oversupply of labor (competition) it can be expected that brand sensitivity plays a prominent

role in the context of this study (Menger, 1999).

It is argued that if the initial moderating effect truly comes from corporate reputation,

the moderating effect will be even stronger for higher levels of brand sensitivity. Freelancers

that have a high level of corporate brand sensitivity are expected to work for more reputable

companies because they value the benefits that come with it (i.e. transfer of reputation, trust

and identification). Because of this, it was predicted that freelancers with a high level of

corporate brand sensitivity feel even less inclined to react on breach when they work for a

highly reputable company. These relationships are hypothesized below for job satisfaction,

organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior respectively.

H5a The moderating effect of Corporate Reputation on the Psychological Contract Breach

– Job Satisfaction relationship is moderated by the freelancer’s sensitivity towards

corporate brands, so that the effect becomes stronger as Corporate Brand Sensitivity

increases.

M. HENDRIKX

29

H5b The moderating effect of Corporate Reputation on the Psychological Contract Breach

– Organizational Commitment relationship is moderated by the freelancer’s

sensitivity towards corporate brands, so that the effect becomes stronger as

Corporate Brand Sensitivity increases.

H5c The moderating effect of Corporate Reputation on the Psychological Contract Breach

– Organizational Citizenship Behavior relationship is moderated by the freelancer’s

sensitivity towards corporate brands, so that the effect becomes stronger as

Corporate Brand Sensitivity increases.

An overview of the conceptual model, including all previous discussed hypothesized

relationships, can be found in figure 2.1

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Model


30

3. Method

In this chapter, a description of the research design is discussed first. Thereafter, the results of

the pretest are presented. This is followed by a description of the constructs in use together

with the adopted measures. In the fourth section the control variables are touched upon. The

fifth section presents the details of the procedure. This is followed by a description of the

sample of this research. In the final section, the analysis techniques in place for hypotheses

testing are touched upon.

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN

To answer the research question, a deductive research approach appealed the most because

hypotheses were developed from the existing literature and tested. The test results of the

hypotheses guided the answer to the research question. The study was explanatory in nature

because it was attempted to explain relationships between variables as depicted by each

hypothesis. To test the hypotheses, a sample needed to be drawn and an appropriate research

strategy needed to be devised. The survey seemed the most appealing strategy. First, a survey

allowed a structured collection of data that enabled to attach quantitative values to variables.

This was important because it allowed the variables to be subject to statistical tests such as

correlation and regression required to determine relationships of causality and moderation, as

depicted by the hypotheses. Second, given the presence of a time frame to write the thesis,

this strategy allowed to collect data from a sizeable population in a short period of time. This

timeframe also led to the choice of a mono-method and collect data at one point in time

(cross-sectional) rather than multiple points in time (longitudinal). As data collection tool a

questionnaire was used with a set of standardized questions tapping into each variable. For

the focal variables, scales were adopted from the literature. The questionnaire was completed

M. HENDRIKX

31

by respondents online to further increase the efficiency of this research strategy due the easy

distribution.

To determine the relationships between the variables and test the hypotheses, it was

required that each variable varied. Because psychological contract breach and corporate

reputation were the main independent variables of this research, it was attempted to maximize

the variation in these variables. Maximization of variation of corporate reputation was

attempted by manipulating the introduction each respondent received. Respondents were

asked to keep a company in mind they (had) worked for with either a high or a low reputation

in the industry. With equal probability of occurrence, each respondent was randomly assigned

to an introduction version (high vs. low reputation) by clicking on the link that gave access to

the online questionnaire. Although variation of corporate reputation was maximized through

manipulation, variation of psychological contract breach was generated through

randomization. This expectation was based on the premise that dependent on the type of

introduction a respondent received, breach of the contract was just as likely to be present as

absent. More specifically, psychological contract breach was expected to be independent of

the type of introduction received because companies with a high reputation are just as likely

to breach as companies with a low reputation in the industry. This premise was tested in the

pre-test that is presented in the next section to prevent a measurement error

There are some threats to the reliability and validity of this research design. First, by

choosing a survey as research strategy, the data obtained are less detailed than through

different strategies (e.g. case study, grounded theory). Moreover, by using a questionnaire a

common method bias was present that stems from respondent’s self-reporting. In addition,

the questionnaire measured the perception rather than actual behavior of respondents. Since

the starting point of the research are freelancers’ perceptions (psychological contract breach)

this method seemed suitable regardless. Finally, by the collection of cross-sectional data


32

rather that longitudinal data, the internal validity and the established causality was lower in

comparison.

3.2. PRETEST

Before the questionnaire was distributed over the sample, a pretest was done first prior to data

collection to cancel out any issues that could possibly arise. A total of six people participated

and each participant was asked to indicate the extent to which the instructions were clear, the

time allotted was correct, the layout was clear and attractive, the topics were relevant and

whether it looked like the measures measured the constructs they were supposed to measure

to assure face validity. In addition, respondents were asked if there were any misunderstood

questions and to provide any other comments they may had. Finally, in order to prevent a

possible measurement error discussed in the previous section it was tested whether

participants of the pretest differed in perceived contract breach based on the introduction

received. More specifically, each participant was asked what types of experiences they had

with the companies they selected in the introduction to keep in mind. The could choose from

“only those that treated me fair”, “only those that treated me unfair” and “I held both type of

companies into consideration”. This was done to avoid a measurement error.

The results from the pilot suggest that face validity of the constructs was assured: all

respondents agreed that the items measured the construct they were supposed to measure. In

addition, respondents were just as likely to hold companies into consideration where they

were treated fair as unfair, limiting the bias that could arise from the manipulation of the two

different introductions. Finally, several small adjustments have been made regarding the

instructions and items linked to each construct to make it more applicable to the context and

easier to understand for the population. The complete questionnaire can be found in

Appendix 1.

M. HENDRIKX

33

3.3. MEASURES

In this section the variables used in this thesis are presented together with the adopted scales

and operational definitions. Constructs central to this thesis include: psychological contract

breach, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior,

corporate reputation and corporate brand sensitivity. This thesis adopted several valid and

reliable scales. Validity of the scales is assured by adopting validated measures from the

literature and through the face-validity that was derived from the pretest. Scales were adopted

from the literature when the particular study yielded a Cronbach’s alpha exceeding 0.7. This

proved internal consistency, and with that, reliability (Cronbach, 1951). Some scales included

counter-indicative items that are reverse scored to eliminate response-set bias. All items

scored on 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) ‘Strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘Strongly

agree’. The complete list of the items used to measure each construct together with their

sources can be found in Appendix 2.

3.3.1. Psychological Contract Breach

To measure the independent variable psychological contract breach, the scale of Robinson

and Morrison (2000) was adopted. The scale consists of five items in total of which three are

reverse scored. Sample items included: ‘I feel that my employer has come through in

fulfilling the promises made to me when I was hired’ (reverse scored) and ‘My employer has

broken many of its promises to me even though I've upheld my side of the deal’. Apart from

the replacement of ‘employees’ by ‘freelancers’ the operational definition of psychological

contract breach by Robinson and Morrison (2000, p. 534) is used and defined as:

‘Freelancers' perceptions of how well their psychological contracts had been fulfilled by their

organization’. Robinson and Morrison reported a Cronbach alpha of 0.92 for these five items,

indicating excellent reliability.


34

3.3.2. Job Satisfaction

To measure the dependent variable job satisfaction, the scale of Agho et al. (1992) was

adopted. The scale consists of six items and included: ‘I feel fairly well satisfied with my job’

and ‘I find real enjoyment in my work’. The scale scored sufficient reliability (α = 0.78). The

operational definition of job satisfaction is described as ‘the extent to which employees like

their work’ (Agho et al., 1992, p. 185).

3.3.3. Organizational Commitment

The dependent variable organizational commitment is measured through the ‘Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire’ (OCQ) by Mowday et al. (1979). This scale consists of nine

items including: ‘I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for’

and ‘I really care about the fate of this organization’. In their research, the OCQ scale

indicated excellent reliability (α = 0.90). In this thesis, the following operational definition

used by Mowday et al. (1979, p. 226) is in place: ‘the relative strength of an individual’s

identification with and involvement in a particular organization’. In addition, Mowday et al.

(1979, p. 226) state that organizational commitment is characterized by: ‘a strong belief in

and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable

effort on behalf of the organization and a strong desire to maintain membership in the

organization’.

3.3.4. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

To measure the dependent variable organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) the scale from

MacKenzie et al. (1993) has been adopted. This scale consists of twelve items, spread out

over four dimensions that each consists of three items. The dimensions in use are: civic virtue

M. HENDRIKX

35

(α = 0.78), sportsmanship (α = 0.85), altruism (α = 0.88) and conscientiousness (α = 0.80).

Only the three items in the sportsmanship dimension are reverse scored. Sample items

included: ‘I am willing to risk disapproval in order to express my beliefs about what's best for

the company’ and ‘I return phone calls and respond to other messages and requests for

information promptly’. All four dimensions of OCB are discretionary behaviors that

according to Organ (1988) are a personal choice of the freelancer and are not punishable

when these types of behavior are not performed. Definitions by MacKenzie et al. (1993, p. 71)

were used, apart from slight alterations to assure applicability of the definitions to the specific

context of this thesis. Organizational citizenship behavior is discretionary behavior on the

part of a freelancer that directly promote the effective functioning of an organization, without

necessarily influencing a freelancer’s objective productivity. A freelancer performs civic

virtue when he or she responsibly participates in, and is concerned about, the life of the

company. Sportsmanship is the willingness of a freelancer to tolerate less than ideal

circumstances without complaining. Altruism refers to behavior where a freelancer helps a

specific other person with an organizationally relevant task. Finally, conscientiousness refers

to instances in which a freelancer carries out certain role behaviors well beyond levels that

are minimum required. Please note that courtesy, the fifth dimension, has not been included

because it has not been reported before and overlapses with altruism (Organ, 1988).

3.3.5. Corporate Reputation

For the measurement of the moderator corporate reputation, we adopted the three-item scale

from Keh & Xie (2009). The scale consists of three items including: “The focal company is a

highly-regarded company” and “The focal company is a well-established company”. The

scale scored excellent on reliability (α = 0.91). Corporate reputation is defined as ‘a global

perception of the extent to which an organization is held in high esteem or regard’ (Weiss et


36

al., 1999, p. 75). A unidimensional measure is used in this thesis because people tend to make

global evaluations of an organization’s reputation (Weiss et al., 1999).

3.3.6. Corporate Brand Sensitivity

To measure the additional moderator corporate brand sensitivity, the scale by d'Astous &

Gargouri (2001) was adopted. Because both consumers and employers are users of a brand,

this scale that measures from the consumer perspective has been slightly adopted to fit the

employee perspective. The scale consists of three items and sample items included: ‘For me,

the corporate brand name is very important information’ and ‘A corporate brand tells a lot

about the quality of a firm’. Reliability was proven to be good (α = 0.84). Corporate brand

sensitivity is defined as the extent to which the corporate brand receives active consideration

in the psychological process that precedes the individual’s decision to enter an organization

(Beaudoin et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2011).

3.4. CONTROL VARIABLES

In this thesis, several control variables have been included to filter out the true prediction of

the independent variable of interest and eliminate alternative explanations of the dependent

variables job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship

behavior.

First, all models controlled for organizational tenure, work experience, education

level, gender and age. Organizational tenure measure the tenure of the respondent of the

company he or she kept in mind whilst answering the questions. The longer the freelancers

worked for the organization, the higher the likelihood of job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and citizenship behavior. This was expected because if they worked for a longer

period of time for the particular organization, they must have been satisfied otherwise they

M. HENDRIKX

37

would have already altered their behavior and left the organization earlier. The more work

experience a respondent has, regardless of the company he or she kept in mind, the lower the

likelihood of satisfaction, commitment and citizenship behavior. Freelancers that have

obtained a lot of experience and build a great portfolio do not necessarily have to run the

extra mile and feel less satisfied and committed, given the comparing work experience they

possess. Since this is construct is linked to age, this variable was included as control variable

too. Moreover, it was expected that freelancers that enjoyed a higher education, had more

opportunities and, therefore, were more likely to work on projects they felt satisfied with,

committed to and willing to run the extra mile. Finally, gender was included as control

variable. Clark (1997) states that women are more satisfied with their jobs than men. It is

expected that female respondents scored higher on job satisfaction and because of that are

more committed to the organization and more likely to perform citizenship behavior.

Second, in the literature review it was argued that job satisfaction determined

organizational commitment (Roehling, 1977). This variable was therefore included as

additional control variable in all model that predicted organizational commitment.

Third, it predicting organizational citizenship behavior, both job satisfaction and

organizational commitment were included as additional control variables. In the literature

review it was argued that, based on social exchange theory and prosocial behavior, job

satisfaction determined organizational citizenship behavior (Bateman & Organ, 1983). In

addition, it was expected that the more committed an individual was the more he or she was

likely to exert citizenship behavior. This expectation was based on the premise that attitudes

lead to behavior and was supported by a meta-analysis of Organ and Ryan (1995) that found

that organizational commitment was a significant predictor of citizenship behavior. In this

thesis, it is argued that job satisfaction leads to commitment and that commitment in turn

leads to citizenship behavior.


38

3.5. PROCEDURE

The survey took place in the United States, The Netherlands and online by means of a

questionnaire. This questionnaire was constructed with Qualtrics’ research software and

consisted of four parts. The first part contained a brief introduction to the topic together with

the manipulation of each respondent to take a company in mind they work with or had

worked for with, dependent on the manipulation, a high or a low corporate reputation in the

industry. The second part consisted of items tapping into the independent variable

psychological contract breach, the dependent variables job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, the moderator corporate reputation and

the control variable organizational tenure. In the third part respondents were asked to forget

the particular company they had in mind whilst answering the final set of questions. In this

part data was collected that was not company specific. Items presented tapped into the

additional moderator corporate brand sensitivity and the additional control variables work

experience, education level, gender and age. The fourth and final part presented a thank you

note together with contact details of the author to leave any comments or questions.

After the questionnaire was designed and updated with the results from the pretest, the

main study took place. The link with access to the questionnaire together with an invitation

letter was distributed over forums and emails. The invitation letter (Appendix 3) included a

promise to publish the research results afterwards in order to give individuals an incentive to

participate. The total data collection period was two weeks.

Anonymity of respondents was ensured by distributing Qualtrics’ anonymous link

with access to the questionnaire. This link does not collect any identifying information and

highly identifiable questions such as name, company name and residency are left out in the

questionnaire. Confidentiality of the collected data was ensured through reporting aggregates

M. HENDRIKX

39

instead of individual specific data. In addition, the collected data was subject to Qualtrics’

above industry standard protection (please visit https://www.qualtrics.com/security-

statement/ for more details). Finally, only the author of this thesis had access to this data.

3.6. SAMPLE

The population consists of all individuals that work as freelancers in the creative industries.

These industries include film-, television-, theatre-, musical-, music-, events-, dance-

production and advertising among others. The total number of freelancers in the creative

industries is not present, but to provide an indication; over four million self-employed

workers are members of the creative class in the U. S. (Florida, 2013). To create a sample

that accurately reflected the population, the following three sampling procedures were in

place: purposive sampling, snowball sampling (Goodman, 1961) and self-selection sampling.

These are all non-probability sampling techniques because a complete list of the population

was not present. With the attempt to reduce the likelihood that those excluded from the

survey differed from those included, multiple non-probability sampling techniques were used.

Purposive sampling took place first by sending out an email to people present in the

author’s personal network that were active as freelancer in the creative industries. Thereafter,

by means of snowball sampling, people were asked to forward the message to other

freelancers they knew and worked in the creative industries. Finally, by means of self-

selection sampling, invitations to participate were posted on forums (Reddit & Facebook) to

reach online communities of specialists. The majority of the forums targeted represented a

community of specialists present in the creative industries. The complete list of all forums

targeted can be found in Appendix 4.

The survey was completed by 222 respondents. First, respondents that completed the

survey without filling out any questions were excluded from the analysis (53 respondents).

https://www.qualtrics.com/security-statement/

https://www.qualtrics.com/security-statement/


40

Second, careless responses were excluded and indicated through response times of less than

two minutes or longer than four hours (1 respondent). In addition, unusual patters in

responses (e.g. same score across all items per construct) were excluded (1 respondent).

Finally, responses with missing data on items that tapped into psychological contract breach,

the central construct of this thesis, were eliminated (18 respondents). This brings the total

number of respondents for analysis to 149. For the constructs that consisted of multiple items,

average scores were calculated for the analysis. To prevent bias, missing data of one item

linked to a particular construct led to deleting all the data of the items linked to the particular

construct. With a total number of 149 freelancers taking part in this research and a resulting 9%

margin of error, it was argued that the predictions made score sufficient on the level of

accuracy to describe the population (Sue & Ritter, 2007). Due the characteristics of the

different sampling techniques in place, response rates were not present.

3.7. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

In this section the analysis techniques used to predict the hypothesized relationships are

discussed. First each hypothesis was transformed into a multiple regression model. Thereafter,

the method of prediction together with tests for significance is described to reject or confirm

the hypotheses with confidence.

3.7.1. Regression Models

H1 predicted a negative relationship between psychological contract breach (PCB) and Job

Satisfaction (JS). To test this hypothesis, a multiple regression model was formulated where

the job satisfaction was regressed on psychological contract breach and the control variables;

organizational tenure (OT), work experience (WE), education level (E), gender (G) and age

(A). This model is presented by Equation 3.1 and H1 was supported when the regression

M. HENDRIKX

41

coefficient of psychological contract breach (𝛽1) was significantly negative. In the following

models 𝑖 denotes each respondent (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛) and 𝑢𝑖 the error term.

(3.1)

𝐽𝑆𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

H2 predicted a negative relationship between psychological contract breach (PCB)

and organizational commitment (OC). To test this hypothesis, a multiple regression model

was formulated where the organizational commitment was regressed on psychological

contract breach and the control variables; job satisfaction (JS), organizational tenure (OT),

work experience (WE), education level (E), gender (G) and age (A). This model is presented

by Equation 3.2 and H2 was supported when the regression coefficient of psychological

contract breach (𝛽1) is significantly negative.

(3.2)

𝑂𝐶𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

H3 predicted a negative relationship between psychological contract breach (PCB)

and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). After replacing OC by OCB and including

OC as additional control variable, a similar regression model as in H2 was formulated to test

this hypothesis. This model is presented by Equation 3.3 and H3 was supported when the

regression coefficient of psychological contract breach (𝛽1) is significantly negative.

(3.3)

𝑂𝐶𝐵𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝑂𝐶𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐺𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖


42

For hypotheses 4 to 5 a hierarchical linear regression was performed to investigate

possible difference between regression with and without moderation. In step one, a regression

was done that consists of the independent and dependent variables of interest together with

the control variables. In step two, an interaction variable that captured the moderating effect

was added to the equation.

H4a predicts that corporate reputation (CR) weakens the negative relationship

between psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, job

satisfaction was regressed on psychological contract breach, corporate reputation and the

control variables in step one. This model is presented by Equation 3.4. In step two, a two-way

interaction variable (PCBxCR) that captured the moderating effect of corporate reputation on

the psychological contract breach – job satisfaction relationship was added to the model. This

model is presented in Equation 3.5. H4a is supported when 𝛽8 in Equation 3.5. is

significantly positive.

(3.4)

𝐽𝑆𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

(3.5)

𝐽𝑆𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝛽8

∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

H4b predicts that corporate reputation (CR) weakens the negative relationship

between psychological contract breach and organizational commitment. To test this

hypothesis, organizational commitment was regressed on psychological contract breach,

corporate reputation and job satisfaction together with the usual control variables in step one.

This model is presented by Equation 3.6. In step two, a two-way interaction variable

M. HENDRIKX

43

(PCBxCR) that captured the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the psychological

contract breach – organizational commitment relationship was added to the model. This

model is presented in Equation 3.7. H4b is supported when 𝛽9 in Equation 3.7. is

significantly positive.

(3.6)

𝑂𝐶𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐺𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

(3.7)

𝑂𝐶𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐺𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝛽9 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

H4c predicts that corporate reputation weakens the negative relationship between

psychological contract breach and organizational citizenship behavior. This hypothesis is

tested through a similar hierarchical regression model formulated in H4b after replacing OC

by OCB and adding OC as additional control variable. Step one and two are represented by

Equation 3.8 and 3.9 respectively. H4c is supported when 𝛽10 in Equation 3.9 is significantly

positive.

(3.8)

𝑂𝐶𝐵𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑂𝐶𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐸𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽9 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

(3.9)

𝑂𝐶𝐵𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑂𝐶𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐸𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽9 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝛽10 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖


44

H5a predicts that the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the contract breach-

job satisfaction relationship is moderated by corporate brand sensitivity (CBS). In step one,

job satisfaction was regressed on psychological contract breach, corporate reputation,

corporate brand sensitivity and the control variables. This model is presented in Equation

3.10. In step two, a three-way interaction variable was added that accounted for the effect of

the moderator CBS on the moderator CR, indicated by PCBxCRxCBS. In addition, three

additional two-way interaction variables PCBxCR, PCBxCBS and CRxCBS were included as

additional control variables to generate more accurate predictions. This regression model is

presented by 3.11 and H5a is supported when 𝛽12 is significantly positive.

