Psychological contracts are individual beliefs in reciprocal obligations between employees and employers. In a sample of 1377 South African white collar-employees, this study examined the effects of Affirmative Action on psychological contract attributes and how these changes influence employees' attitude towards Affirmative Action according to their psychological contract form (Relational, Balanced and Transactional). Using empirical research, the effects of Affirmative Action were found to be seen differently for employees with different psychological contracts. Relational employees from both designated and non-designated group were found to have a positive attitude towards Affirmative Action. Balanced designated and non-designated employees were found to have a negative attitude towards Affirmative Action.
Furthermore mentorship was seen as having an interaction effect in such a way that the relationship between relational psychological contract and positivity towards Affirmative Action is stronger when mentoring is high. Organisational Level was also found to have an interaction effect between non-manager and balanced psychological contract were non-manager have a stronger positive attitude than middle managers. Finally interaction effects of age were found in such a way that negativity towards Affirmative Action is lower when employees are older for transactional and balanced employees. The implications of these results and their possible reasons are investigated as well as recommendation for manager on how to improve employees' attitude towards Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is one of the major issues facing companies in South Africa. Its implementation aims at changing the workforce distribution in companies and increasing diversity. By implementing Affirmative Action companies have to make changes in the manner they interact with their employees: the way they are hiring, promoting and even dealing with their staff will be transformed. In so doing, current and future employees see their psychological contracts: "the employee's subjective belief as to their reciprocal obligations with their company" (Rousseau, 1990) with their organisation changed and influenced by Affirmative Action.
[...] Additional hypotheses seek to test the effect of moderators such as the employee level of job satisfaction, commitment, mentorship, supervision and relationships with colleague and looks at whether they strengthen, weaken or even reverse the employee attitudes toward Affirmative Action from their psychological contract forms Research Model Figure 1 shows a summary of the study as a whole and Figure 2 shows an explanatory model of the effect of Affirmative Action on the various dimensions of Psychological contract and how that links with employees attitudes toward Affirmative Action Figure Model Summary of the study Figure Model summary of Affirmative Action effect on Psychological contract linked with Attitude toward Affirmative Action 1.5 Limitation of the Study This study and especially the empirical methodology section face a number of limitations. [...]
[...] Psychological contract violation has been found to be correlated with employee engaging in counter-productive behaviour and a reduction in the employee willingness to engage in organisational citizenship behaviour (Turnley and Feldman, 2000:39) Further, on the effect of violation on transactional contract, Robinson et al (1994) established that when an employee perceives that his employer has failed to fulfil his obligation; it has a great effect on the employee's perceived obligation to his employer and it was found that an average perceived violation by the employer to the employee will lead to a decrease of three out of five employees' transactional obligation (Robinson et al, 1994:147). [...]
[...] The effect of Affirmative Action on various job dimensions will now be investigated. Figure Affirmative Action effect on Job Dimension Job security NON-DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES One of the main areas that may be affected by Affirmative Action for the non-designated group of employees is the company obligation regarding job security. Non-designated group employees in the past could generally rely on long term, safe employment in one company. Individuals who joined an organisation in the past created their employment relationship (psychological contract) on the basis that they could rely on a steady and safe income for a relatively long period of time. [...]
[...] Standardized Coefficients Beta Sig Beta Sig Beta Sig Relational Mentorship Mentorship X Mentorship X Balanced X Mentorship Table 21: Moderated Multiple Regression Coefficients for Mentorship To determine the direction of the interaction effect, we examine the slope of Attitude toward Affirmative Action regressed on relational psychological contract at different levels of mentoring (high, average and low). This relationship graph is shown in Figure 9. Figure Interaction effect of mentorship and relational psychological contract Mentoring was found to have a significant interaction effect with the main variables such that the relationship between the relational psychological contract and positivity towards Affirmative Action is stronger when mentoring is high = p < adjusted = 0.087 ) Demographic variables Based on the final set of hypotheses, the interactions effect was tested for following control variables: (H3a) Age, (H3b) Organisational level, and (H3c) Level of Education. [...]
[...] Distributive Injustice Interactional Injustice Procedural Injustice Transactional Relational Voice Silence Retreat Destruction Exit Contract maintenance Refusal to maintain contract Contract revision Refusal to revise contract Type of Employee Organisational Violation Type of contract Reaction Reaction : Plant A : Plant B : Plant C Before During After Theft Time High Low Affirmative Action Job Dimension: Job Security Pay Performance Training and Development Work Environment Relationship Statement Factor loading Employee Balanced Treating the organisation's property in a careful way 0.88 Being willing to go beyond one's own job description, especially in an emergency 0.87 Dressing and behaving correctly with customers and colleagues 0.87 Protecting your organisation's proprietary information 0.81 Volunteering to do tasks that are not strictly required by your job 0.63 Working overtime / extra hours if necessary 0.55 Refusing to support your employer's competitors 0.48 Organisation Transactional REV Not acting in a personally and socially responsible and supportive way towards employees 0.77 REV No Provision of a friendly / happy work environment 0.71 REV No consultation with staff on important work issues 0.71 REV No recognition of employee contributions 0.70 REV Large interference with employees in terms of how they do their jobs 0.59 REV No time off to meet personal or family needs 0.51 Organisation Balanced High Pay 0.82 Promotion 0.81 Pay based on my current level of performance 0.60 Career development 0.57 Training 0.47 Employee Relational I feel committed to my organization 0.78 Loyalty to one's company is still important 0.73 Having a job with my current employer, as opposed to any other, is one [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee