the effect of organizational change on the psychological

The effect of organizational change on the

psychological contract

To what extent does organizational change influence the content of the psychological contract of

the employees? And is this relation mediated by the fulfillment of the obligations by the

organization?

Mieke M.F. van Doornmalen

ANR: s570587

Master Thesis Human Resource Studies

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. René Schalk

Period: Spring semester (January 2011 – August 2011)

1

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between organizational change (frequency, type, and

impact) and the content of the psychological contract, and whether this relationship is mediated

by the fulfillment of organizational obligations. This study is conducted at Deloitte and Pasana.

The data is collected by an electronically questionnaire. Result revealed that frequency of change

lead to a change in the content of the psychological contract. The relationship between the

frequency of organizational change and the content of psychological contract is also mediated

through the fulfillment of organizational obligations. Furthermore, we examined the underlying

dimensions of the fulfillment of organizational obligations (work content, career development,

social atmosphere, organizational policies, work life, and rewards) and the content of the

psychological contract (in-role behavior and extra-role behavior). Results for the mediating effect

showed that the founded relations are only declared by the dimensions social atmosphere and

organizational policies

At last, we use two organizations in this study; we found that they have a strong

influence on the results found. It seems that the organization itself is a strong predictor in the

organizational change process.

2

Table of contents

1. Abstract………..……………………………………………………… 1

2. Introduction…………………………………………………………… 3

3. Overview of the literature……………………………………………… 5

4. Method………………………………………………………………… 10

5. Results ……………………………..………………………………….. 16

6. Additional analysis ………………………………………………….… 22

7. Discussion ……………..……………………………………………… 24

8. Limitations……………………………………………………….…….. 27

9. Future research ………………………………………………….…….. 27

10. Implications……………………………………………………………. 28

11. Conclusion………………………………………………………………. 28

12. References………………………………………………………………. 29

13. Appendix A - Questionnaire……………………………………………. 31

14. Appendix B – Factor analysis ………………………………………….. 35

15. Appendix C – Additional analysis……………………………………….. 40

16. Appendix D – Split file ………………………………………………….. 55

3

Introduction

The last decade there has been a considerable increase in studies of how organizational

changes influence the psychological contract. An important cause is that “organizations today are

confronted with many changes in their environment due to growing competition, globalization of

markets, the introduction of new technologies, changing governmental regulations, etcetera”

(Schalk & Freese, 2000, p. 129). This leads to changes in the internal organization (Herriot,

Manning and Kidd, 1997). A decline in mutual loyalty between employee and employer is

expected (Hall & Moss, 1998). Therefore, it is expected to lead to changes in the obligations of

the organization towards the employee (Guest, 2004; Pate, Martin & Staines, 2000; Hall & Moss,

1998; Schalk & Freese, 2000; Herriot et al., 1997). This often means a violation of the

psychological contract, especially a lower score on the content of the psychological contract of

the employee, which refers to the degree to which employees feel that the organizations is

obliged to provide them with certain provisions, such as rewards, security, fairness, job content,

career prospects, etcetera. (Pate et al., 2000). Organizations may benefit when this process is

clarified in order to minimize the negative effects of organizational changes for as well employer

as employee. (Hall & Moss, 1998).

Different authors agree that organizational changes influence the psychological contract

(Hiltrop, 1995; Anderson & Schalk, 1998; Freese 2000; Guest, 2004; Schalk & Freese, 2000;

Pate et al., 2000); however there is no agreement on in which way the psychological contract is

influenced by organizational change. Three characteristics of change are taking into account in

this study; frequency, type and impact. It is expected that when a change occur more frequent the

higher the employee perceived threat, the less the employee is willing to do for the organization;

the employee will lower their own obligations (Freese & Schalk, 1997). It is expected that when

the certain type of change affects the employees’ role and tasks, the employee will adapt to the

new circumstances and adjust his demands towards the employer (Freese, 2007), which indicates

changes in the content of the psychological contract. As regards the impact of change it is

expected that the higher the impact, the more a change is perceived as extensive, the more

adaption in the psychological contract of organizational obligation is expected. Considering that

the psychological contract is a reciprocal agreement between employer and employee; I argue

that fulfillment of the perceived organizational obligations in the psychological contract has a

4

mediating role in this relation. In this paper therefore the focus is to examine if fulfillment of

perceived organizational obligation mediates the relationship between organizational change and

the content of the psychological contract. The aim of this paper is to answer the following

research question:

To what extent does organizational change influence the content of the psychological contract of

the employees? And is this relation mediated by the fulfillment of the obligations by the

organization?

This study is interesting for organizations who struggle with change and who want to

keep the negative unforeseen circumstances of change as little as possible. The will get insight in

how organizational changes affect the content of the psychological contract, this can be translated

to certain policies to diminish the negative effects of organizational change on the content of the

psychological contract. In order to keep the mutual loyalty as optimal as possible. Additional we

included two strongly divers’ organizations within this study as we expect that the culture and

characteristics of a certain organization affects the effect of organizational change on the content

of the psychological contract.

5

Overview of the literature

The effect of organizational change on the content of the psychological contract

Organizations today are confronted with many changes in their environment, which

automatically obligates the employer to adjust in order to compete in his market (Herriot et al.,

1997). This adjustment most likely results in shifting values and organizational change. Besides

communal effects of change we should also take into account that the organization it self has an

influence on the change process as well. It is reasonable to believe that an organization which is

agile and operating in a strong dynamic environment perceive organizational change less

negative that an organization which operate in a stable market. Organizational change can be

defined as the adaption an organization makes driven by changes in its environment such as

growing competition, globalization of markets, the introduction of new technologies and

changing governmental regulations (Schalk & Freese, 2000). In this study we choose three major

characteristics for the concept of organizational change; the frequency of change; type of change

and impact of change. Due to these organizational changes, a conflict of expectation is expected

which affects the content of the psychological contract of employees (Hiltrop, 1995; Rousseau,

1995).

The concept of psychological contract was first introduced by Argyris in 1960, and there

have been many authors who further developed and refined the concept of the psychological

contract. Psychological contract nowadays has several definitions, at the core it defines the

reciprocal obligations between employer i.e. organization and employee. The psychological

contract can be analyzed in several perspectives; employee, employer and both, this reciprocal

relation is based on a mutual acceptance of promises (Hui, Lee & Rousseau, 2004). The

psychological contract is an individual’s belief in terms and conditions (Rousseau,1990,1995)

and emerges when one party belief that a promise of future returns has been made, a contribution

has been given, and thereby, an obligation has been formed to provide future benefits. The

psychological contract can be measured in three ways (Rousseau and Tijoriawala, 1998): content-

oriented, feature-oriented and evaluation-oriented. We are interested in the content-orientation

and evaluation-orientation. The content-orientation indicates the specific terms of the contract

and the evaluation-orientation indicates the degree of fulfillment, change or violation experienced.

6

Employees experience the state of their psychological contract in two way: (1) Under-fulfillment,

refers to the inducements received by the employees are less than what they were promised or

what they were expecting; (2) Fulfillment, in this case the employee perceive that the employer is

successful living up to its obligations, the employee will view the relationship positively and

present positive behavior (Sluss, Klimchak, & Holmes, 2008)

The psychological contract is bilateral; there is an employer and employee belief. Our

focus is how eventually organizational change influence the employees’ side of the psychological

contract. This side can be divided in two dimension: (1) In-role behavior, behavior characterized

by being loyal to the job and not to the organization of boss; (2) Extra-role behavior, behavior

characterized by acting in the interest of the organization (Freese, 2007).

Many studies highlighted the relation between organizational change and the

psychological contract, (Hiltrop, 1995; Rousseau, 1995; Pate et al.,2000; Freese, 2007; Kickul,

Lester & Finkl, 2002); we will focus on the relation between organizational change and the

content of the psychological contract of the employee perspective. As explained the concept of

organizational change encompasses three major characteristics.

The first characteristic is the frequency of organizational change the employees are

confronted with during a certain amount of time. Due to a feelings of vulnerability and the fear of

losing security in time of change, the employee will perceive change as threatening (Saunders &

Thronhill, 2003). As a result it is expected that the more frequent employees are confronted with

organizational changes, the higher the threat, the less employees are willing to do for the

organization; the employee will lower their own obligations (Freese & Schalk, 1997).

1a. The perceived frequency of organizational changes has a negative effect on the content of

the psychological contract of the employee

The second characteristic of organizational change is the type of the change. We can

make a distinction in type of organizational change; accommodative and transformative

(Rousseau, 1995). Accommodative is a change process which makes adjustments in the

framework of the existing psychological contract. Transformation refers to shift in the nature and

7

actually redefine the psychological contract. It is expected that when the change affects the

employees’ role and tasks, the employee will adapt to the new circumstances and adjust his

demands towards the employer (Freese, 2007), which indicates changes in the content of the

psychological contract. Therefore it is expected that a transformational change will lead to

stronger changes in the content of the psychological contract than an accommodative change

(Freese, 2007). From this point on we focus on a certain type of change; transformational change.

The latter also depends on the frequency with which these transformational changes occur. As we

focus on the perceived number of transformational change and no longer the whole concept of

type of organizational change we use from this point ‘the perceived number of transformational

change’ instead of ‘ type of organizational change’.

1b. The perceived number of transformational change has a negative effect on the content of


The third characteristic of organizational change is the impact of the organizational change on

the employee. The higher the impact, the more a change is perceived as extensive, the more

adaption in the psychological contract of organizational obligation is expected. When an adaption

takes place in the organizational obligations a change will most likely occur in the psychological

contract.

1c. The perceived impact of the organizational changes has a negative effect on the content of


The effect of organizational change on the fulfillment of the organizational obligations

It is stated by several authors (Freese & Schalk, 1997; Pate et al., 2000; Turnley & Feldman)

that organizational change leads to adoptions of the employers’ obligations. Organizations are

obliged to adjust to their environment in order to compete in its market (Herriot et al., 1997). This

adjustment most likely results in shifting values and organizational change and eventually

influence the employers obligations. This can lead to a violation of these obligations and thereby

influence the employees’ perceived fulfillment of these obligations. Six dimensions of value will

8

be taken into account, which were indicated by Freese (2007) as the core organizational

obligations: work-content (e.g. autonomy on the job), career development (e.g. training and

education provided by the organization), social atmosphere (e.g. receiving support from

supervisor), organizational policies (e.g. open communication), work life (e.g. working at home

as a possibility) and rewards (e.g. receiving an appropriate salary).

2a. The perceived frequency of organizational changes has a negative effect on the perceived

fulfillment of organizational obligations

2b. The perceived number of transformational change has a negative effect on the content of

the perceived fulfillment of organizational obligations

2c. The perceived impact of the organizational changes has a negative effect on the perceived

fulfillment of organizational obligations

The perceived fulfillment of organizational obligations is indicated as a cause of the change

in the content of the psychological contract (Freese & Schalk, 1997). When the employer breach

or modify their obligations, it will influence the role of the employee (Freese & Schalk, 1997). It

is stated by Herriot et al. (1997) that the under-fulfillment of the perceived organizational

obligations results in withdrawing willingness to put in extra effort for the organization by the

employee. We can conclude that under-fulfillment of organizational obligations result eventually

in lower perceptions of the employee obligation in the content of the psychological contract

(Bellou, 2007; Freese, 2007).

3. Perceived fulfillment of the organizational obligations has a positive effect on the content

of the psychological contract of the employee

The relationship of organizational change on the content of the psychological contract, mediated

by the fulfillment of organizational obligations.

We expect that the content of the psychological contract will change when an organizational

change occurs. We assume that the perceived fulfillment of the organizational obligations

9

mediates this relation. It is expected that the employee will change his side of the content of the

psychological contract when he notices a change is applicable to him (Freese, 2007). Therefore

we expect that when the employee perceives the organizational obligations as under-fulfilled, a

negative effect on the level of employee obligations in the content of the psychological contract

will be observed. Several researchers indicated that organizational changes lead to changes in the

organizational obligations which, in turn influences the employee obligations in the content of the

psychological contract (Guest, 2004; Pate et al., 2000; Hall & Moss, 1998; Schalk & Freese,

2000)

4a. The relation between the perceived frequency of organizational changes and the content

of the psychological contract of the employee obligations is mediated by the fulfillment of

organizational obligations of the psychological contract.

4b. The relation between the perceived number of transformational change and the content of

the psychological contract of the employee obligations is mediated by the fulfillment of


4c. The relation between the perceived impact of the organizational changes and the content

of the psychological contract of the employee obligations is mediated by the fulfillment of


Conceptual model

In brief, the aim of this study is to examine how the fulfillment of organizational

obligations mediates the relationship between organizational change and the content of the

psychological contract, the aggregated conceptual model as indicated in Figure 1. The direct

relation between organizational change and the content of the psychological contract is tested.

Finally, the direct relationship of organizational change on the fulfillment of organizational

obligations, and the fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological

contract will be examined.

10

Figure 1

Method

The aim of this study was to explain the effect that organizational change can have on the

content of the psychological contract were fulfillment of the organizational obligations has a

mediating effect. A cross-sectional, quantitative design has been chosen for this research. The

data is collected at one point in time by a questionnaire.

The data is collected by convenience sampling. The sample consists of two organizations,

Deloitte and Stichting Zorggroep Pasana. Deloitte is the world’s largest management consulting

firm and one of the world’s leading professional services provider. Deloitte operates in 140

countries and has approximately 170.000 employees working in the areas of audit, consulting,

financial advisory, risk management, and tax services. The data for this research is collected,

through an online questionnaire, at the consulting department of Deloitte in the Netherlands,

which consists of 550 employees.

Stichting Zorgroep Pasana provides healthcare chain which is specialized in elderly care

and hospital care. Pasana has approximately 1.900 employees working in 8 business units located

in the north of the Netherlands.

All employees, who had an email account, received an online questionnaire. Approximately 300

employees do not own an email account; they received a hardcopy of the questionnaire.

Fulfillment of perceived

organizational obligations –

employer obligations

Content of the

psychological contract –

employee obligations

Frequency of

organizational change

Number of

transformational


Impact of


11

Furthermore all employees at Pasana did get the opportunity to choose for a hardcopy version

instead of an online version as we distributed hardcopies of the questionnaire to the front desk of

Pasana.

In total 2533 questionnaires were handed out to two organizations. The response rate was

21.4 percent. 35.8 percent of the respondents were male and 63.8 percent were female. Their age

ranged from 15 to 67 with an average age of 39.6 (sd = 10.3). In total 35.8 percent of the

questionnaires was filled in by employees from Deloitte and 64.8 percent was filled in by

employees from Pasana.

Instruments

Organizational Change: Is measured by questions about organizational change (during

the last two years): This scale is drawn from several studies (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006;

Armenakis et al, 2007; Metselaar,1997; Bouckenooghe & Devos, 2007; Lau & Woodman, 1995;

Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997). The scale contains three characteristics:

frequency of change, impact of change and the number of transformational changes.

Frequency - This characteristic measures the frequency of the changes experienced by the

employee by a question “Change frequently occurs in my organization”. A 5-point Likert-type

scale, ranging from “1” (strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree), is used for answering

(Appendix A-II).

Number of transformational changes – This dimension is composed of several types of changes.

The respondents have to select three changes which they experienced in the past two years at

their work. These changes include items that reflect the nature of the change, whether it is

considered accommodative or transformational (Rousseau, 1995). An example of the

accommodative items is “Changes in leadership”. An example of transformational item is

“Change in organizational culture”. We checked the correlation of the items of type of change

with the content scale of organizational obligations. To check which items score negative and can

be considered to be transformative. This corresponds with the existing literature (Freese, 1997)

(Appendix A-III).

12

Impact – This dimension is measured with two items derived from Lau and Woodman (1995).

This scale measures to what extent changes directly impact the employee’s routine activities and

perceived future in the organization. A sample question is “The change(s) had important

consequences for my future at this organization”. A 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “1”

(strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree), is used for answering. Both variables combined gave a

low reliability. We checked which one of the two questions correlate highest with the content

scale of organizational obligations; therefore we chose eventually one question to measure the

impact of organizational change; “The change(s) had important consequences for my future at

this organization”. (Appendix A-IV).

Cronbach’s alpha was measured to examine reliability. The validity for the scale cannot be

checked as the scale for frequency and impact only consists of two items. The scale for type of

change can also not be checked as the employee can only point out whether he experienced the

change or not.

Perceived fulfillment of organizational obligations: This was measured by the employees’

perception of the obligations that the employer has towards their employers (employee-side). The

fulfillment and content of the psychological contract’s items is drawn from the Tilburg

Psychological Contract Questionnaire (Freese, Schalk & Croon, 2008). The scale built by these

scholars includes a comprehensive set of items assigned into six scales, each one measuring

different aspects of the content of the psychological contract. The headline question of every set

of content-items is “In the employment relationship employees have expectations about what the

organization will offer. To what extent is your organization obliged to offer you the following?”

The following scale items refer to employer’s obligations employees believe the employer should

offer them. “Work Content” (WC) contains 6 items (Cronbach’s α 0.78) (e.g. variation in your

work) “Career Development” (CD) contains 6 items (Cronbach’s α 0.85) (e.g. training and

education). “Social Atmosphere” (SA) contains 5 items (founded Cronbach’s α 0.84) (e.g.

appreciation and recognition). “Organizational Policies” (OP) has 8 items (founded Cronbach’s α

0.86) (e.g. feedback on performance). “Work-Life Balance” (WLB) includes 4 items (founded

Cronbach’s α 0.71) (e.g. working at home) and “Rewards” (RW) has 6 items (founded

Cronbach’s α 0.78) (e.g. appropriate salary). All scale items are assessed by a 5-point Likert scale

13

ranging from “1” (no obligation at all) to “5” (very strong obligation). In order to evaluate the

extent to which these employer obligations are fulfilled, after each scale an extra question is

incorporated which asks to “To what extent did your employer fulfill the previous obligations?”.

The fulfillment of the psychological contract is assessed by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

“1” (not at all).to “5” (to a very great extent) (founded Cronbach’s α 0.79). (Appendix A-V).

Cronbach’s alpha was measured to examine reliability. PCA is used to check the reliability of

every scale and whether the scale consist the right items.