(3.10)

𝐽𝑆𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐺𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

(3.11)

𝐽𝑆𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐺𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝛽9 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽10 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽11 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑥𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽12

∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑥𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

H5b predicts that the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the contract breach-

organizational commitment relationship is moderated by corporate brand sensitivity (CBS). In

step one, organizational commitment was regressed on psychological contract breach,

corporate reputation, corporate brand sensitivity and job satisfaction together with the usual

control variables. This model is presented in Equation 3.12. In step two, a three-way

interaction variable was added that accounted for the effect of the moderator CBS on the

moderator CR, indicated by PCBxCRxCBS. In addition, three additional two-way interaction

variables PCBxCR, PCBxCBS and CRxCBS were included as control variables to generate

M. HENDRIKX

45

more accurate predictions. This regression model is presented by 3.13. and H5b is supported

when 𝛽13 is significantly positive.

(3.12)

𝑂𝐶𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐸𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

(3.13)

𝑂𝐶𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽7 ∗ 𝐸𝑖

+ 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽9 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝛽10 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽11 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽12 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑥𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖

+ 𝛽13 ∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑥𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

H5c predicts that the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the contract breach-

organizational citizenship behavior relationship is moderated by corporate brand sensitivity.

A similar hierarchical regression model as in H5b was formulated, after replacing OC by

OCB and include OC as additional control variable, to test this hypothesis. Step one and two

of this model are presented by Equation 3.14 and 3.15 respectively and H5c is supported

when 𝛽14in Equation 3.15 is significantly positive.

(3.14)

𝑂𝐶𝐵𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑂𝐶𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽7

∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽9 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽10 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖

(3.15)

𝑂𝐶𝐵𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝛽2 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽3 ∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽4 ∗ 𝐽𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽5 ∗ 𝑂𝐶𝑖 + 𝛽6 ∗ 𝑂𝑇𝑖 + 𝛽7

∗ 𝑊𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽8 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝛽9 ∗ 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛽10 ∗ 𝐴𝑖 + 𝛽11 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑖 + 𝛽12 ∗ 𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑥𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖

+ 𝛽13 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝑥𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽14 ∗ 𝐶𝐵𝑆𝑥𝐶𝑅𝑥𝑃𝐶𝐵𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖


46

3.7.2. Estimation Method

First a pre-analysis was done and the presence of group differences was examined by means

of t-tests. In addition, descriptive statistics were calculated together with Pearson correlations

between the focal variables in order to determine relationships between these variables.

Second, the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method was used to predict the beta coefficients

of the formulated multiple regression models. For this the statistical software Stata 12 was

used. The overall significance of each regression model was tested with an F-test and the

percentage of variance in the dependent variable explained by the included regressors was

examined by the R-squared statistic. Throughout our analysis a significance level of 1% and

5 % was used for all statistical tests.

4. Results

The results of the survey are present in this chapter. A pre-analysis was done first on the,

scale reliability, manipulation, group differences, descriptive statistics, correlations,

assumptions and model specification. Thereafter, the findings of each regression model were

presented and discussed together with argumentation for acceptance or rejection of the

hypotheses. Given the large and unexpected amount of feedback from respondents on Reddit,

a post-hoc feedback analysis was done and presented in the last section of this chapter.

4.1. PRE-ANALYSIS

4.1.1. Scale Reliability

Measures from the literature have been adopted to measure each construct and to assure scale

reliability. A scale was proven to be reliably when the Cronbach’s alpha, a measurement for

internal consistency, exceeded 0.7 (Cronbach, 1951). To assure in this research that each

construct yielded reliable data, the Cronbach’s alpha for each construct was calculated and

M. HENDRIKX

47

presented in Table 4.2. The table shows that all the alphas were above 0.7 and thus no

constructs needed to be modified by removing items. All the constructs were proven to be

reliable, and with that, subject to further analyses.

4.1.2. Manipulation check

The introduction each respondent received was manipulated with the purpose of obtaining

sufficient variation in corporate reputation scores and with that to investigate its moderating

effect. It was expected that respondents that were asked to keep a company in mind with a

high corporate reputation, scored on average higher on corporate reputation than those that

were asked to keep a company in mind with a low reputation. A t-test showed that those with

the “high corporate reputation introduction” (M = 4.07, SD = 0.10) indeed scored on average

higher on corporate reputation than those with the “low corporate reputation introduction” (M

= 3.84, SD = 0.11), t (143) = 1.63, p = 0.0530. Because the p-value is so close to the 5%

significance level maintained in this study, the positive difference was considered significant.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the manipulation was a successful tool in generating

variation in the variable corporate reputation.

The results from the pretest suggested that the degree of psychological contract breach

was independent of the type of introduction respondents received: e.g. respondents that were

asked to keep a highly reputable company in mind were just as likely to choose companies

they had good experiences with as those they had bad experiences with. A t-test between the

different introduction was done to confirm this with the actual data. Respondents that

received the “high corporate reputation introduction” (M = 2.28, SD = 0.13) scored lower on

psychological contract breach than those that received the “low corporate reputation

introduction” (M = 2.58, SD = 0.14). This result was considered significant because the p-

value was again so close to the significance level of 5% maintained in this study, t (147) = -


48

1.63, p = 0.0523. This result contradicts the results from the pretest from which concluded

that a respondent’s perceived contract breach was independent of the introduction received.

This finding suggest that variation in contract breach was not generated through

randomization but subject to the manipulation.

4.1.3. Group Differences

Apart from the introduction received, each respondent rated the company they kept in mind

on its corporate reputation. To determine the group differences for high and low corporate

reputation, a dummy variable was created. Because corporate reputation had a relatively high

median (Md = 4) on a 5-points scale, a distinction was made between scores above 4.5 for

high corporate reputation, CR High: CR > 4.5, and scores below 3 for low corporate

reputation, CR Low: CR < 3. Table 4.1 presents an overview of the differences in variable

means. As expected, for CR High, mean scores for job satisfaction and organizational

commitment were significantly higher. What is remarkable is that organizational citizenship

behavior did not differ significantly between companies that scored high and low on

corporate reputation. In addition, in line with the findings from the manipulation check,

psychological breach as perceived by the respondent seemed dependent on the corporate

reputation a company enjoys. Psychological contract breach was significantly lower for

respondents that perceived their company as highly reputable. Finally, although it seemed

logical that respondents that score high on corporate brand sensitivity work for companies

with a high corporate reputation, respondents’ corporate brand sensitivity did not

significantly differ between the two groups. There was no difference present due

manipulation of the introduction: each respondent, regardless of their corporate brand

sensitivity, was asked to keep an employer in mind with either a high or low corporate

reputation.

M. HENDRIKX

49

Table 4.1 Differences in variable means between high and low corporate reputation scores

In order to investigate whether scores of the dependent variables differed across high

and low psychological contract breach another dummy variable was created. Given the

median of psychological contract breach (Md = 2.2) on a 5-points scale, a distinction was

made between scores above 3 for high psychological contract breach, PCB High: PCB > 3,

and below 2 for low psychological contract breach, PCB Low: PCB < 2. In accordance with

the expectation, the mean score for job satisfaction, organizational commitment and

organizational citizenship behavior was significantly higher when a high breach was

perceived, t (91) = -5.83, p < 0.01, t (90) = -7.72, p < 0.01, and, t (87) = -2.12, p < 0.05,

respectively. However, in comparison with job satisfaction and organizational commitment

(M = 0.87 and M = 1.28 respectively) this difference was very low for organizational

citizenship behavior (M = 0.24) suggesting that organizational citizenship does not differ as

much among high and low contract breach after all.

4.1.4. Descriptive Statistics

Of the 149 respondents, 90 were male and 58 were female. The age of respondents ranged

from 18 to 64 years 50% fitted into the 25-34-year bracket. The majority of the respondents

obtained higher education of which 54% earned a Bachelor’s degree and 25% a Master’s

degree. Approximately half of the respondents (49%) worked for over five years in their

current field of expertise and the other half was about equally distributed over having one,

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

CR High 4.12 0.66 3.91 0.83 3.98 0.55 1.92 1.02 3.86 0.80

CR Low 3.25 0.88 2.67 0.90 3.63 0.68 3.55 0.92 3.51 0.94

t -statisic

† degrees of freedom

** = significant at the 1% level; * significant at the 5% level.

Psychological Contract

Breach

Corporate Brand

Sensitivity

1.94

(58)

-5.52**

(61)

1.41

(57)

Job Satisfaction

4.10**

(61)†

Organizational

Commitment

Organizational

Citizenship Behavior

4.92**

(60)


50

two, three and four years of work experience. Among the respondents, there was a tendency

to stick with the organization: around half of the respondents (49%) had worked on more than

five projects for the particular organization. The average corporate reputation score was

higher for this half (M = 4.14) in comparison to the other half (M = 3.67). Only a few of the

respondents (13%) had worked on only one project for the particular organization they kept

in mind.

To check how representative the data collected was, a test was done to determine

whether the general control variables differed among the type of introduction (high vs low

corporate reputation) each respondent received. With this check, noise in the data was

accounted for and a better indication was provided on response bias. Among organizational

tenure, work experience, education, gender and age, only the latter differed significantly

between mean scores of the two introductions, t (147) = 2.83, p < 0.05. However, because

this difference was very small (M = 0.24) in comparison to its standard deviation (SD = 0.91)

this difference was neglected. These results increased the likelihood that the sample is a

random representation of the population.

The most important descriptive statistics of the scores on the focal variables are

presented in Table 4.2. The focal variables in this thesis were those measured by adopted

scales and multiple items. Before the scores for each variable were determined, the reverse-

scored items were reversed first. Thereafter, scores per variable were determined by

calculating cumulative averages of the items tapping into the particular variable. Because

only 5-point Likert-type scales were used for those items that tapped into a focal variable, the

scores per focal variable were able to range from 1 to 5.

Because respondents were able to score 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 for each item tapping into a focal

variable, scores per variable were expected to be about 3. Moreover, because variables

needed to vary in order to predict relationships, each variable was expected to vary

M. HENDRIKX

51

sufficiently. A measurement of variability is the standard deviation (SD). The descriptive

statistics in Table 4.2 indicate that the mean score for psychological contract breach (M =

2.43) was the lowest. This result suggests that on average respondents did not perceive

psychological contract breach. In addition, contract breach among all focal variables varied

the most (SD = 1.14). Because contract breach is the starting point of all of the hypotheses in

this study, this variability contributes to the ability to determine the prediction power of

contract breach on freelance outcomes. Corporate reputation scored the highest mean (M =

3.96) among all focal variables and a standard deviation close to one (SD = 0.88). This

indicates that, regardless of the manipulation in the introduction, freelancers tended to score

their company either as highly reputable or neutral. Moreover, with a standard deviation close

to one, corporate reputation seemed to vary sufficiently to predict relationships. Among all

the freelance outcome variables, it is remarkable that citizenship behavior had the highest

average score (M = 3.83) and lowest standard deviation (SD = 0.49). This result suggests that,

overall, freelancers tend to go the extra mile for their employer. The low variability of

citizenship behavior can be problematic in determining the effect of the independent variables

on this dependent variable. Looking at the number of observations for each variable, this

number was not always equal to the number of respondents because of some missing data

points and the removal of outliers, discussed later on in this section.


