Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach.

By Scott W. Lester, W. H. Turnley, James M. Bloodgood, M. Bolino. 2002

470 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/55efd87d361ef0b9f358ca6299ee06f81bf94fa4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Psychological contract breach and job attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a moderator (2008, background): “…Sample Age Tenure N Rxx Breach Trust Satisfaction Commitment r ryy r ryy r ryy 40 Lester and Kickul (2001) US MBA students 27.6 3.4 268 — .21 .86 41 Lester et al. (2002) US MBA students 32.27 4.34 134 .89 .60 .87 42 Lo and Aryee (2003) Chinese MBA-students — 6.56 152 .86 .56 .87 43 Montes and…”
Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader-member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes (2009, background): “Leaders and followers do not operate from the same role set or have congruent expectations about the role exchanges to be enacted, partly as a function of their different positions or constituencies in the organization (Lester et al., 2002).”
Making sense of psychological contract breach (2011, background): “Empirical studies have demonstrated the downward adjustments in various employee emotions, attitudes and behaviours, including organizational commitment ( Lester et al. , 2002”
Antecedents and Consequences of Merit Pay Fairness for Industrial Salespeople (2003, background): “When pay expectations are not met, employees may believe that the organization has violated its obligations and disregarded its commitments (Lester et al. 2002).”
Extending the Psychology of the Psychological Contract (2003, background): “…work has been done on the social and cognitive factors underlying agreement in employment relationships (e.g., between workers and employer, individual and supervisor) than on the factors that affect psychological contract violation (e.g., Lester et al., 2002; Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994).”
Psychological contracts and their implications for commitment: A feature-based approach☆ (2009, background): “…between the parties involved can have important implications for the enactment of the contract (Dabos & Rousseau, 2004), psychological contract research commonly focuses on the perceptions of one party, typically the employee (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Lester et al., 2002; Robinson, 1996).”
Is coworker feedback more important than supervisor feedback for increasing innovative behavior? (2019, unknown): “Despite the longstanding assumption that direct supervisors are the main agents representing the organization (Lester et al., 2002; Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003), recent research has since challenged this assumption, calling for research to adopt a multifocal perspective in exam”
Assessing the nature of psychological contracts: a validation of six dimensions (2004, background): “While most studies (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro, 2000; Lester et al., 2002; Turnley & Feldman, 1998) have examined the relationship between fulfillment of the psychological contract and commitment, we also expect the nature of the psychological contract to be associated with commitment.”