The content of the psychological contract: This was measured by the employees’ beliefs of the

obligations of the employee towards the organization. This scale consists of two dimensions, the

in-role and extra-role behavior of the employee. The items are drawn from the Tilburg

Psychological Contract Questionnaire (Freese, Schalk & Croon, 2008). Both scales includes a

comprehensive set of items assigned into two scales, each one measuring different aspects of the

content of the psychological contract. “In-role behavior” contains 11 items (founded Cronbach’s

α 0.86) (e.g. Performing well on tasks you do not like to do). “Extra-role behavior” contains 11

items (founded Cronbach’s α 0.78) (e.g. Working overtime if that is necessary to get the job

done). The content of the psychological contract is assessed by a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from “1” (not at all) to “5” (to a very great extent). (Appendix A-VI).

Cronbach’s alpha was measured to examine reliability. PCA is used to check the reliability of

every scale and whether the scale consist the right items.

Control variables: In order to rule out distortion for the results and findings different

control variable were incorporated in this study. Several researchers found possible influences of

variables on the organizational change and employee relations. The relationship which we

analyze in this research is a perception of the employee on certain aspects. Age and gender may

have a possible effect on this relationship as they each come with certain psychological

characteristics. Therefore we use age and gender as control variables within this research. The

third control variable is organization. As we argue in the literature review above, the organization

itself can also have an influence on the effect of the change process discussed. Therefore we

choose two diverse organizations for this study. The sample consists of two organizations;

14

Deloitte and Pasana. Both organizations have their own characteristics what makes it reasonable

to believe that the organizations could give an alternative explanation for a certain relationships.

Were Deloitte is an organization with a high educational level, high autonomy, commercial and

operating in a high competitive market, Pasana has a variation of educational levels; form no

formal education to university degrees, diverse levels of autonomy from low to high autonomy as

well, operating in a government sector which is less highly competitive. Considering that this

research is all about the perception of the employee it is plausible to expect that the organization

has an influence. In this study we use the control variable organization as a dummy variable.

(Appendix A-I)

Research model

Figure 2 shows the disaggregated research model, all variables are listed in the boxes that refer to the underlying dimensions.

Figure 2

Frequency of organizational change

Impact of organizational change

No. of transformational organizational change

Work content

Career Development

Social Atmosphere

Organizational policies

Work life

Rewards

In-role behavior

Extra-role behavior


organizational

obligations

Content of the

psychological contract

-


15

Procedure

In May 2011 questionnaires were distributed to a convenience sample of 2.200 employees

of Deloitte consulting and Stichting zorggroep Pasana. Approximately 500 questionnaires which

were distributed to Pasana were handed out through hardcopy since these employees did not use a

computer on daily basis. The remaining sample received an online questionnaire. Both

questionnaires were guided with a cover letter, for the hard-copy an answering envelope was

enclosed, for the digital questionnaire the answers were emailed by using the program ‘Spits’.

Participation was anonymous.

Statistical analysis

In order to analyze and test all hypotheses the data is first checked for missing data and

outliers, secondly the control variables Gender and Organization are recoded in dummy variables.

After checking the reliability of the scales we checked for normality, linearity and

homoscedasticity. Next the variables of the conceptual model were checked for their correlation;

the direction, strength, and significance of the relations were checked.

For hypothesis 1 to 3, hierarchical multiple regressions are needed. Two regressions were

computed, one with the content of the psychological contract as dependent variable and the

fulfillment of organizational obligations, frequency, number of transformational and impact of

organizational change as independent variables and age, gender and organization as control

variables. The other regression with the fulfillment of the organizational obligations as dependent

variable and frequency, number of transformational and impact of organizational change as

independent variables and age, gender and organization as control variables.

The first step of the regression is to add the independent variables for the gross effect in the first

model. The second step is to add the control variables in the second model to compute the net

effect to check for apparent cohesion.

The 4th hypothesis suggested a mediating effect, to test this first joint significance was

checked, this information was given by previous analyses. When there is a joint significance a

Sobel test was computed to test the significance of the mediating effect.

Additional analyses were performed since the variable Fulfillment of organizational

obligations consists of six dimensions (1) Work content, (2) Career development, (3) Social

16

Atmosphere, (4) Organizational Policies, (5)Work life and (6)Rewards. And the variable

Psychological contract consists of two dimensions (1) In-role behavior and (2) Extra-role

behavior. Same statistically analyses were used except now the dimensions are taken into account

when the variable is analyzed as a dependent variable. Secondly, all regressions were conducted

for both organizations separately (Appendix D).

17

Results

Table 1 depicts the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables included

in this study. The linear relationship between the variables is indicated by Pearson’s correlation

and indicates the strength and direction (Pallant, 2005). The applied significance level used in

Table 1 is p <.01 and p < .05. When checking the correlation for the relationship between

organizational change, fulfillment of organizational change and the content of the psychological

contract several relationships were significant. The control variables (Age, Gender, and

Organization) also show significant correlations with transformational change and the fulfillment

of organizational change. Further does impact of change shows a significant correlation with

organization.

Table 1

Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables N=542

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Frequency_OC 4.05 0.64 1 2. Trans._OC 2.83 1.41 .310** 1 3. Impact_OC 3.38 0.91 .101* .113* 1 4. FF employer 3.24 0.56 -.179** -.225** .019 1 5. Content of PC 3.76 0.39 .154** .083 .084 .103* 1 6. Age 39.64 10.32 .047 .201** -.010 -.172** .031 7. Gender 0.64 0.48 .011 .147** .064 -.212** .024 .116** 1 8. Organization 0.64 0.48 .040 .302* .121** -.356* .009 .416** .517** 1 Note: *P<0.05, **P<0.001 Note: Gender, male = 0, female = 1 Note: Organization, Deloitte = 0, Pasana = 1

Hypothesis 1: Organizational change and the content of the psychological contract

From Table 2, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational

change, impact and Fulfillment were entered at Step 1, explaining 4,9% of the variance in the

content of the psychological contract. After entry of the control variables age, gender and

organization at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 5,2% , F (7,484) = 3.760, p

< .001. The three control variables explained an additional 0.3% of the variance in the content of

the psychological contract, ∆R2 = .003, F change (3,484) = 0.510, p > .001. In the second and

18

final model only Frequency of Organizational change (β = .159, p < .001) and the fulfillment of

organizational obligations (β = .157, p < .001) were statistically significant.

Hypothesis 1 is divided in three hypotheses as we separated organizational change in

three characteristics, frequency, number of transformational changes and impact. The results for

the regression analyses of hypothesis 1 are shown in Table 2. It was expected for hypothesis 1a

that the frequency of organizational change has a negative effect on the content of the

psychological contract. Therefore hypothesis 1a was not supported as the relation we found was a

positive relation instead of a negative as we would expected (β = .159, p < .001). Hypothesis 1b,

were we expected a negative relationship between the number of transformational changes and

the content of the psychological contract, cannot be supported as the founded relation was not

significant (β = 0.049, p > .05). Hypothesis 1c, were we expected a negative effect of the impact

of organizational change and the content of the psychological contract, cannot be supported as the

relation was not significant (β = 0.057, p > .05). Table 2

Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change

Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p

Frequency OC .094 .155 .001 .096 .159 .001 Trans. OC .017 .060 .013 .049 Impact OC .025 .059 .024 .057 Fulfillment .099 .143 .002 .108 .157 .001 Age .001 .036 Gender .032 .040 Organization .001 .001 R2 .049 .052 F 6.217 .000 3.760 .001 ∆R2 .049 .003 ∆F 6.217 .000 0.510 .676 Dependent variable: Content of the Psychological contract

Hypothesis 2: Organizational change and the fulfillment of organizational obligations

From Table 2, the following can be deduced. Frequency, type, and impact were entered at

Step 1, explaining 6,7% of the variance in the fulfillment of the organizational obligations. After

entry of the control variables age, gender and organization at step 2 the total variance explained

19

by the model was 16,8% , F (6,485) = 16.287, p < .001. The three control variables explained an

additional 10,1% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .101, F

change (3,484) = 19.624, p > .001. In the second and final model Frequency of organizational

change (β = -.147, p < .001), Impact of organizational change (β = ,083 p < .05), control variable

organization (β = -.304, p < .001) were statistically significant. The relationship between the

number of transformational change and the content of the psychological contract (β = -,088

p > .05) is not statistically significant; however it is interesting to look at this relations as the

significant level is exceeded with only 0.07.

Hypothesis 2 is divided in three hypotheses as we separated organizational change in

three characteristic, frequency, number of transformational changes and impact. The results for

the regression analyses of hypothesis 2 are shown in Table 3.

It was expected for hypothesis 2a that the frequency of organizational change has a negative

effect on the fulfillment of organizational obligations. From Table 3, it can be deduced that

hypothesis 2a can be supported as the relationship was a significant negative relationship, (β = -

.147, p < .01). Hypothesis 2b, were we expected a negative relationship between the number of

transformational changes and the fulfillment of the organizational obligations, cannot be

supported as the founded relation was not significant (β = -.088, p > .05). Hypothesis 2c, were we

expected a negative effect of the impact of change and the fulfillment of organizational

obligations, can be supported as it is a significant negative relationship (β = 0.083, p < .05).