52

Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of focal variables

4.1.5. Correlations

In Table 4.2, apart from the descriptive statistics and the Cronbach’s alphas, a matrix of the

Pearson product-moment correlations between the focal variables is presented. A pairwise

correlation was done so that the correlation between two variables were calculated on those

observations with valid values for both variables, independent of missing values of the other

variables in the correlation matrix. Correlations indicate the degree to which two variables

move together and does not account for cause and effect. Causality, proposed in the

formulated hypotheses, was tested in the analysis section.

In line with the hypotheses H1 and H2, psychological contract breach was

significantly negative correlated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment, r = -

0.41, p < 0.01, and, r = -0.52, p < 0.01, respectively. Although a similar association was

expected between psychological contract breach and organizational citizenship behavior

(H3), this correlation coefficient was negative but not significant, r = -0.15, p > 0.05. For a

causal relationship between two variables to be present, at least the correlation coefficient

needs to be significant. Because H3, H4c and H5c involve both a causal relationship between

psychological contract breach and organizational citizenship behavior, this latter result

signals that these hypotheses may not be accepted.

M. HENDRIKX

53

The correlation of the moderator corporate reputation was in line with the expectation

and significantly positive correlated with job satisfaction, r = 0.38, p < 0.01, organizational

commitment, r = 0.50, p < 0.01, and organizational citizenship behavior, r = 0.22, p < 0.01.

An interesting finding was that corporate reputation was significantly negative correlated

with psychological contract breach, r = -0.45, p < 0.01. When corporate reputation levels

were high, psychological contract breach levels were low and vice versa. This result

suggested a possible relationship between corporate reputation and contract breach.

Although initially expected, due the manipulation of the introduction, the second

moderator corporate brand sensitivity was argued to be independent of corporate reputation.

This was confirmed by the correlation between corporate brand sensitivity and corporate

reputation, r = 0.13, p > 0.05.

4.1.6. Assumptions

In this section the assumptions of the OLS estimation method are presented and confirmed

together with the additional assumption of the Gauss-Markov Theorem to proof that the OLS

method is the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE) of the regression coefficients.

According to Stock and Watson (2012, pp. 238-240) OLS is the appropriate estimator

for the multiple regression coefficients when it fulfills the following four assumptions:

1. The conditional distribution of 𝑢𝑖 given 𝑋1𝑖 , 𝑋2𝑖 , … , 𝑋𝑘𝑖 has a mean of zero

2. (𝑋1𝑖 , 𝑋2𝑖 , … , 𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑌𝑖), 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛, are independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.)

3. Large outliers are unlikely

4. No perfect multicollinearity

Regarding the first assumption, because the constant in the regression model absorbs

the effect in the event of a nonzero conditional mean of the residual, it is not possible to look

at the conditional distribution of 𝑢𝑖 and check if the first assumption holds. Instead, by


54

looking at a plot of the residuals vs. the predicted values, the first assumption was proven

when the residuals are equally distributed around the line 𝑦 = 0. The plots for each

developed regression model are presented in Appendix 5 and show that the error term is

equally distributed around the line y=0 and proofs the validity of this assumption. In addition,

the first assumption was violated when the correlations between the residual and the

independent variables are nonzero (Stock & Watson, 2012, p. 166). Appendix 6 presents

these correlations per regression model and shows that all correlations equal zero. It can

therefore ben concluded that this assumption was not violated.

Although the second assumption of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.)

random variables cannot be proven, survey data from a randomly chosen subset typically can

be considered i.i.d. (Stock & Watson, 2012, p. 166). A sampling technique was considered to

be random when each freelancer in the creative industries had an equal chance of being

included in the sample. Since several non-probability sampling techniques were used due the

absence of the entire list of the population, it was difficult to assure this proposition.

However, by selecting several subsets of the population it was attempted to make the data as

i.i.d. as possible. In addition, the “independence part” of the i.i.d. assumption is violated

when autocorrelation is present and observations are correlated with each other. Since cross-

sectional data is used instead of the time series it can be assured that independence is not

violated.

To make sure the third assumption holds and prevent the OLS regression from

generating misleading results, each independent variable was graphed in a box plot and

outliers of each focal variable were detected and removed prior to entering the regression. A

graph box for each variable was generated and presented in Appendix 7. After inspection, the

following number of observation were removed per variable: three for organizational

M. HENDRIKX

55

citizenship behavior, one for job satisfaction, three for corporate reputation and seven for

corporate brand sensitivity.

The fourth assumption is violated, when one independent variable is a perfect linear

function of another independent variables (Stock & Watson, 2012, p. 239). When

investigating the hypothesized moderating effects, this assumption was likely to be violated

because interaction terms, between two or three variables, were added to the regression

model. Variance inflation factors (VIF) were calculated for each regression model and values

exceeding 10 were detected as this indicated serious multicollinearity. When multicollinearity

was present with one of the independent variables, this variable was centered by subtracting

the mean and the regression was rerun and VIFs were calculated again as a double check. An

overview of the variance inflation factors per regression model prior to and after centering the

variables can be found in Appendix 8. As can be seen from this appendix the third

assumption held, after centering certain variables.

Finally, apart from these assumptions, according to the Gauss-Markov Theorem the

OLS estimator is the Best (most efficient) Linear conditionally Unbiased Estimator (BLUE)

of the coefficients when the error terms are homoscedastic. This additional assumption holds

when the variance of the error term; is constant for values of the independent variable,

𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝑢𝑖|𝑋𝑖 = 𝑥), is constant for 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛 and independent of the independent variable

(Stock & Watson, 2012, p. 199). By calculating all regressions with robust standard errors,

this assumption was assured.

In sum, although it was not able to proof validity of the i.i.d. assumption, the other

results suggest that the OLS method used in this thesis is not only the appropriate estimator

butt also the BLUE of the regression coefficients.

4.1.7. Model specification


56

Every regression was also tested for model specification by determining the presence of

omitted variable bias and specification error. First, omitted variable bias arises when one or

more included independent variables are correlated with an omitted variable (Stock &

Watson, 2012, p. 273). To prevent this each model included control variables and as a double

check, a Ramsey Reset test was performed for every regression model. The H0 in the Ramsey

Reset test hypothesized that the model has no omitted variables, and as shown in Appendix 9

the H0 was accepted for every model. From this it can be concluded that omitted variable

bias was not present in any of the developed models. Second, a regression model is subject to

specification error when more variables are required in the model. To test for this, a Link test

was done that regressed the observed values of the dependent variable on the predicted values

and the squared predicted values of this dependent variable. The H0 of ‘no specification

error’ was accepted when the squared predicted values of the dependent variable did not

significantly determine the dependent variable. The results of the Link test of each regression

model indicated that the squared predicted values of the dependent variable did not

significantly determined the dependent variable. These results proved that no specification

errors were present. An overview of these results is presented in Appendix 10.

4.1.8. Noticeable remarks

From this pre-analysis, the following topics are subject to inclusion of discussion in the next

chapter. The first topic is the result that respondents scored on average relatively high on

organizational citizenship behavior and that among all variables this variable yielded the

lowest variability. The second topic is the high and significant correlation between corporate

reputation and contract breach. This correlation is linked to the results of the manipulation

check. Although the results from the pretest suggested that contract breach was independent

M. HENDRIKX

57

of the introduction received the findings of the manipulation check contradict this result and

show that contract breach was dependent on the introduction the respondent received.

4.2. ANALYSIS

The results of each regression model are presented and analyzed in this section together with

a conclusion on whether the particular hypothesis was supported or not. The coefficients in

the tables represent standardized regression coefficients (β) and can be compared to one

another because these are measured in standard deviations instead of units of the variable.

First, hypothesis 1, 2 and 3, developed for the direct effect of contract breach on job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and citizenship behavior respectively, are touched

upon. Thereafter, the results for hypothesis 4a, 4b and 4c are discussed to determine the

moderating effect of corporate reputation on the breach-freelance outcome relationship.

Finally, the results of hypothesis 5a, 5b, and 5c are reviewed to determine the moderating

effect of brand sensitivity on the moderating effect of corporate reputation, to exclude

alternative explanations for the initial moderating effect by corporate reputation.


58

Table 4.3 Predicting Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior

The results of the regression model developed for hypothesis 1 are presented in Table

4.3 first. From this table, it can be concluded that the model is significant and that 19% of the

variability in job satisfaction scores was predicted by the included regressors, R2 = 0.19, F

(6,140) = 5.32, p < 0.01. The low R2 can be explained by the fact that none of the included

M. HENDRIKX

59

control variables were significant. Hypothesis 1 predicted that there was a negative

relationship between psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. In line with the

prediction, a one standard deviation increase in psychological contract breach led to a 0.39

standard deviation decrease in job satisfaction, holding the other regressors constant, β = -

0.39, t (140) = -4.64, p < 0.01. Hence, hypothesis 1 was supported.

Table 4.3 also shows the results for hypothesis 2. These results indicate that the

developed regression model for H2 is significant and that 48% of the variability in

organizational commitment scores was predicted by the included regressors, R2 = 0.48, F

(7,137) = 19.91, p < 0.01. From the six included control variables, only three were significant.

The relative strength of each coefficient was determined by comparing the absolute values of

the beta coefficients. The independent variable with the largest beta coefficient in absolute

value was the strongest determinant of the dependent variable. The results indicate that job

satisfaction, was the strongest determinant of organizational commitment, followed by

psychological contract breach. Hypothesis 2 predicted that there was a negative relationship

between psychological contract breach and organizational commitment. In line with the

prediction, a one standard deviation increase in psychological contract breach led to a 0.35

standard deviation decrease in organizational commitment, holding the other regressors

constant, β = -0.35, t (137) = -4.83, p < 0.01. Hypothesis 2 was therefore supported.

The final results of table 4.3 represent the developed model for hypothesis 3. The

model is significant and 27% of the variability in organizational citizenship behavior is

explained by the included regressors, R2 = 0.27, F (8,130) = 7.12, p < 0.01. Moreover, three

of the seven included control variables were significant. In this model, organizational

commitment yielded the highest beta coefficient in absolute value, followed by job

satisfaction. 0.41, t (133) = 5.15, p < 0.01, and, 0.41, t (133) = 5.15, p < 0.01, respectively.


60

This was in line with the expectation that both job satisfaction and organizational

commitment determine citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 3 predicted that there was a negative

relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational citizenship behavior.

The results show that psychological contract breach yielded an insignificant positive beta

coefficient which was in comparison with the other included regressors small in absolute

value, β = 0.13, t (130) = 1.34, p > 0.05. Hypothesis 3 was therefore not supported.

Table 4.4 Moderating effect of Corporate Reputation

Table 4.4 represents the regression model developed for hypothesis 4a first. This

hypothesis predicted that corporate reputation moderated the contract breach- job satisfaction

relationship so that the relationship is weaker for higher levels of corporate reputation. Two

regressions, with and without the interaction variable, were performed to identify a possible

M. HENDRIKX

61

moderating effect. The results indicate that both regressions were significant and explained

25% of the variability in job satisfaction, R2 = 0.25, F (7,135) = 6.69, p < 0.01, and, R2 = 0.25,

F (8,134) = 5.85, p < 0.01, respectively. Moreover, regardless of inclusion of the interaction

variable, both psychological contract breach and corporate reputation had a significant effect

on job satisfaction. In line with what was expected, this effect was negative for contract

breach and positive for corporate reputation in both steps of the hierarchical regression. In

addition, psychological contract breach was in both steps the strongest determinant of job

satisfaction, β = -0.30, t (135) = -3.10, p < 0.01 in step one, and, β = -0.30, t (134) = -3.08, p

< 0.01 in step two. A moderating effect of corporate reputation that weakened the relationship

between contract breach and job satisfaction was identified when the coefficient of the

interaction variable was significantly positive. The results show a positive but insignificant

coefficient for the interaction variable, β = 0.04, t (134) = 0.46, p > 0.05. Hypothesis 4a is

therefore not supported. 1 Figure 4.5 provides a graphical presentation of the moderating

(interaction) effect of corporate reputation on the contract breach- job satisfaction

relationship.

1 Apart from testing the moderation effect for the continuous measure of corporate reputation, the moderation

effect was also tested for two binary measures of corporate reputation. The first binary measure distinguished

reputation between scores above 3 for high corporate reputation and below 3 for low corporate reputation. The

second binary measure distinguished scores in a more extreme manner to investigate if not under this

circumstance a moderation effect was possibly present. This binary measure distinguished corporate reputation

between scores above 4.5 for high corporate reputation and scores below 3 for low corporate reputation. All

results did not indicate a moderation effect by corporate reputation on the contract breach – freelance outcome

relationship.


62

Figure 4.5 A Graphical Presentation of the Moderating Effect of Corporate Reputation on the

Psychological Contract Breach – Job Satisfaction Relationship

The results of the regression model developed for hypothesis 4b are presented in

Table 4.4 as well. This hypothesis predicted that corporate reputation moderated the breach-

commitment relationship so that the relationship is weaker for higher levels of corporate

reputation. Two regressions, with and without the interaction variable, were performed to

identify a possible moderating effect. The results indicate that both regressions were

significant and explained 51% of the variability in organizational commitment, R2 = 0.51, F

(8,132) = 19.03, p < 0.01, and, R2 = 0.51, F (9,131) = 17.44, p < 0.01, respectively.

Moreover, regardless of inclusion of the interaction variable, both psychological contract

breach and corporate reputation had a significant effect on organizational commitment. As

expected, this effect was negative for contract breach and positive for corporate reputation in

‡ Only the direct effects were signifcant

† Values for corporate reputation were centered around the mean: CR = -3 equals 1 on 5-points scale and CR =

1 equals 5 on 5-points scale

Note: the negative effect of psychological contract breach on job satisfaction is indicated by the negative slope

of the plotted lines; the positive effect of corporate reputation on job satisfaction is indicated by an upward

move of the plotted line for the high level of corporate reputation (CR=1); the positive interaction effect is

indicated by a less negative slope of the plotted line for the high level of corporate reputation.

M. HENDRIKX

63

both steps of the hierarchical regression. An interesting finding was that in step one and step

two, corporate reputation and not contract breach was the strongest determinant of

commitment, β = 0.27, t (132) = 3.40, p < 0.01, and, β = 0.29, t (131) = 3.50, p < 0.01,

respectively. A moderating effect of corporate reputation that weakened the relationship

between breach and commitment was identified when the coefficient of the interaction

variable was significantly positive. The results show a negative and insignificant coefficient

for the interaction variable, β = -0.06, t (131) = -0.90, p > 0.05. From these results, it can be

concluded that hypothesis 4b was not supported. Appendix 11 can be consulted for a

graphical presentation.

The last results in Table 4.4 represent the regression model developed for hypothesis

4c. This hypothesis predicted that corporate reputation moderated the contract breach-

citizenship behavior relationship so that this relationship is weaker for higher levels of

corporate reputation. Both regressions were significant and explained 28% of the variability

in citizenship behavior, R2 = 0.28, F (9,127) = 6.37, p < 0.01 in step one, and, R2 = 0.28, F

(10,126) = 5.67, p < 0.01 in step two. In line with the previous findings for hypothesis 3, the

beta for contract breach was positive and not significant in both regressions. Against the

initial reasoning in this thesis, the result indicate that corporate reputation was not a

significant predictor of citizenship behavior either. Hypothesis 4c was proven when the

coefficient of the interaction term, added in the second step of the hierarchical regression,

was significantly positive. The table shows a positive coefficient, but this result was not

significant, β = 0.05, t (129) = 0.45, p > 0.05. Hence, hypothesis 4c was rejected. Appendix

12 can be consulted for a graphical presentation.


64

Table 4.6 Moderating effect of Corporate Brand Sensitivity

Table 4.6 presents the results for the hierarchical regression performed for hypothesis

5a first. This hypothesis predicted that the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the

contract breach- job satisfaction relationship was moderated by corporate brand sensitivity, so

M. HENDRIKX

65

that the initial moderating effect is stronger for higher levels of brand sensitivity. The results

for both steps of the regression indicate that contract breach and corporate reputation were

significant predictors of job satisfaction and that corporate brand sensitivity was not. When

the main interaction variable was added in the second step, together with the additional

interaction control variables, the included regressors tended to predict a slightly higher

percentage of the variance in job satisfaction, R2 = 0.27, F (8,126) = 6.72, p < 0.01 in step 1,

versus, R2 = 0.30, F (12,122) = 6.69, p < 0.01 in step two. Hypothesis 5a was supported when

the interaction between brand sensitivity, reputation and contract breach was significantly

positive. Instead of positive, the results indicate that the coefficient of this interaction variable

was significantly negative, β = -0.25, t (122) = -2.48, p < 0.01. In addition to this effect being

significantly negative, all models developed to predict job satisfaction did not show a

significant negative moderation by corporate reputation. Therefore, hypothesis 5a was not

supported. Due the multiple interaction effects present in this regression model, as well as the

regression model developed for hypothesis 5b and 5c, it was not possible to isolate the three-

way interaction effect by means of a graph.

The results of the hierarchical regression performed for hypothesis 5b are presented in

Table 4.6 too. This hypothesis predicted that the moderating effect of corporate reputation on

the contract breach-commitment relationship was moderated by corporate brand sensitivity,

so that the initial moderating effect is stronger for higher levels of brand sensitivity. In both

steps of the regression, significant results were obtained for contract breach, reputation and

brand sensitivity. Similar to H5a, when the main interaction variable was added in the second

step, together with additional interaction control variables, the included regressors tended to

predict a slightly higher percentage of the variance in organizational commitment, R2 = 0.53,

F (9,123) = 17.16, p < 0.01 in step one, versus, R2 = 0.55, F (13,119) = 17.15, p < 0.01 in step

two. Hypothesis 5b was accepted when the interaction between brand sensitivity, reputation


66

and contract breach was significantly positive. Although the coefficient of this interaction

variable was positive, the result was not significant, β = 0.04, t (119) = 0.54, p > 0.05.

Hypothesis 5b was therefore not supported.

The last results in Table 4.6 represent the results of the hierarchical regression

performed for hypothesis 5c. This hypothesis predicted that the moderating effect of

corporate brand sensitivity on the breach-citizenship behavior relationship was further

moderated by corporate brand sensitivity, so that the effect is stronger for higher levels of

corporate brand sensitivity. Remarkably, the explained variance of citizenship behavior by

the included predictors was relatively high after adding the three-way interaction and the

additional two-way interaction control variables, R2 = 0.32, F (10,118) = 6.68, p < 0.01 in

step one, versus, R2 = 0.43, F (14,114) = 7.86, p < 0.01 in step two. Moreover, all models

developed to predict citizenship behavior (H3, H4c, H5c), did not indicate that contract

breach and corporate reputation were significant predictors of citizenship behavior. Instead

corporate brand sensitivity in step one and its interaction with other variables in step two

show to be significant predictor of citizenship behavior. Noticeably, the predictor corporate

brand sensitivity became insignificant in the second step of the hierarchical regression, β =

0.19, t (118) = 2.19, p < 0.05 in step one, versus, β = 0.00, t (114) = 0.05, p > 0.05 in step two.

This result provided support for the possibility that other factors, not present in the scope of

this thesis, determined citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 5c was supported when the

interaction between brand sensitivity, reputation and breach was significantly positive. The

results in Table 4.6 indicate a significant negative interaction effect between brand

sensitivity, corporate reputation and breach, β = -0.29, t (114) = -3.38, p < 0.01. In addition to

this effect being significantly negative, all models developed to predict citizenship behavior

did not show a significant negative effect of contract breach or a significant negative

moderation by corporate reputation. Therefore, hypothesis 5c was not supported.

M. HENDRIKX

67

In short, the results show that contract breach had a negative effect on job satisfaction

and organizational commitment and thus H1 and H2 were supported. However, the results

indicate that a negative effect of contract breach on citizenship behavior was not present, H3

was therefore not supported. The negative relationships between contract breach and these

freelance outcomes were expected to be weakened by corporate reputation, and these

relationships were represented by H4a, H4b and H4c. The results show that none of the

hypothesized relationships were supported. Finally, it was expected that if the moderating

effect of corporate reputation on the contract breach- freelance outcome relationships truly

comes from corporate reputation, corporate brand sensitivity would moderate these

moderating effects. These relationships were represented by H5a, H5b and H5c and the

results did not support any of these.

From the main analysis, the following topics are included in the discussion chapter to

discuss potential explanations for the results. The first topic is the finding that in the models

developed for organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction and organizational

commitment have a significant positive effect on citizenship behavior but that contract breach

and corporate reputation do not significantly determine citizenship behavior (H3, H4c &

H5c). The second topic involves, the absence of a moderating effect by corporate reputation

on the breach- freelance outcome relationship (H4a, H4b, H4c).

4.3 POST-HOC FEEDBACK ANALYSIS

Feedback was provided on 14 of the 29 sub-forums (“subreddits”) targeted on Reddit and in

total 30 people provided comments on the posted survey.

First, two respondents translated the high and low reputation introduction with a good

and a bad experience and translated contract breach also as to having a good or bad


68

experience. One of the quotes is presented below.

“… you want me to keep in mind a bad experience with a company I worked for? Then you

ask if I was happy with it? Sounds like you know the results you're after. :/”

(Resp. A, Subreddit Screenwriting)

This suggests that the manipulation of the introduction possible influenced the level of

perceived contract breach.

Second, three respondents provided comments that were in line with a lack of

perceptibility of corporate reputation. They suggested that other variables, such as the

individual reputation (especially regarding those that brought you on) and organizational

culture was of played a role in determining attitudes and behavior. Moreover, one respondent

mentioned that most production companies are not able to build a reputation due the constant

restructuring that takes place. Some sample quotes are presented below.

