THE BLACK BRITISH CLERICAL WORKERS’ RESPONSE: Contract Breach

The aim here is to explore how the employees’ response to psychological contract violation/breach and in what way these responses relate to the black British workers perspectives. Going back to an earlier question: Why is it important? It is important because employees behave differently from one another and their responses to psychological contract violation/breach depend on individual employee interpretation of the on-going exchange agreement. It is argued that employee responses differ from one person to another because of their different beliefs and expectations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Furthermore, it is argued that knowing how employees respond to violation or breach would enable researchers and management to understand what goes on inside the employee and to have full awareness of how the employee perceives discrepancies. Payday Loans Online

According to Herriot, Manning and Kidd (1997) there are many ways of predicting how employees would respond to breach or violation when they are faced with discrepancy. The criticism is that employee responds differently from one another. These responses are critical as it affects the employee’s behaviour in the workplace(Thomas, Au &Ravlin, 2003; Tayeb, 2005).Theories reviewed were the control theory (Carver &Scheier, 1982) which predicts that employeesinitiate different attitudes and behaviour whenever they are faced with psychological contract violation/breach. This paper also reviewed the cognitive dissonance theories(Festinger, 1957; Conway &Briner, 2005)and made similar predictions indicating whenever employees are confronted with inconsistency they are motivated to resolve it by changing either their attitudes or behaviours. The criticism here is that changing attitudes or behaviours is not enough to meet the needs of black British workers,whose physical, emotional and financial obligation to their extended families must be understoodin order to balance the psychological contract between the parties involved e.g. employer and employee. However, Herriot, Manning and Kidd (1997) study provided a clearer understanding of how employees respond to violation and suggested employees’ response to violation may result in exit, voice, neglect behaviours, resistance to change and a decrease in loyalty to the organization. It is argued that these responses may depend on situational factors,such as the availability of attractive employment alternatives,justification for the violation, and procedural justice. Furthermore, Conway and Briner (2005) affirm that the situational factors are useful tools in determining what action the employee is likely to take and what employees would do in the event of violation. The criticism is that employee response to violation would depend on the generation group they fit in. It is argued that the old and younger people have different expectations and so response to violation differently. This is true to some extent, but not of all employees, especially when the employee is influenced by factors outside the organization, e.g. caring for an elderly relative who has no pension or savings. In this situation the employee would have no choice but to seek for another job that would provide the flexibility and remuneration needed to care for his/her relatives. It is arguedthat culture is perceived as a mental representation, embedded within the employee mind throughout his lifetime (Hofstede, 1983) and carried from one organization to another,hence it is psychological, even though the employer is not aware of it, yet still governs the employee psychological contract.Therefore, hypothetically, if one accepts that culture influences employee psychological contract, then promises alone are no longer sufficient to form the psychological contract. In support, Morrison and Robinson (1997) found that the severity of the employee’s response may in part be determined by the importance theemployee placed on the psychological contract violated, rather than a matter of exchange relation between employer and employee. Again, this was supported by Kick, Lester and Belgio (2004), when their studies found that Hong Kong employee and US employee differ in terms of their responses to psychological contract violation,this became apparent when theirstudy revealed that Hong Kong employees are likely to perceive a higher level of violation regarding competitive salary and job security, while US employees are likely to perceive higher level violation regarding career advancement and promotion. This indicates that if there is violation concerning salary Hong Kong employeesare likely tohave greater intentions to leave the organization than their USA colleagues.This debate also found support in another study carried out by Zammit (1994), who found that Maltese employees working abroad give more value to extrinsic job benefits e.g. jobs that pays well more than intrinsic job values (worker’s task). In order words the Maltese put traditional family life as an essential factor.This suggests that external forces can influence the black British workers’ psychological contract, since they argued culture to them is a way of life, which helps them resolve problems both at home and work.Therefore this study argues that the black British clerical workers would responddifferently to psychological contract violation because of their beliefs.