Table 3



Frequency OC -.109 -.125 .007 -.129 -.147 .001 Trans. OC -.077 -.192 .000 -.035 -.088 .057 Impact OC .033 .054 .051 .083 .048 Age -.001 -.015 Gender -.052 -.044 Organization -.357 -.304 .000 R2 .067 .168 F 11.619 .000 16.287 .000 ∆R2 .067 .101 ∆F 11.619 .000 19.624 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of the organizational obligations

20


organizational obligations

Content of the

psychological contract –


β =.159

β =.157 β =-.147

β =.083

Hypothesis 3: Fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological

contract

In Table 2 the results for the regression analysis for hypothesis 3 are presented. It was

hypothesized that the fulfillment of organizational obligations a positive effect has on the content

of the psychological contract. From Table 2 can be deduced that a significant positive

relationship (β = 0.157, p < .01) was found and thereby confirms hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4: Organizational change on the content of the psychological contract mediated by

the fulfillment of organizational obligations

In Table 2 the statistically significantly are presented for the relationship between the

independent variables frequency of organizational change, number of transformational, impact of

organizational change, and the fulfillment of organizational obligations and the dependent

variable the content of the psychological contract. In Table 3 the effects are presented for the

relationship between the independent variable frequency of organizational change, number of

transformational, and impact of organizational change and the dependent variable the fulfillment

of organizational obligations. In Figure 3 the statically significantly relationships from Table 2

and 3 are stated with the standardized effect.

Figure 3

Frequency of


No. of transformational


Impact of


21

Using the Sobel test we can deduce that, besides the significant direct relations, there is a

significant mediating effect. It was expected for hypothesis 4a that there is a partly mediating

effect between the frequency of organizational change and the content of the psychological

contract through the fulfillment of organizational obligations. From Table 4 it can be deduced

that there is a statistically significant partial mediating effect (β = -.014, p < 0.05) for the relation

for this relationship and thereby confirms hypothesis 4a.

Table 4

Hypothesis 4a

B-Value

-.014

Z-value

Sobel -2.319, p< 0.05

Hypothesis 4b expected that the relation between transformational change and the content

of the psychological contract of the employee obligations is partly mediated by the fulfillment of

organizational obligations. A Sobel test is in this case not necessary because there is no

significant direct effect between the number of transformational change and the fulfillment of

organizational obligations therefore hypothesis 4b cannot be supported.

Hypothesis 4c expected a partial mediating effect for the fulfillment of organizational

obligations on the relation between the number of transformational change and the content of the

psychological contract. From Table 5 it can be deduced that there is no statistically significant

mediating effect founded therefore hypothesis 4c cannot be supported.

Table 5

Hypothesis 4c

B-Value

0.006

Z-value

Sobel 1.669, p>0.05

22

Additional analyses

Additional analyses were done as the fulfillment of organizational obligations can be

divided in six dimensions (1) Work content, (2) Career development, (3) Social Atmosphere, (4)

Organizational Policies, (5)Work life and (6)Rewards. And the content of the psychological

contract can be divided in two dimensions (1) In-role behavior and (2) Extra-role behavior.

Table 6 depicts the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables and there

sub dimensions included in this study. The linear relationship between the variables is indicated

by Pearson’s correlation and indicates the strength and direction (Pallant, 2005). Additional

tables which are discussed in this section are included in Appendix C.

Table 6

Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables and there sub dimensions N=542

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Freq_OC 4.05 0.64 1 2. Trans._OC 2.83 1.41 .310** 1 3. Impact_OC 3.38 0.91 .101* .113* 1 4. FF WC 3.47 0.71 -.111* -.131** .023 1 5. FF CD 3.20 0.87 -.116** -.153** .048 .468** 1 6. FF SA 3.24 0.83 -.192** -.246** .022 .452** .216** 1 7. FF OP 3.12 0.74 -.191** -.253** -.026 .437** .416** .634** 1 8. FF WL 3.45 0.79 -104* -.127** .035 .293** .259** .304** .338** 1 9. FF RW 2.96 0.89 -.046 -.053 -.024 .308** .402** .323** .342** .348** 1 10. Content of PC in-r 4.19 0.41 .200** .143** .041 .013 -.032 -.017 .037 .044 -.022 1 11. Content of PC extra-r 3.2 0.56 .060 .002 .094* .095* .152** .119** .110* .112** .107* .323** 1 12. Age 39.64 10.32 .047 .201** -.010 -.152** -.176** -.216** -.186** -.041 .040 .145** -0.79 1 13. Gender 0.64 0.48 .011 .147** .064 -.060 -.189** -.153** -.142** -.137** -.187** .168** .111* .116** 1 14. Organization 0.64 0.48 .040 .302** .121** -.187** -.298** -.297** -.314** -.178** -.210** .224** -.181** .416** .517** 1 Note: *P<0.05, **P<0.001 Note: Gender, man = 0, female = 1 Note: Organization, Deloitte =0, Pasana = 1

The sub dimensions social atmosphere and organization policies are highly correlated in

the relation with the frequency of organizational change and the number of transformational

change, therefore these dimensions will be taken into account as control variables as they can

indicate a possible apparent cohesion.

23

Hypothesis 1: Organizational change and the content of the psychological contract

The dependent variable of hypothesis 1, the content of the psychological contract, is

divided in two dimensions (1) In-role behavior and (2) Extra-role behavior. The result for the

analysis with in-role behavior as dependent variable are showed is Table 7, the results for the

analysis with extra-role behavior as dependent variable are showed in Table 8.

Additional analyses shows that the relationship between frequency of organizational

change and the content of the psychological contract is mainly influenced by the relation that

organizational change has on the content of the psychological contract for the dimension in-role

behavior (β = .204, p <.001). However the relationship between impact of organizational change

and the content of the psychological contract is mainly influenced by the relation that

organizational change has on the content of the psychological contract for the dimension extra-

role behavior (β = .099, p <.05).

Hypothesis 2: Organizational change and the fulfillment of organizational obligations

The dependent variable for hypothesis 2, the fulfillment of the organizational obligations

is based on six dimensions (1) Work content, (2) Career development, (3) Social Atmosphere, (4)

Organizational Policies, (5)Work life and (6)Rewards. The result for the analysis with work

content as dependent variable are showed is Table 9, career development in Table 10, social

atmosphere in Table 11, organizational policies in Table 12, work life in Table 13, rewards in

Table 14. Additional analyses show that four dimension ((WC: β =-.092, p <.05) (CD: β = -.100,

p <.05) (SA: β = -.149, p <.001) (OP: β = -.143, p <.001) explain a part of the construct of

frequency of organizational change. For the number of transformational change we found

significant results for the dimension career development (β = .095, p <.05). For the number of

transformational change we found significant result for the dimensions social atmosphere (β = -

.122, p <.05) and organizational policies (β = -.122, p <.05).

Considering that there is a high correlation for the dimensions social atmosphere and

organizational policies could indicates a high underlying correlation, with result that the

dimension has a too small unique effect which makes it impossible to analyze this dimension as a

separate variable. It could indicate an indirect effect what eventually influence the credibility of

24

previous analyses. Therefore another set of analyses were computed, this time with two extra

control variable; social atmosphere and organizational policies. No significant results were found.

Hypothesis 3: Fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological

contract

The result for the analysis with in-role behavior as dependent variable are showed is

Table 7, the results for the analysis with extra-role behavior as dependent variable are showed in

Table 8.

Additional analyses shows that there is no strong different between the relationship of the

fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological contract in-role (β

= .125, p <.05) or the content of the psychological contract extra-role (β = .130, p <.05).

Hypothesis 4: Organizational change on the content of the psychological contract mediated by

the fulfillment of organizational obligations

Additional Sobel tests were executed to find more specific mediating effect. The results

for all Sobel tests are included in appendix C. In figure 4 the statically significantly relationships

from Table 8 to 23 are stated with the standardized effect. To make the model more clearly we

left out the relations which were not significant.

Figure 4

β=-.092

β=-.100

β=-.149

β=-.143

β=-.122

β=-.126

β=.095

Frequency of


No. of

transformational


Impact of


FF Work content

FF Career development

FF Social atmosphere

FF Organizational

policies

FF Work life

FF Rewards

CPC

In-role behavior

CPC

Extra-role behavior

β=.125

β=.130

25

Table 23


Social atmosphere – In-role

B-Value

-0.018

Z-value

Sobel -2.100, p< 0.05

Table 24


Organizational policies – In-role

B-Value

-0.015

Z-value

Sobel -2.494, p< 0.05

Table 29


Social atmosphere – Extra-role

B-Value

-0.025

Z-value

Sobel -2.115, p< 0.05

Table 30


Organizational policies – Extra-role

B-Value

-0.021

Z-value

Sobel -2.077, p< 0.05

Using the Sobel test it can be deduced that, besides the significance direct relations, there

is a mediating effect for the frequency of organizational change and the content of the

psychological contract for both in-role and extra-role behavior, through social atmosphere and

organizational policies.

Finally, we perform the analyses separately per organization considering the divers

characteristics of the organizations. (Appendix D). We found that there were some strong

differences between the two organizations. Deloitte has a culture with mainly male employees

which are highly educated. The average age was also 9 years younger than at Pasana. Pasana was

characterized by mainly female employees with a lower education. From Appendix D we can

deduce that results are strongly different for both organizations what makes it interesting to test

the hypothesis separately by organization.

Discussion

The following research question was examined: To what extent does organizational

change influence the content of the psychological contract of the employees? And is this relation

mediated by the fulfillment of the obligations of the organization? The results show that the

hypotheses were partially confirmed. There is a positive relationship between the fulfillment of

organizational obligations and the content of the psychological contract; this hypothesis can

therefore be confirmed. The mediating effect of the fulfillment of organizational obligations is

partly consistent with the founded literature; the stated hypothesis for frequency of organizational

change can be confirmed. The hypothesis stated for the number of transformational change and

the impact of organizational change cannot be supported. Furthermore, the relationships between

organizational change and the fulfillment of the organizational obligations can partially be

accepted. The hypotheses concerning the relationships between the different characteristics of

organizational change and the content of the psychological contract were not confirmed. Even

though we did find some statically significantly results, they contradict with the loading of the

relationship founded in the theory. However we did not found support for all hypotheses, there

are plausible reasons why these hypotheses were not confirmed. Therefore, the results will be

discussed.

Organizational change

First of all the effect of the frequency of change on the content of the psychological

contract was tested. A positive relation was founded instead of a negative relation as we would

expect. Theory suggests that when organizational change increases, the employee will lower their

obligations towards the employer (Freese, 2007). However, it is also reasonable to believe that in

time of a change, due to the uncertainty, the employee will get more motivated to secure its

occupation, according to Rousseau (1995) the response of an employee during time of change

depends on the personality, structure, and situation. A counterproductive behavior is not likely

but it is possible (Rousseau, 1995) and could explain the positive relation between the frequency

of change and the content of the psychological contract.

25

The relationship between the number of transformational change, impact of change and

the content of the psychological contract was not significant. It seems that they do not lead to a

direct change in the content of the psychological contract. This is remarkable considering

frequency has an effect, it is reasonable to believe that when a change occurs it is attended with a

certain impact and can also be characterized as a certain type. These inconclusive results are an

indication for further examination of the concept of organizational change and the division of the

three characteristics. Possible explanation is that the frequency is easier and more objective to

measure than impact or type. As an organizational change can be complex and consistent of

different assets of change what makes it difficult for the employee to assess the impact and type

of the change itself.

Partial confirmation on the relationship between organizational change and the fulfillment of

organizational obligations was found. A negative relationship was expected which was founded

for frequency of change and number of transformational change. However, the relationship

between the number of transformational change and the fulfillment of organizational obligations

was not significant, it is reasonable to believe that this relation nevertheless does exist. The

significantly level is just (p = .057) exceeding the critical region; the narrow sample size could be

influencing this relation. A significant result can be expected when we increase the sample size.

Furthermore, a possible apparent cohesion was founded from organization on the relationship

between the number of transformational change and the fulfillment of organizational obligations,

which makes the causal relationship questionable. Freese (1997) discusses the fact that some

people perceive certain events as an organizational change and are affected by them, while other

experience these events as organizational life as normal. This could also be an explanation for the

results as it is reasonable to believe that Deloitte is less affected by change due to the strong

competitive market they operate in where an event in de change process is more likely to be

experienced as organizational life then the same event at Pasana. Considering Pasana is operating

in a more stable market where a change can be considered more rapidly as a threat. To confirm

this assumption we did additional analyses where we split the file for the organization (Appendix

D). In this case no significant results were found which implies that the sample size which is

remnant is not sufficient to measure the effects.. A larger sample which also consists of a higher

number of organizations and respondents could give us more inside in this relation. This

26

indication makes the relationship between the number of transformational change and fulfillment

of organizational obligations interesting for further examination.

The relationship between the frequency of change and the fulfillment of organizational

obligations confirms theory (Freese & Schalk, 1997; Pate et al., 2000; Turnley & Feldman), when

the frequency of change increases, the perceived fulfillment of organization obligations of the

employee will decrease.

The results for the relation between the impact of organizational change and the

fulfillment of organizational obligations were significant. However, it was not consistent with the

hypothesis. A negative relation was expected instead a positive relation was found. It is

reasonable to believe that when the impact of an organizational change is strong, employees will

understand the situation and see it as reasonable that the organization cannot fulfill all their

obligations. Due to the understanding of the employee this will not immediately lead to a

negative effect on their perception of fulfillment of organizational obligations. This theory is

supported by Rousseau (1995) which explains that every employee response different when a

violation of obligations occur. One of the responses is neglect/destruction a counterproductive

behavior is then expected, which could explain the founded positive relation.

Fulfillment of organizational obligations

Existing literature argues that when the employer breach or modify their obligations, it

will influence the role of the employee and thereby the content of the psychological contract

(Freese & Schalk, 2007). A withdrawing of willingness to put in extra effort for the organization

is expected (Herriot et al., 1997). In the first place we should be cautious for reverse causality.

Theory indicates a certain direction in the relation. However, it is reasonable to believe that when

the employee is not willing to put in extra effort for the organization, the organization will in turn

change its obligations towards the employee. With this in mind we discuss the results. The results

founded a positive relationship between the fulfillment of the organizational obligations and the

content of the psychological contract; the hypothesis can be confirmed. Secondly, the relation

organizational changes and the content of the psychological contract mediated by fulfillment of

organizational obligations was analyzed (Guest, 2004; Pate et al., 2000; Hall & Moss, 1998;

Schalk & Freese, 2000;). Results revealed that the relation frequency of organizational change

and the content of the psychological contract is mediated by fulfillment of organizational

27

obligations. For the other two characteristics, number of transformational changes and impact,

the result showed no mediation. For number of transformational change this is in line with our

expectations since the relation between number of transformational change and the mediator was

previously not confirmed. Therefore a mediating effect was in advance unfeasible.

For impact a plausible explanation lies in the relation between impact and fulfillment of

organizational obligations, the found relations were weak which makes the mediating effect even

weaker. Increasing the sample size could influence this relationship and give a possible

significant result. Or as earlier discussed an explanation for this result is the theory of Rousseau

(1995) about counterproductive behavior of the employee.

Additional analyses

Additional analyses showed relations on a disaggregated level. We were able to get more

information about the underlying relations. It showed that there is distinction between the

characteristics of organization change and the effect on the content of the psychological contract.

Frequency of organizational change had only a significant effect on the dimension in-role of the

content of the psychological contract where impact of organizational change only on extra-role

behavior. As regards the relation of fulfillment on the two dimensions of the content of the

psychological contract we did not find remarkable results, both were influenced by the fulfillment

of organizational obligations.

Noteworthy result was found in the mediating relation of the fulfillment of organizational

obligations. This showed that the mediating effect in the aggregative model is declared by the

dimensions social atmosphere and organizational policies. This effect is significant for both in-

role as extra-role behavior. Considering that organization as a control variable had a strong

influence on the result, it is reasonable to believe that the environment or culture has a strong

influence on how employees perceive the organizational change. However secondary analyses

where we controlled the effect of those two dimensions showed no significantly results anymore.

This could indicate that the unique effect of the dimensions is too small to test for, at least for this

sample size.

28

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. First of all, the sample is small and the data is

collected at just two organizations, two organizations with strongly divers’ characteristics which

limit the power of statistical tests. Drawing conclusions about the population from which the data

is sampled is for that reason very limited. Another consequence is that organization had an

apparent cohesion on some of the relationships and thereby influences the significant results in

this sample. Furthermore, we were primarily interested in the perspective of the employee on the

change process and their employment relationship. However it is preferable to use not only the

perception of the employee but also from the employer. The employer as a representative for the

organization, in order to obtain objective data, concerning the frequency of organizational change,

the number of transformational change and what the organization offers the employee. However,

it is questionable if you can use employer as representative of the organization, considering the

employer does also bring a subjective perspective to the table.

Another shortcoming of this study is a possible reverse causality; literature confirmed an

effect from fulfillment of organizational obligations on the content of the psychological contract

(Bellou, 2007; Freese, 2007). However it is interesting to study the relation where the content of

the psychological contract precede the fulfillment of organizational obligations. For it is

reasonable to believe that when the employee is not willing to put in extra effort for the

organization, the organization will change what they offer.

In this study one of the focuses is on the different characteristics of organization change

and what eventually has the strongest effect on the content of the psychological contract.

Eventually we found the strongest effects from the frequency of organizational change. However,

this could also be a result of the way impact is tested; measured by a single question. Considering

this is a subjective construct it is preferable to measure this construct with several underlying

questions.

29

Future research

In our research we found evidence that organizational change has a negative effect on the

fulfillment of organization obligations. Though we found little effect, this can be explained by

several causes discussed in the discussion. More research on this topic is necessary to strengthen

the found results. This could be established through several adjustments. More organizations

should be admitted to the sample and the scale to test the impact of the organizational change

should be elaborated. Furthermore we divided organizational change in three characteristics,

frequency, number of transformational change and impact in our research. Results showed strong

effect for only frequency. It is reasonable to believe that when changes occur it is attended with a

certain impact and can also be characterizing with a certain type. It is interesting to further

examine this relation since it is plausible that some organizational changes processes have a

stronger influence on the content of the psychological contract and fulfillment of organization

obligations than others.

Implications

Next to the limitations and suggestions for future research, there are some practical

implications as well. Due to the additional analyses it became clear that the social atmosphere

and organizational policies had a strong mediating effect on the relation frequency of change and

the content of the psychological contract. It is first not realistic to give a practical implication

based on this research. Although, it does give an indication of at what point the organizations

should invest, in order to keep the employee willingly to put in extra effort for the organization.