“My only concerns are the people who brought me on … not the production company per-

se.”

(Resp. B, Subreddit FilmIndustryLA)

“...the company culture is way more of an impact on the day to day work experience than the

corporate brand.”

(Resp. C, Subreddit Editing)

“… often, we don't work directly for the company. Everything is outsourced … Exposure with

these high-profile companies are limited, as production companies are often ad-hoc and only

LLC'd for the specific production, or a certain deal with a channel.”

(Resp. D, Subreddit FilmIndustryLA)

“ … this town has a thousand production companies that are constantly forming and falling

apart and reforming. Many don't last long enough to build much of a reputation.”

(Resp. E, Subreddit FilmIndustryLA)

M. HENDRIKX

69

These comments suggest that maybe after all, at least in television and film production,

corporate reputation does not play that big of a role.

Third, twelve respondents perceived difficulty whilst filling out the survey because

the items asked seemed to tap into instances present in the fulltime rather than the freelance

context. Some of the quotes underpinning these statements are presented below.

“… many questions appear to be geared towards employees rather than freelancers who

have multiple clients - lots of the questions simply are not relevant to a freelancer.”

(Resp. F, Subreddit VFX)

“Many of the questions do not seem to be applicable in the framework of television freelance

work, the questions just don't make sense.”

(Resp. G, Subreddit FilmIndustryLA)

“A lot of these are very difficult to answer as a freelancer, seeing as we don't have

employment with companies or superiors.”

(Resp. H, Subreddit Animation)

“… most of the questions seem to be more like the kind you would ask of permanent

employees.”

(Resp. I, Subreddit London)

In addition, five respondents mentioned suspicion regarding the similar items asked.

One of the quotes is provided below.

“Is it just me, or are almost all of those questions in each section worded slightly differently,

but ask the same thing?”

(Resp. J, Subreddit Graphic Design)

This may have confused respondents in answering constructs consisting of a high number of

similar items.

Finally, in line with the literature review, one respondent explained that on the basis

of being a freelancer alone breach was more likely to occur in this context. The quote is

provided below.


70

“…zero-hours contract jobs, mean that you have A. the vulnerability of being fired instantly.

B. no provision of pension or anything else, and C. in practice no rights whatsoever - so all

this has the unfortunate consequence that any "promises" that have been made towards you,

are unlikely to be kept. Just on the basis of your position alone.”

(Resp. K, Subreddit London)

Although this was in accordance with the expectation, the data shows that the mean of the

breach score in the pre-analysis was relatively low in comparison with the other variables.

From the feedback analysis, two topics are included in the discussion chapter. The

first topic is the finding that manipulating the introduction may have affected the perceived

breach of respondents. The second topic is the applicability of the constructs used. There are

signs that the items asked may not be as applicable to the freelance context as was suggested

by the pretest and the similar items asked may have confused people.

5. Discussion

In this chapter a discussion of the results is presented. First the significance of the findings is

touched upon together with the answer to the research question. Second, alternative

explanations of the results are provided on the topics pointed out by the pre-analysis, analysis,

feedback analysis and supported with existing literature. Thereafter, the implications for

business practices are discussed. Finally, the limitations of this research are pointed out

together with recommendations for future research.

5.1 Answer to research question

The following research question was posed in the introduction: What is the moderating effect

of corporate reputation on the psychological contract breach - freelance outcome

relationship? A theory was developed of freelancer’s perceived benefits as a result for

working for a company with a high reputation. From this theory, it was expected that given

these benefits freelancers working for a highly reputable firm were less inclined to react on

M. HENDRIKX

71

breach with the particular firm. First it was investigated whether contract breach had a

negative effect on the freelance outcome variables; job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. The results from the conducted survey

confirmed a negative effect of contract breach on job satisfaction and organizational

commitment but indicated that breach did not have an effect on citizenship behavior.

Thereafter, it was investigated whether corporate reputation moderated the depicted contract

breach- freelance outcome relationships. The results showed that corporate reputation did not

moderate any of the depicted relationships. Finally, to investigate that when a moderation by

corporate reputation was present this truly came from corporate reputation, the moderating

effect of corporate brand sensitivity on this moderation by corporate reputation was

investigated. The results indicated that there was a significant negative moderating effect

present of corporate brand sensitivity on the moderating effect by corporate reputation on the

contract breach- job satisfaction and contract breach- organizational commitment

relationship. However, because a moderating effect by corporate reputation was not present

in any of the developed models, this significant moderating effect of corporate brand

sensitivity was considered spurious. In sum, the results of this research suggest that in the

context of freelancers in creative industries, corporate reputation does not moderate the

contract breach- freelance outcome relationship.

5.2 Alternative explanations results

In this paragraph, alternative explanations are provided on two central topics that were drawn

from the analysis section. First, the average score and low variability of organizational

citizenship behavior together with its independence of breach is touched upon. Second, the

high correlation between corporate reputation and contract breach together with the absence

of the moderation by corporate reputation will be discussed.


72

The results in the pre-analysis showed that among all freelance outcome variables,

citizenship behavior scored the highest mean and varied the least. These results show that

overall freelancers tend to go the extra mile for their employer. In addition, although it was

initially expected that this low variability was problematic in predicting citizenship behavior,

the significant positive effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment rejected this

proposition. Because of that, it can be concluded that the absence of a negative effect of

contract breach on citizenship behavior in the main analysis is true. This finding is quite

remarkable because studies in the context of fulltime employment showed that contract

breach did have a negative effect on citizenship behavior (Robinson & Morrison, 1995;

Turnley et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2007). The results in this thesis show that factors such as job

satisfaction and organizational commitment determine citizenship behavior, but perhaps there

is another factor in place that determines citizenship behavior and explains the absence of the

negative effect of contract breach on citizenship behavior. Maybe the freelancer’s

dependency of their employer plays an important role. In the fulltime context, long-term

contracts are in place and continuance of the relationship is guaranteed to a certain extend.

When fulltime employees do not run the extra-mile, there is no direct threat to the

continuance of the relationship in the short run. However, in the freelance context, where

zero hour contracts are in place, freelancers need to continuously show what they are worth in

order to continue the relationship (Starkey et al., 2000). The negative effect of contract

breach on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, indicates that breach has a

negative effect on freelancers’ affect. Because this effect is stronger for job satisfaction than

commitment, it is argued that breach first impacts job satisfaction and thereafter

organizational commitment. What is remarkable is that although freelancers feel bad

following contract breach, they do not alter their behavior. Given the higher dependency of

M. HENDRIKX

73

freelancers in contrast to employees in full time positions, freelancer’s might want to keep

their options open. They may not want to show the employer how they feel, because it can

jeopardize their options. Their willingness to keep their options open may explain too why

some respondents in the feedback analysis mentioned that their concern of their personal

reputation regarding those who brought them on the project played a more dominant role than

the corporate reputation.

In short, although it seems that companies can breach the psychological contracts they

have with their freelancers without being confronted with the negative consequences, this is

only the case in the short-run. In the long-run, the negative effect of breach on satisfaction

and commitment, will eventually have the negative consequence that the freelancers, the

company wants to hold onto, walk away.

The results show that corporate reputation is highly correlated with psychological

contract breach and that a moderating effect by corporate reputation on the contract breach-

outcome relationship is not present. Although, the results from the pre-test suggested that

contract breach was independent of corporate reputation, the results from the group

differences and the manipulation check suggest otherwise. In addition, there are also signs

from the feedback analysis that breach was depended on the type of introduction received.

Congruity theory by Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955) argues that when two sets of

information are contradicting and a judgement must be made by an individual, the individual

experiences pressure to alter their attitude of one of the two sets of information in order to

fulfill the need of congruence of attitudes. When respondents kept a company in mind with a

high reputation, perhaps the perceived breach did not match the initial attitude and for the

respondent to create congruence, they may have altered their attitude regarding the extent to

which the company fulfilled its promises. This method error may be a possible explanation

for the absence of the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the breach- freelance


74

outcome relationship. The method error caused high values of corporate reputation to be

associated with low values of breach. This negative relatedness resulted in a lack of

variability in the interaction variable which makes it more difficult to determine a

relationship.

In short, the congruity theory together with the results suggest that perhaps corporate

reputation determined respondents’ level of perceived breach. This method bias may explain

the absence of a moderating effect by corporate reputation on the contract breach- freelance

outcome relationship.

5.3 Managerial Implications

Although it seems that companies can benefit from breach because the short run negative

consequences are not directly perceived by the company and freelancers keep running the

extra-mile, breach still harms the organization. This is because the negative effect of breach

on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, cause the freelancers the company wants

to hold onto to walk away. The results show that corporate reputation does not weaken the

negative effect of contract breach on freelance outcomes. However, this study suggests that

investing in the corporate brand can be still very beneficial. There are signs that the corporate

reputation of a company can cause freelancers to perceive less breach. This allows companies

with a high reputation to get away more easily from the negative consequences following

breach.

5.4 Limitations and Future Research

This study was subject to several limitations and suggestions for future research are made in

this section.

M. HENDRIKX

75

First, the results from the feedback analysis indicate that some respondents were

confused because the constructs used were not applicable to the context of freelancers and

items were repetitive. A methodological recommendation is to develop scales that are more

suited for the intermittent employment context and that consist of fewer items.

Second, the correlation between corporate reputation and contract breach indicate the

presence of a method error. To determine if corporate reputation moderates the breach-

freelance outcome relationship, the attitude alteration based of an individual’s need for

congruence among attitudes needs to be filtered out. Future research should develop an

objective measure for psychological contract breach to control for this effect. Moreover, with

this measure the congruity theory, used as an explanation for the dependence of perceived

breach on corporate reputation, can be proven. An objective measure of breach allows us to

test whether individuals that work for a company with a high corporate reputation perceive

less breach than individuals that work for a company with a low corporate reputation. Should

the perceived contract breach by the individual truly be dependent of the corporate reputation

than investing in the corporate brand decreases the negative consequences when companies

breach.

Finally, given the absence of an effect of contract breach on citizenship behavior,

future research should investigate whether the dependency on the employer by the individual

plays a significant role in predicting this behavior. This dependency can be represented by the

term of the employment contract. Results will deepen the understanding of behavior between

continuous and intermittent employment.

6. Conclusion

Firms are faced by an increased uncertain and dynamic environment. Companies have to be

flexible in order survive. By being flexible, companies have to breach the psychological


76

contract every now and then. This is beneficial in the short run but in the long run the

company is experience the negative consequences. This research attempted to investigate if

the balance of these pros and cons is more advantageous for companies with a high corporate

reputation than companies with a low corporate reputation. Therefore, this thesis attempted to

provide an answer to the following research question: What is the moderating effect of

corporate reputation on the psychological contract breach- freelance outcome relationship?

The outcome variables of freelancers, central in this thesis, were job satisfaction,

organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Job satisfaction

determined job performance and had a positive on organizational commitment and

citizenship behavior respectively. Organizational commitment allows companies to be

flexible and prevents cost such as searching, contracting, controlling and human opportunism

to incur. Moreover, organizational commitment had a positive impact on citizenship

behavior. Finally, citizenship behavior promotes the effective functioning of the firm.

Previous research suggested that psychological contract breach has a negative effect on all

three freelance outcome variables. In this thesis, it was argued that corporate reputation

moderated this relationship so that this negative effect becomes weaker as corporate

reputation increases. The literature suggested that freelancers derive benefits such as transfer

of reputation, trust and identification from working for a highly reputable. It was argued that

these benefits may outweighs the cost that incur when a company breaches the contract.

Moreover, it was argued that when corporate reputation truly weakened the contract breach-

freelance outcome relationship, corporate brand sensitivity weakened this relationship even

further. An explanation was that freelancers that are more brand sensitivity value the benefits

of corporate reputation more.

A survey was conducted by means of a standardize questionnaire. In order to create

sufficient variance in the variable corporate reputation, the introduction was manipulated.

M. HENDRIKX

77

This introduction directed respondents to keep a company in mind, they work with or had

worked for, with either a high or a low reputation. Constructs to measure each focal variable

of this study were adopted form the literature. Regression models for each hypothesized

relationship were developed and several control variables were included to these to prevent

omitted variable bias.

The results showed that psychological contract breach had a negative effect on the

attitude measures: job satisfaction and organizational commitment, but that this effect was

not present for citizenship behavior. In addition, in all developed models corporate reputation

did not moderate any of the contract breach- freelance outcome relationships. Finally,

corporate brands sensitivity did not moderate any of the moderations by corporate reputation

on the contract breach- freelance outcome relationships, so that the negative effect was

weakened for an increase in corporate brand sensitivity.

The first finding identified from the results and subject to discussion was related to

citizenship behavior. Among all freelance outcome variables, citizenship behavior scored the

highest on average and yielded the lowest variability. In addition, citizenship behavior was

only determined by job satisfaction and organizational commitment but not by contract

breach. It is argued that these results highlight the dependent position of freelancers in

contrast to fulltime employees. Freelancers are argued to be more depended on their

employer in the continuance of the relationship due the presence of zero-hour contracts or

absence of longer term contracts. Freelancers tend to run the extra-mile regardless of breach

because they want to keep their options open. However, a company does not get away with

breach because the altered attitudes of satisfaction and commitment will eventually

encourage the freelancers, the company wants to hold onto, to walk away. For a deeper

understanding of the different dynamics between intermittent and fulltime employment,

future research should investigate the effect of dependency, on the employer by the


78

individual, on citizenship behavior. A measure for this dependency can be the term of the

physical contract between the individual and the organization.

The second finding that was identified and subject to discussion was the relatedness

of corporate reputation and psychological contract breach. Corporate reputation was found to

be highly correlated with psychological contract breach and no moderating effect by

corporate reputation on any of the depicted contract breach- freelance outcome relationships

was present. From congruity theory, it was argued that there may be a method bias present.

Respondents may have altered their perceived breach, based on the reputation of the company

they were asked to keep in mind. More specifically, the corporate reputation of a company

may have caused respondents to perceive the breach differently. Perhaps this bias did not

allow to capture the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the contract breach-

freelance outcome relationship. In determining a possible moderation by corporate reputation,

future research should control for respondent’s alteration of attitudes between corporate

reputation and contract breach, based on congruence. Future research should also confirm if

the explanation of congruity theory truly holds. Does respondents’ perception of breach

depend on the corporate reputation of the company they work for? This can be investigated

by the development of an objective measure of psychological contract breach. With this

objective measure, perceived breach by respondents can be measured in addition and it can

be determined whether respondents that work for a company with a high reputation are less

prone to perceive breach than respondents that work for a company with a low reputation.

Should this proposed relationship hold, it will be a breakthrough for the existing corporate

reputation literature and managerial implications. It will confirm that by investing in the

corporate brand companies can breach and more easily get away from the negative

consequences. This triggers highly reputable companies to increase their flexibility, required

M. HENDRIKX

79

for survival in the increased uncertain and dynamic environment, and thus results in a

competitive advantage.

References

Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of job

satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 185-195.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the

organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of vocational

behavior, 49(3), 252-276.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Sage.

Baker, G., Gibbons, R., & Murphy, K. J. (2002). Relational Contracts and the Theory of the

Firm. Quarterly Journal of economics, 39-84.

Balmer, J. M. (1998). Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing. Journal of

Marketing Management, 14(8), 963-996.

Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The

definitional landscape. Corporate reputation review, 9(1), 26-38.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The

relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of management

Journal, 26(4), 587-595.

Belt, J. A., & Paolillo, J. G. (1982). The influence of corporate image and specificity of

candidate qualifications on response to recruitment advertisement. Journal of

Management, 8(1), 105-112.

Beaudoin, P., Lachance, M. J., & Robitaille, J. (2003). Fashion innovativeness, fashion


80

diffusion and brand sensitivity among adolescents. Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management: An International Journal, 7(1), 23-30.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for

understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of marketing, 67(2),

76-88.

Brown, B. P., Zablah, A. R., Bellenger, D. N., & Johnston, W. J. (2011). When do B2B

brands influence the decision making of organizational buyers? An examination of the

relationship between purchase risk and brand sensitivity. International Journal of

Research in Marketing, 28(3), 194-204.

Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: why are women so happy at work?. Labour

economics, 4(4), 341-372.

Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common χ 2

tests. Biometrics, 10(4), 417-451.

Coyle‐Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the

employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of management studies, 37(7),

903-930.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Parzefall, M. (2008). Psychological contracts. The SAGE handbook

of organizational behavior, 17-34.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

d'Astous, A., & Gargouri, E. (2001). Consumer evaluations of brand imitations. European

Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 153-167.

DeCotiis, T. A., & Summers, T. P. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and

consequences of organizational commitment. Human relations, 40(7), 445-470.

Ebbers, J. J., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2009). Latent organizations in the film industry: Contracts,

M. HENDRIKX

81

rewards and resources. Human Relations, 62(7), 987-1009.

Einwiller, S., & Will, M. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to corporate branding-an

empirical study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(2), 100-

109.

Florida, R. (2013, February 25). The geography of America’s freelance economy. Retrieved

from http://www.citylab.com

Fombrun, C. J. (2001). Corporate reputations as economic assets. The Blackwell handbook of

strategic management, 289-312.

Fombrun, C. J., & Rindova, V. P. (2000). The road to transparency: Reputation management

at Royal Dutch/Shell. The expressive organization,7, 7-96.

Fombrun, C. J., & Rindova, V. (1996). Who's tops and who decides? The social construction

of corporate reputations. New York University, Stern School of Business, Working

Paper, 5-13.

Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate reputation

review, 1-16.

Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image,

recruitment image and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management

journal, 36(2), 414-427.

Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics, 148-170.

Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate

reputation. Long range planning, 31(5), 695-702.

Hebzberg, F., Mausnek, B., & Snydebman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (Second

Edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hennart, J. F. (1993). Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of

“market” and “hierarchy”. Organization Science, 4(4), 529-547.


82

Hirsch, P. M. (1972). Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural

industry systems. American journal of sociology, 639-659.

Hirsch, P. M. (2000). Cultural industries revisited. Organization science,11(3), 356-361.

Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral science, 9(2),

131-146.

Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The

roles of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing

Management, 38(7), 732-742.

Keller, K. L. (2005). Branding shortcuts: Choosing the right brand elements and leveraging

secondary associations will help marketers build brand equity. Marketing

Management, 14(5), 18.

Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior,

and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit‐level, longitudinal

study. Personnel psychology, 54(1), 101-114.

Lei, J., Dawar, N., & Lemmink, J. (2008). Negative spillover in brand portfolios: Exploring

the antecedents of asymmetric effects. Journal of marketing, 72(3), 111-123.

Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye to

eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for

psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 39-56.

Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction?. Organizational behavior and human

performance, 4(4), 309-336.

MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Richard Fetter. "The impact of organizational

citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance." The Journal of

Marketing (1993): 70-80.

Macneil, I. R. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wis. L. Rev., 483.

M. HENDRIKX

83

Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey

data. Psychological methods, 17(3), 437.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,

correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological

bulletin, 108(2), 171.

Menger, P. M. (1999). Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual review of sociology, 541-

574.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of

applied psychology, 78(4), 538.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Sage Publications.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee

citizenship?. Journal of applied psychology, 76(6), 845.

Motowidlo, S. J. (1984). Does job satisfaction lead to consideration and personal

sensitivity?. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 910-915.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkage: the psychology of

commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York, NY.: Academic Press. NHS

Information centre (2008). Statistics/Data Collections-Prescriptions, available from

www. ic. nhs. uk. Accessed, 10(3), 2008.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between

methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of

Management journal, 36(3), 527-556.


84

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.

Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior:

What are the connections?. Social Justice Research,6(1), 5-18.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship

behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage Publications.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48(4), 775-

802.

Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of

attitude change. Psychological review, 62(1), 42.

O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). Stretchwork: Managing the career progression

paradox in external labor markets. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 918-941.

Peltoniemi, M. (2015). Cultural Industries: Product–Market Characteristics, Management

Challenges and Industry Dynamics. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 17(1), 41-68.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior

on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human

performance, 10(2), 133-151.

Porter, M. E. (1996). What Is Strategy ?. Harvard Business Review, nov-dec, 61-78

Powell, W. W. (1987). Hybrid organizational arrangements: new form or transitional

development?. California management review, 30(1), 67-87.

Randall, D. M. (1987). Commitment and the organization: The organization man

revisited. Academy of management Review, 12(3), 460-471.

Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior

M. HENDRIKX

85

financial performance. Strategic management journal, 23(12), 1077-1093.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative

science quarterly, 574-599.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the

psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of management Journal, 37(1),

137-152.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of

unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of organizational

behavior, 16(3), 289-298.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract

breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 21(5),

525-546.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the

exception but the norm. Journal of organizational behavior,15(3), 245-259.

Roehling, M. V. (1997). The origins and early development of the psychological contract

construct. Journal of Management History, 3(2), 204-217.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee

responsibilities and rights journal, 2(2), 121-139.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations:

A study of psychological contracts. Journal of organizational behavior, 11(5), 389-

400.

Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements. Sage Publications.

Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the


86

psychological contract. Journal of occupational and organizational

psychology, 74(4), 511-541.

Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and

organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 15, 1-1.

Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human resource

management, 43(4), 395-407.

Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The journal of

Psychology, 132(3), 277-290.

Schein, E. H. (1980). Organization Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sels, L., Janssens, M., & Van den Brande, I. (2004). Assessing the nature of psychological

contracts: A validation of six dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4),

461-488.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of

affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational

support. Journal of applied psychology, 78(5), 774.

Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning.Organization

science, 2(1), 125-134.

Sims, R. R. (1994). Human resource management's role in clarifying the new psychological

contract. Human Resource Management, 33(3), 373-382.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its

nature and antecedents. Journal of applied psychology, 68(4), 653.

Starkey, K., Barnatt, C., & Tempest, S. (2000). Beyond networks and hierarchies: Latent

organizations in the UK television industry. Organization Science, 11(3), 299-305.

Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational

M. HENDRIKX

87

commitment. Administrative science quarterly, 46-56.

Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. A. (2012). Conducting online surveys. Sage.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover

intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings. Personnel

psychology, 46(2), 259-293.

Turban, D. B., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Firm reputation and applicant pool

characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 733-751.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on

exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human relations, 52(7), 895-922.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of

psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Journal of management, 29(2), 187-206.

Weiss, A. M., Anderson, E., & MacInnis, D. J. (1999). Reputation management as a

motivation for sales structure decisions. The Journal of Marketing, 74-89.

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York, 26-30.

Yu, T., & Lester, R. H. (2008). Moving beyond firm boundaries: A social network

perspective on reputation spillover. Corporate Reputation Review,11(1), 94-108.

Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of

psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: a meta‐analysis. Personnel

psychology, 60(3), 647-680.


88

Appendices

Appendix 1 Complete Questionnaire

..

Dear creative industry freelancer,Dear creative industry freelancer,

Thank you so much for filling out this questionnaire!Thank you so much for filling out this questionnaire!

While going through the questions, please KEEP IN MIND a company with a HIGH REPUTATION in theWhile going through the questions, please KEEP IN MIND a company with a HIGH REPUTATION in the

industry that you currently work with or have worked for.industry that you currently work with or have worked for.

Your participation will be anonymous, including the focal company you keep in mind whilst answering theYour participation will be anonymous, including the focal company you keep in mind whilst answering the

questions.questions.

Best of luck,Best of luck,

MickMick

..

Please indicate your agreement to the following statements regarding your employer's promises:Please indicate your agreement to the following statements regarding your employer's promises:

Stronglydisagree

Somewhatdisagree

Neither agreenor disagree

Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

1. Almost all of the promises made by my employer1. Almost all of the promises made by my employer

during recruitment have been kept.during recruitment have been kept.

2. I feel that my employer has come through in fulfilling2. I feel that my employer has come through in fulfilling

the promises made to me when I was hired.the promises made to me when I was hired.

3. My employer has done an excellent job of fulfilling3. My employer has done an excellent job of fulfilling

its promises to me.its promises to me.

4. I have not received everything promised to me in4. I have not received everything promised to me in

exchange for my contributions.exchange for my contributions.

5. My employer has broken many of its promises to5. My employer has broken many of its promises to

me even though I've upheld my side of the deal.me even though I've upheld my side of the deal.

.. Please indicate your agreement to the following statements regarding your behavior when you are, or Please indicate your agreement to the following statements regarding your behavior when you are, or

were, working for the particular company:were, working for the particular company:

Stronglydisagree

Somewhatdisagree

Neither agreenor disagree

Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond

what is normally expected from me, in order to helpwhat is normally expected from me, in order to help

this organization be successful.this organization be successful.

2. I talk about this organization to my friends as a2. I talk about this organization to my friends as a

great organization to work for.great organization to work for.

M. HENDRIKX

89


90

M. HENDRIKX

91

Appendix 2 Measurement Items

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH

JOB SATISFACTION

1. Almost all of the promises made by my employer during recruitment have been kept.

(R)

2. I feel that my employer has come through in fulfilling the promises made to me when

I was hired. (R)

3. My employer has done an excellent job of fulfilling its promises to me. (R)

4. I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions.

5. My employer has broken many of its promises to me even though I've upheld my side

of the deal.

Source: Robinson & Morrison, 2000

1. I am often bored with my job. (R)

2. I feel fairly well satisfied with my job.

3. I am satisfied with my job for the time being.

4. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.

5. I like my job better than the average worker does.

6. I find real enjoyment in my work.

Source: Agho et al., 1992


92

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to

help this organization be successful.

2. I talk about this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for.

3. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this

organization.

4. I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar.

5. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.

6. This organization really inspires the very best in me in terms of job performance.

7. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for ove r others I was

considering at the time I joined.

8. I really care about the fate of this organization.

9. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.

Source: Mowday et al., 1979

Civic Virtue

1. I keep up to date with developments in the company.

2. I engage in activities that are not required but help the company image.

3. I am willing to risk disapproval in order to express my beliefs about what's best for the

company.

Sportmanship

4. I consume a lot of time complaining about unimportant matters. (R)

5. I tend to make problems bigger than they are. (R)

6. I always focus on what's wrong with my situation, rather than the positive side of it. (R)

Altruism

7. I help orient new freelancers even though it is not required.

8. I am always ready to help or to lend a helping hand to those around me.

9. I am willing to give up my time to help others.

Conscientiousness

10. I conscientiously follow company regulations and procedures.

11. I turn in budgets, sales projections, expense reports, etc. earlier than is required.

12. I return phone calls and respond to other messages and requests for information

promptly.

Source: MacKenzie et al., 1993

M. HENDRIKX

93

CORPORATE REPUTATION

CORPORATE BRAND SENSITIVITY

Appendix 3 Invitation Letter

1. The company is a highly-regarded company.

2. The company is a successful company.

3. The company is a well-established company.

Source: Keh & Xie, 2009

1. When taking a project, I always pay attention to the corporate brand.

2. In general, a corporate brand tells a lot about the quality of a firm.

3. For me, the corporate brand name is very important information.

Source: d'Astous & Gargouri (2001)

***Looking for Freelancers ***

Hi Guys! For my MSc thesis, I am investigating the role of corporate reputation in the behavior of freelancers that work in creative industries (e.g. Film, Television, Theater, Musical, Music, Advertising & Event production) Would you please want to help me by filling out this 3-min survey? https://uvacommscience.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0VQCDca0YKixLCJ I will be sure to post the findings here afterwards. OK that’s it for now. Thanks a lot in advance! Mick Ps. the survey is only compatible with laptops and tablets


94

Appendix 4 List of Forums Targeted

Event Productions Atlanta Music Associates / Prod

The Film Crew GO2 Production Management

APG Netherlands Expat Republic

Young Creative Group Dutch NYC

FilmMatties Dutchies in Australia

AV Production Photography

Screenwriting After Effects

Freelance Cinema4D

Theatre Motion Design

Techtheatre Animation

Musicals VFX

Acting Absolutely Productions

Editing NYC

Film Industry LA Film makers

Film Industry London Video editing

LAFilmIndustry LightingPros

NYC Film makers Concert Production

Cinematogrophy Advertsing

Graphic Design London

Freelance Writers

Subreddits on Reddit

Facebook

M. HENDRIKX

95

Appendix 5 Plots of Residuals vs Predicted Values for Each Developed Regression Model

H1 H2 H3

H4a H4b H4c

H5a H5b H5c


96

Appendix 6 Correlations Between Error Term and Included Regressors of Each Model

Appendix 7 Graph Box of Focal Variables

Appendix 6 Correlations between error term and included regressors of each model

Error term

H1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

H3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

H4a Step 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Step 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

H4b Step 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Step 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

H4c Step 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Step 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

H5a Step 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Step 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

H5b Step 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Step 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

H5c Step 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Step 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PCBxCR PCBxCBS CRxCBS PCBxCRxCBSG A CR CBSPCB JS OT WE EOC

M. HENDRIKX

97

Appendix 8 Variance Inflation Factors Prior to and After Centering of the Included Regressors per

Hypothesis

Appendix 9 Ramsey Reset Test Results per Regression Model

PCB 1.05 1.23 1.41 21.24* 1.29 21.55* 1.42 25.46* 1.53 312.30* 1.60 317.33* 1.72 547.18* 1.91

JS 1.23 1.57 1.33 1.33 1.54 1.54 1.43 1.43 1.63 1.63

OC 1.90 2.03 2.03 2.21 2.21

OT 1.20 1.20 1.24 1.21 1.21 1.23 1.23 1.26 1.26 1.28 1.28 1.31 1.31 1.32 1.32

WE 1.51 1.53 1.55 1.51 1.51 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.55 1.52 1.52 1.55 1.55 1.60 1.60

G 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.20 1.22 1.22 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26

E 1.15 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.24 1.24

A 1.43 1.45 1.43 1.49 1.49 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.45 1.45 1.47 1.47 1.49 1.49

CR 7.53 1.46 7.70 1.58 8.35 1.64 157.10* 1.53 161.09* 1.64 204.26* 1.67

CBS 202.66* 1.63 207.56* 1.63 248.09* 1.68

PCBxCR 17.19* 1.16 16.81* 1.17 20.21* 1.13 218.05* 1.24 212.11* 1.25 387.87* 1.21

PCBxCBS 476.71* 2.17 474.65* 2.17 759.46* 1.91

CRxCBS 335.21* 2.64 342.81* 2.72 423.43* 2.11

PCBxCRxCBS 361.80* 2.10 349.81* 2.19 566.53* 1.81

† Variance inflaction factors after centering the variables that violated the rule of thumb

* Violation of the rule of thumb (VIF > 10)

H1 H4a H5a H5aH4bH2 H3 H4bH4a† H5cH4c H4c H5b H5b H5c

H1 1.00 0.3945 Accepted**

H2 1.13 0.3384 Accepted**

H3 1.69 0.1722 Accepted**

H4a Step 1 0.28 0.8370 Accepted**

Step 2 0.12 0.9506 Accepted**

H4b Step 1 1.72 0.1661 Accepted**


H4c Step 1 1.54 0.2086 Accepted**


H5a Step 1 0.36 0.7852 Accepted**


H5b Step 1 1.72 0.1675 Accepted**


H5c Step 1 1.49 0.2197 Accepted**

Step 2 2.73 0.0475 Accepted*

F p -valueH0: model has

no omitted

** = significant at the 1% level; * = significant at the 5% level.


98

Appendix 10 Link Test Results per Regression Model

M. HENDRIKX

99

Appendix 11 A Graphical Presentation of the Moderating Effect of Corporate Reputation on the

Psychological Contract Breach – Organizational Commitment Relationship

Appendix 12 A Graphical Presentation of the Moderating Effect of Corporate Reputation on the

Psychological Contract Breach – Organizational Citizenship Behavior Relationship

‡ Only the direct effects were signifcant



‡ All the depicted relationships were not significant



Note: the positive effect of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behavior is indicated by

the on average positive slope of the plotted lines; the negative effect of corporate reputation on organizational

commitment is indicated by the downward move of the plotted line for the high level of corporate reputation

(CR=1); the positive interaction effect is indicated by a slope that turns from a value close to zero to a positive

value for the plotted line for the high level of corporate reputation.

psychological contract breach and freelance outcomes: the

Documents