Even though they perceived an organizational change which is applicable for them. Secondly, it

became clear that the organization itself had a strong influence and it is reasonable that social

atmosphere and organizational policies is organization related. This makes it difficult to give a

general implication. The best way to act is to analyze the organization culture and to get clear

what is important for the employees and in time of organizational change anticipate on the

priorities of the employee in order to keep the negative effect of the change as small as possible.

30

Conclusion

The relation between organizational change and the content of the psychological contract

has been examined; gradually the influence of organizational change on the content of the

psychological contract becomes more transparent. In this study we focused on the different

characteristics of organizational change and what could be a possible mediating effect in this

change process. According to this study the characteristic frequency of organizational change has

the strongest effect on as well the content of the psychological contract as the fulfillment of

organizational obligations and the mediating effect of fulfillment of organizational obligations.

Additional analyses though show that the mediating effect is clarified by underlying dimensions,

social atmosphere and organizational policies. Revealing this relationship needs more research in

the future. At last, this study can be perceived as an attribution in clarifying of organization

change process and its effect on the content of the psychological contract.

31

References

Anderson, N. & Schalk, R. (1998) The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect

(editorial). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 637-647.

Bellou, V. (2007). Psychological contract assessment after a major organizational change: The

case of mergers and acquisitions. Employee Relations, 29 (1), 68-88.

Boselie, P. (2010) Strategic human resource management: a balanced approach, p. 86-87.

McGraw-Hill Higher Education: Berkshire

Bouchkenooghe, D., Devos., G., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational changes

questionnaire-climate of changes, processes and readiness: Development of a new

instrument. The Journal of Psychology, 143 (6), 559-599.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,

discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82 (5), 812-

820.

Freese, C., Schalk, R., & Croon, M. (2008) De Tilburgse Psychologisch Contract Vragenlijst.

Gedrag en Organisatie, 21 (3),278-294.

Freese (2007) Organizational change and the dynamics of psychological contract: A longitudinal

study. Ridderprint Offsetdrukkerij: Ridderkerk.

Guest, D. (2004) The psychology of the employment relationship: an analysis based on the

psychological contract. Applied Psychology, 53, 541-555.

Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. (1998). The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and

employees adapt. Organizational dynamics, 26, 22-37.

Herriot, P., Manning, W.E.G. & Kidd, J.M. (1997) The content of the psychological contract.

British journal of management, 8, 151-162

Hiltrop, J (1995). The changing psychological contract: The human resource challenge of the

1990s. European Management Journal, 13, 286-294

Hogstedt, C. Eriksson & T. Theorell. Health effects of the new labor market, p. 129-143. Kluwer

Academic: New York

Hui, C., Rousseau, D.M., Lee, C. (2004) Psychological contract and organization citizenship

behavior in Chine: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied

32

Psychology, 89, 311-321.

Kickul, Lester & Finkel (2002) Promise breaking during radical organizational change: do

justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 469-488.

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for

Windows (version 12). Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Pate, J., Martin, G. & Staines, H. (2000). Exploring the relationship between psychological

contracts and organizational change: a process model and case study evidence. Strategic

Change, 8, 481-493.

Rafferty, A.E., & Griffin, MA. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress coping

perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5), 1154-1162.

Rousseau, D.M. (1990). New hire perspectives of their own and their employer’s obligations: A

study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11 (5), 679-400.

Rousseau, D.M. (1995) Psychological contract in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rousseau, D.M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues,

alternatives and types of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19 (0), 679-695.

Saunders, M.N.K., & Thronhill, A. (2003) Organisational justice, trust and management of

change: An exploration. Personnel review, 32, 360-375.

Schalk, R. & Freese, C. (2000) The impact of organizational changes on the psychological

contract and attitudes towards work in four health care organizations. In: Isaksson,

Sluss, D.M., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J.J. (2008). Perceived organizational support as a

mediator between relational exchange and orga nizatiorial identification. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 73 (3), 457-464.

Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate

restructuring. Human Resources Management, 37(1), 71-83.

Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (1999). A discrepancy model of psychological contract

violations. Human Resource Management Review, 9 (3), 367—386

Turnley, W. H. & Feldman, 0. C. (2000). Reexaming the effects of psychological contract

violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21 (1), 25-42.

33

Appendix A - Questionnaire Appendix A- I - Control variables

151 What is your gender?

152 What is your age (in years)?

164 What is the name of your organization?

Appendix A- II - Frequency of change

1 Change frequently occurs in my organization

Appendix A-III – Type of change

5

Please choose the three most important changes that you were you confronted with during the last two years.

Change in leadership (Accomodative)

Change in technology (Accomodative)

Change in organizational policies (Accomodative)

Change in plant, machinery or equipment (Accomodative)

Change in the strategy and or mission of the organization (Transformative)

Change in structure (Transformative)

Downsizing (Transformative)

Changes in work design and tasks ( Accomodative)

Cost cutting (Transformative)

Change in organizational culture (Transformative)

Correlations

consequences altered FREQ_Scale change1 change2 change3 change4 change5 change6 change7 change8 change9 change10

consequences Pearson Correlation 1 ,367** ,101* ,042 ,069 -,037 ,117** ,054 ,112* ,047 -,052 ,103* ,020

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,025 ,352 ,123 ,414 ,009 ,232 ,012 ,299 ,250 ,021 ,654

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

altered Pearson Correlation ,367** 1 ,143** ,141** ,066 -,008 ,205** ,082 -,006 ,068 ,004 ,009 ,011

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,001 ,002 ,145 ,851 ,000 ,069 ,885 ,131 ,932 ,834 ,800

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

FREQ_Scale Pearson Correlation ,101* ,143** 1 ,065 ,120** ,087 ,179** ,171** ,183** ,241** ,097* ,198** ,128**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,025 ,001 ,150 ,007 ,053 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,032 ,000 ,004

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change1 Pearson Correlation ,042 ,141** ,065 1 ,289** ,208** ,183** ,181** ,064 ,131** ,244** ,157** ,167**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,352 ,002 ,150 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,154 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change2 Pearson Correlation ,069 ,066 ,120** ,289** 1 ,104* ,258** ,211** ,133** ,114* ,162** ,215** ,120**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,123 ,145 ,007 ,000 ,020 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,011 ,000 ,000 ,008

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change3 Pearson Correlation -,037 -,008 ,087 ,208** ,104* 1 ,077 ,136** ,066 ,047 ,140** ,170** ,062

Sig. (2-tailed) ,414 ,851 ,053 ,000 ,020 ,085 ,002 ,142 ,295 ,002 ,000 ,165

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change4 Pearson Correlation ,117** ,205** ,179** ,183** ,258** ,077 1 ,262** ,112* ,210** ,099* ,132** ,169**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,009 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,085 ,000 ,013 ,000 ,028 ,003 ,000

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change5 Pearson Correlation ,054 ,082 ,171** ,181** ,211** ,136** ,262** 1 ,154** ,212** ,172** ,232** ,153**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,232 ,069 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change6 Pearson Correlation ,112* -,006 ,183** ,064 ,133** ,066 ,112* ,154** 1 ,174** ,100* ,160** ,104*

Sig. (2-tailed) ,012 ,885 ,000 ,154 ,003 ,142 ,013 ,001 ,000 ,026 ,000 ,020

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change7 Pearson Correlation ,047 ,068 ,241** ,131** ,114* ,047 ,210** ,212** ,174** 1 ,182** ,176** ,264**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,299 ,131 ,000 ,004 ,011 ,295 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change8 Pearson Correlation -,052 ,004 ,097* ,244** ,162** ,140** ,099* ,172** ,100* ,182** 1 ,182** ,141**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,250 ,932 ,032 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,028 ,000 ,026 ,000 ,000 ,002

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change9 Pearson Correlation ,103* ,009 ,198** ,157** ,215** ,170** ,132** ,232** ,160** ,176** ,182** 1 ,270**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,021 ,834 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

change10 Pearson Correlation ,020 ,011 ,128** ,167** ,120** ,062 ,169** ,153** ,104* ,264** ,141** ,270** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) ,654 ,800 ,004 ,000 ,008 ,165 ,000 ,001 ,020 ,000 ,002 ,000

N 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Appendix A- IV - Impact of change

8 The change(s) have(had) important consequences for my future at this organization.

9 The change(s) altered my way of doing things.

Appendix A-V – Fulfillment of organizational obligations (employer)

In the employment relationship you have expectations about what your employer will offer. To what extent is your employer obliged to offer you the following?

Work content

71 Variation in your work

72 Challenging work

73 Balanced workload

74 Interesting work

75 Autonomy

76 The opportunity to deliver quality goods/services

77 To what extent did your employer fulfill previous obligations?

78 How important are these previous obligations for you?

Career

development

79 Career opportunities

80 Training and education

81 Coaching on the job

82 Professional development opportunities

83 Learning on the job

84 Opportunity to fully utilize knowledge and skills



Social

atmosphere 87 Good working atmosphere

88 Opportunity to pleasantly cooperate with colleagues

89 Support from colleagues.

90 Appreciation and recognition

91 Support from supervisor



25

Organizational

policies 94 Participation in important decisions

95 A fair supervisor

96 Feedback on performance

97 Clear and fair rueles and regulations

98 Keeping you informed of developments

99 Open communication.

100 Ethical policy towards society and environment

101 Being able to have confidence in the organization



Work life

104 Acknowledgement of personal circumstances

105 Opportunity to schedule your own holidays

106 Working at home

107 Adjust working hours to private life



Rewards

110 Job security

111 Appropriate salary

112 Rewards for exceptional performance

113 Reimbursement of training costs

114 Good benefits package

115 Pay for performance



26

Appendix A-VI – Content of the psychological contract (employee)

In the employment relationship you have opinions on what you should offer the organization. To what extent do you feel obliged to offer your organization the following?

Obligations of the employee, in role obligations

125 Good cooperation.

126 Helping colleagues.

127 Provide good service to customers

128 Performing well on tasks you do not like to do

129 Working with integrity

130 Carrying out your work with dedication

131 Being cost-conscious when dealing with organizational properties

132 Dealing with private mather at home

133 Complying with organizational rules and regulations

134 Protect the organization's image

135 Contributing to a pleasant work atmosphere

136 To what extent did you fulfill previous obligations?

137 How important are these obligations for your own and the organization's performance?

Obligations of the employee, extra role obligations

138 Keeping Knowledge and skills up to date to be able to deal with changing requirements

139 Participating in trainin outside working hours that is important to do your job properly

140 Making suggestion for improvement

141 Volunteering to do additional tasks

142 Working overtime if that is necessary to get the job done

143 Working weekends

144 Participation in training to enhance employability

145 Willingness to work in different positions

146 The flexibility to change positions

147 Willingness to work in another region

148 Stary with the organization for several years

149 To what extent did you fulfill previous obligations?

150 How important are these obligations for your own and the organization's performance?

27

Appendix B – Factor analyses

30

Appendix C – Additional analyses

From table 7, the following can be deduced. Frequency, number of transformational


content of the psychological contract, in-role behavior. After entry of the control variables age,

gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational

policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 10.8% , F (9,482) = 8.334, p

< .001. The five control variables explained an additional 5.8% of the variance in the content of

the psychological contract, ∆R2 = .058, F change (5,482) = 10.575, p < .001. In the second and

final model only Frequency of Organizational change (β = .204, p < .001), Fulfillment (β = .125,

p < .05), and the control variable organization (β = .179, p < .05) were statistically significant.

Table 7


Model 1 Model 2 B β P B β P Frequency OC .113 .177 .000 .130 .204 .000 Trans. OC .028 .096 .044 .008 .029 Impact OC .005 .011 -.005 -.012 Fulfillment .029 .040 .091 .125 .008 Age .003 .066 Gender .076 .089 Organization .153 .179 .002 R2 0.049 0.108 F 6.282 .000 8.334 .000 ∆R2 0.049 0.058 ∆F 6.282 .000 10.575 .000 Dependent variable: Content of the Psychological contract, In-role behavior

31



content of the psychological contract, extra-role behavior. After entry of the control variables age,


policies at step 2 the total variance explained by the model was 6.5% , F (9,482) = 4.824, p < .001.

The five control variables explained an additional 2.2% of the variance in the content of the

psychological contract, ∆R2 = .022, F change (5,482) = 3.754, p < .05. In the second and final

model only Impact of Organizational change (β = .099, p < .05), fulfillment (β = .130, p < .05),

and the control variable organization (β = -.154, p < .05) were statistically significant.

Table 8


Model 1 Model 2 B β P B β P Frequency OC .072 .082 .057 .065 Trans. OC .003 .008 .020 .049 Impact OC .050 .081 .061 .099 .028 Fulfillment .183 .183 .000 .130 .130 .007 Age .000 -.002 Gender -.020 -.017 Organization -.181 -.154 .010 R2 0.043 0.065 F 5.533 .000 4.824 .000 ∆R2 0.043 0.022 ∆F 5.533 .000 3.754 0.011 Dependent variable: Content of the Psychological contract, Extra-role behavior

32



fulfillment of organizational obligations, work content. After entry of the control variables age,



The five control variables explained an additional 3.3% of the variance in the fulfillment of

organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .033, F change (5,483) = 5.663, p < .05. In the second and final

model only frequency of change (β = -.092, p < .05) and organization (β = -.164, p < .05) were

statistically significant.

Table 9



Frequency OC -.090 -.081 -.101 -.092 .050 Trans. OC -.055 -.111 .019 -.025 -.050 Impact OC .034 .044 .043 .055 Age -.005 -.074 Gender .055 .038 Organization -.241 -.164 .005 R2 0.025 0.058 F 4.105 .007 4.943 .000 ∆R2 0.025 0.033 ∆F 4.105 .007 5.663 .001 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Work content



fulfillment of organizational obligations, career development. After entry of the control variables

age, gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational


< .001. The five control variables explained an additional 8.1% of the variance in the fulfillment

of organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .081, F change (5,483) = 14.819, p < .001. In the second and

final model only the frequency of organizational change (β = -.100 p < .05), the impact of

organizational change (β = .095, p < .05) and organization (β = -.214 p < .001) were statistically

significant.

33

Table 10



Frequency OC -.109 -.081 -.135 -.100 .027 Trans. OC -.084 -.136 .004 .025 -.040 Impact OC 0.68 .071 .090 .095 .030 Age -.005 -.056 Gender -.103 -.057 Organization -.436 -.214 .000 R2 0.034 0.115 F 5.650 .001 10.474 .000 ∆R2 0.034 0.081 ∆F 5.650 .001 14.819 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Career development



fulfillment of organizational obligations, social atmosphere. After entry of the control variables

age, gender, organization, and the fulfillment of organizational policies at step 2 the total variance

explained by the model was 14.7% , F (7,484) = 8.327, p < .001. The four control variables

explained an additional 6.8% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational obligations, ∆R2

= .068, F change (4,484) = 12.886, p < .001. In the second and final model only the frequency of

organizational change (β = -.149 p < .001), the number of transformational organizational change

(β = .-.122, p < .05) and organization (β = -.217 p < .001) were statistically significant.

Table 11



Frequency OC -.172 -.133 .004 -.193 -.149 .001 Trans. OC -.125 -.211 .000 -.072 -.122 .009 Impact OC .054 .059 .070 .077 Age -.007 -.092 .051 Gender -.026 -.015 Organization -.377 -.217 .000 R2 0.079 0.147 F 13.887 .000 8.327 .000 ∆R2 0.079 0.068 ∆F 13.887 .000 12.886 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Social atmosphere

34



fulfillment of organizational obligations, organizational policies. After entry of the control

variables age, gender, organization, and the fulfillment of social atmosphere at step 2 the total

variance explained by the model was 14.7% , F (7,484) = 13.941, p < .001. The four control

variables explained an additional 6.9% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational

obligations, ∆R2 = .35, F change (4,484) = 13.109, p < .001. In the second and final model the

frequency of organizational change (β = -.143 p < .001), the number of transformational

organizational change (β = .-.126, p < .05) and organization (β = -.264 p < .001) were statistically

significant.

Table 12


Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β p Frequency OC -.145 -.125 .006 -.165 -.143 .001 Trans. OC -.113 -.215 .000 .066 -.126 .007 Impact OC .009 .011 .027 .033 Age -.003 -.046 Gender .027 .018 Organization -.409 -.264 .000 R2 0.078 0.147 F 13.750 .000 13.941 .000 ∆R2 0.078 0.69 ∆F 13.750 .000 13.109 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Organizational policies




age, gender, organization, fulfillment of social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational



organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .029, F change (5,483) = 5.011, p < .05. In the second and final

model only the control variables organization (β = .154, p < .001) is statistically significant.

35

Table 13



Frequency OC -.093 -.076 -.107 -.088 .061 Trans. OC -.061 -.109 .021 .035 -.062 Impact OC .047 .055 .063 .073 Age .004 .047 Gender -.094 -.058 Organization -.253 -.154 .009 R2 0.024 .053 F 3.938 .009 3.938 .000 ∆R2 0.024 .029 ∆F 3.938 .009 5.011 .002 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Work life







organizational obligations, ∆R2 = .067, F change (5,483) = 11.739, p < .001. In the second and

final model the control variables age (β = ,146 p < .05) and organization (β = -.228 p < .001)

were statistically significant. Table 14


Model 1 Model 2 B β p B β P

Frequency OC -0.43 -.031 -0.65 -.047 Trans. OC -.026 -.042 .008 .012 Impact OC -.016 -.016 .014 .014 Age .012 .146 .003 Gender -.162 -.088 Organization -.421 -.228 .000 R2 0.004 0.071 F 0.659 .577 6.221 .000 ∆R2 0.004 0.067 ∆F 0.659 .577 11.739 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Rewards

36



fulfillment of organizational obligations, work content. After entry of the control variables age,





final model only the control variables the fulfillment of Social atmosphere (β = .283, p < .001)

and the fulfillment of organizational policies (β = .247, p < .001) were statistically significant. Table 15



Frequency OC -.090 -.081 -.016 -.014 Trans. OC -.055 -.111 .019 .008 .015 Impact OC .034 .044 .020 .025 Age -.003 -.037 Gender .055 .038 Organization -.055 -.037 FF SA .240 .283 .000 FF OP .236 .247 .000 R2 0.025 0.246 F 4.105 .007 19.714 .000 ∆R2 0.025 0.222 ∆F 4.105 .007 28.389 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Work content




age, gender, organization, fulfillment of Social atmosphere, and the fulfillment of organizational




final model only the control variables the fulfillment of Social atmosphere (β = ,391 p < .001),

37

the fulfillment of organizational policies (β = .122, p < .05) and organization (β = -.124 p < .05)

were statistically significant.

Table 16



Frequency OC -.109 -.081 -.033 -.024 Trans. OC -.084 -.136 .004 .014 .023 Impact OC 0.68 .071 .058 .061 Age -.001 -.014 Gender -.096 -.053 Organization -.224 -.124 .017 FF SA .407 .391 .000 FF OP .143 .122 .015 R2 0.034 0.304 F 5.650 .001 26.424 .000 ∆R2 0.034 0.271 ∆F 5.650 .001 37.616 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Career development



fulfillment of organizational obligations, social atmosphere. After entry of the control variables

age, gender, organization, and the fulfillment of organizational policies at step 2 the total variance

explained by the model was 42.7% , F (7,484) = 51.531, p < .001. The four control variables

explained an additional 34.8% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational obligations,

∆R2 = .35, F change (4,484) = 73.570, p < .001. In the second and final model only the control

variable the fulfillment of organizational policies (β = .573, p < .05) is statistically significant.

38

Table 17 Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-change


Frequency OC -.172 -.133 .004 -.087 -.067 .068 Trans. OC -.125 -.211 .000 -.029 -.050 Impact OC .054 .059 .053 .058 Age -.005 -.065 Gender -.044 -.025 Organization -.144 -.066 FF OP .644 .573 .000 R2 0.079 0.427 F 13.887 .000 51.531 .000 ∆R2 0.079 0.348 ∆F 13.887 .000 73.570 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Social atmosphere



fulfillment of organizational obligations, organizational policies. After entry of the control

variables age, gender, organization, and the fulfillment of social atmosphere at step 2 the total

variance explained by the model was 42.7%, F (7,484) = 51.592, p < .001. The four control

variables explained an additional 34.9% of the variance in the fulfillment of organizational

obligations, ∆R2 = .35, F change (4,484) = 73.818, p < .001. In the second and final model only

the control variables the fulfillment of social atmosphere (β = ,573 p < .001) and organization (β

= -.140, p < .05) is statistically significant.

39

Table 18



Frequency OC -.145 -.125 .006 -.066 -.057 Trans. OC -.113 -.215 .000 -.029 -.056 Impact OC .009 .011 -.009 -.011 Age .000 .007 Gender .041 .026 Organization -.216 -.140 .003 FF SA .510 .573 .000 R2 0.078 0.427 F 13.750 .000 51.592 .000 ∆R2 0.078 0.349 ∆F 13.750 .000 73.818 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Organizational policies








final model only the control variables the fulfillment of Social atmosphere (β = ,135 p < .05) and

the fulfillment of organizational policies (β = .226, p < .001) were statistically significant.

40

Table 19



Frequency OC -.093 -.076 -.043 -.035 Trans. OC -.061 -.109 .021 -.010 -.017 Impact OC .047 .055 .048 .055 Age .005 .070 Gender -.098 -.060 Organization -.106 -.065 FF SA .128 .135 .015 FF OP .240 .226 .000 R2 0.024 0.142 F 3.938 .009 10.017 .000 ∆R2 0.024 0.119 ∆F 3.938 .009 13.366 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Work life








final model only the control variables age (β = ,173 p < .001), Organization (β = -.103 p < .05),

the fulfillment of Social atmosphere (β = ,187 p < .05) and the fulfillment of organizational

policies (β = .220, p < .001) were statistically significant.

41

Table 20



Frequency OC -0.43 -.031 .016 .012 Trans. OC -.026 -.042 .039 .063 Impact OC -.016 -.016 -.007 -.008 Age .015 .173 .000 Gender -.164 -.089 Organization -.239 -.130 .021 FF SA .199 .187 .001 FF OP .263 .220 .000 R2 0.004 0.183 F 0.659 .577 13.524 .000 ∆R2 0.004 0.179 ∆F 0.659 .577 21.161 .000 Dependent variable: Fulfillment of organizational obligations, Rewards

42

Table 21


Work content – In- role

B-Value -.0.009 Z-value Sobel -1.592, p< 0.05

Table 22


Career development – In-role

B-Value -0.012 Z-value Sobel -1.706, p< 0.05

Table 23


Social atmosphere – In-role


Table 24


Organizational policies – In-role

B-Value -0.015 Z-value Sobel -2.494, p< 0.05 Table 25

Number of transformational change

Social atmosphere– In –role


Table 25


Organizational policies – In –role

B-Value 0.006 Z-value Sobel 1.918, p< 0.05 Table 26


Career development – In –role

B-Value 0.008 Z-value Sobel 1.697, p< 0.05

Table 27


Work content – Extra- role

B-Value -.0.013 Z-value Sobel -1.599, p< 0.05

Table 28


Career development – Extra-role


Table 29


Social atmosphere – Extra-role


43

Table 30


Organizational policies – Extra-role

B-Value -0.021 Z-value Sobel -2.077, p< 0.05 Table 31


Social atmosphere– Extra –role


Table 32


Organizational policies – In –role B-Value 0.009 Z-value Sobel 1.930, p< 0.05

Table 26


Career development – In –role

B-Value 0.012 Z-value Sobel 1.904, p< 0.05

44

Appendix D – Split file

Model Summarye

Case source is

M:\02_Master_Semester_

2\Questionnaire\05_Mergr

ed data

new\lijst1443_1444_14.7.1

1.sav Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change

0 1 ,110a ,012 -,006 ,44565 ,012 ,665 3 162 ,575

2 ,123b ,015 -,016 ,44777 ,003 ,235 2 160 ,791

1 1 ,302c ,091 ,083 ,54413 ,091 10,755 3 322 ,000

2 ,305d ,093 ,079 ,54533 ,002 ,293 2 320 ,746

a. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Freq_oc, Type_oc

b. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Freq_oc, Type_oc, Gender_new, Age

c. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Type_oc, Freq_oc

d. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Type_oc, Freq_oc, Gender_new, Age

e. Dependent Variable: FF_total

45

ANOVAe

Case source is

M:\02_Master_Semester_2\Ques

tionnaire\05_Mergred data

new\lijst1443_1444_14.7.11.sav Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

0 1 Regression ,396 3 ,132 ,665 ,575a

Residual 32,174 162 ,199

Total 32,570 165

2 Regression ,490 5 ,098 ,489 ,784b

Residual 32,080 160 ,200

Total 32,570 165 1 1 Regression 9,553 3 3,184 10,755 ,000

c

Residual 95,336 322 ,296

Total 104,888 325

2 Regression 9,727 5 1,945 6,542 ,000d

Residual 95,162 320 ,297

Total 104,888 325

a. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Freq_oc, Type_oc

b. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Freq_oc, Type_oc, Gender_new, Age

c. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Type_oc, Freq_oc

d. Predictors: (Constant), consequences, Type_oc, Freq_oc, Gender_new, Age

e. Dependent Variable: FF_total

Coefficientsa

46

Case source is

M:\02_Master_Sem

ester_2\Questionnai

re\05_Mergred data

new\lijst1443_1444

_14.7.11.sav Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardize

d

Coefficients

t Sig.

Correlations

Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta

Zero-

order Partial Part

Toleranc

e VIF

0 1 (Constant) 3,354 ,246 13,613 ,000

Freq_oc ,048 ,057 ,071 ,856 ,394 ,034 ,067 ,067 ,887 1,127

Type_oc -,035 ,026 -,113 -1,341 ,182 -,085 -,105 -,105 ,860 1,163

consequenc

es

,011 ,038 ,024 ,302 ,763 ,007 ,024 ,024 ,967 1,034

2 (Constant) 3,431 ,297 11,553 ,000

Freq_oc ,046 ,057 ,067 ,802 ,424 ,034 ,063 ,063 ,881 1,135

Type_oc -,032 ,026 -,104 -1,200 ,232 -,085 -,094 -,094 ,827 1,209

consequenc

es

,011 ,038 ,022 ,276 ,783 ,007 ,022 ,022 ,961 1,040

Age -,002 ,005 -,028 -,353 ,725 -,041 -,028 -,028 ,958 1,043

Gender_new -,047 ,076 -,049 -,616 ,539 -,055 -,049 -,048 ,984 1,017

1 1 (Constant) 3,836 ,217 17,692 ,000

Freq_oc -,230 ,050 -,259 -4,609 ,000 -,263 -,249 -,245 ,896 1,116

Type_oc -,030 ,024 -,069 -1,247 ,213 -,144 -,069 -,066 ,910 1,099

consequenc

es

,083 ,034 ,132 2,459 ,014 ,098 ,136 ,131 ,985 1,016

2 (Constant) 3,882 ,267 14,513 ,000

Freq_oc -,230 ,050 -,259 -4,593 ,000 -,263 -,249 -,245 ,894 1,119

Type_oc -,032 ,025 -,072 -1,289 ,198 -,144 -,072 -,069 ,905 1,105

47

consequenc

es

,085 ,034 ,133 2,466 ,014 ,098 ,137 ,131 ,968 1,033

Age 8,244E-5 ,003 ,001 ,027 ,978 -,026 ,002 ,001 ,955 1,047

Gender_new -,061 ,081 -,041 -,751 ,453 -,028 -,042 -,040 ,971 1,030

a. Dependent Variable: FF_total

the effect of organizational change on the psychological

Documents