The mitigating role of leader-member exchange in the relationship between psychological contract violation and counterproductive work behavior: A diary study among volunteers.

AIM: Organizational scholars in the field of volunteering (e.g., Nichols & Ojala, 2009; Vantilborgh et al., 2011, 2012) have repeatedly emphasized the pivotal role of the psychological contract when examining how unfulfilled organizational promises--termed psychological contract breach--evoke an emotional and affective reaction--termed violation--which in turn triggers discrete deleterious behavioural reactions, such as counterproductive work behaviour towards the organization (CWB-O) and colleagues (CWB-I). Adhering to Ng, Feldman and Lam (2010) we argue that these behavioural responses to violation do not happen within a vacuum but are interrelated and intensifying over time, increasing the likelihood to end up in a downward spiral of negative behaviour. Consequently, the question arises as to how these counterproductive behavioural effects can be minimized. In this respect, several scholars have considered leadership and more specifically Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) as an important mitigating factor in the relationship between experienced violation and undesirable employee outcomes (e.g., Hutchinson, & Hurley, 2013; Ng et al., 2013; Restubog, Bordia, Tang, & Kreps, 2010; Zagenczyk, Gibney, Kiewitz, & Restubog, 2009). Although these studies have paved the way towards assessing this mitigating role in redressing feelings of violation, prior findings regarding the direction of that moderating effect are mixed. To reconcile these mixed findings, we will examine momentary changes in LMX over time (rather than general LMX levels) as a moderator of the relationship between violation and CWB-O/CWB-I.

METHOD: During five consecutive weeks, 247 volunteers of a Belgian fair-trade social enterprise (i.e., an organizational type concerned with economic, entrepreneurial and social aspects) filled out a short weekly diary survey (between Friday 11AM and Saturday 11AM). Due to the nested structure of our data (i.e., weekly observations nested within volunteers), we performed a two-level zero-inflated regression analysis (Lambert, 1992) in Mplus 7 in which we examined (1) the relationship between violation (time T-1) and CWB-O/CWB-I (time T) and (2) the moderating effect of momentary LMX (time T-1) on the relationship between violation (time T-1) and CWB-O/CWB-I (time T).

RESULTS: First, our results indicated that while violation at time T-1 was positively (? = .15, p ? .001) related to CWB-O at time T, it was not related (? = .04, ns) to CWB-I at time T. When including the interaction between violation (time T-1) and LMX (time T-1), the direct relationship between violation (time T-1) and CWB-O (time T) was no longer significant (? = -.03, ns). However, the interaction between violation (time T-1) and LMX (time T-1) was negatively (? = -.31, p <.01) related to engaging in distinct CWB-O behaviours. Finally, CWB-O (time T-1) was positively related to CWB-I (time T), both pre (? = .18, p ? .001) and post (? = .20, p ? .001) inclusion of the interaction term.

CONCLUSION: Although violation predicted volunteer's future CWB-O behaviours, having a positive relationship with one's immediate manager mitigates the relationship between violation and--otherwise present--CWB-O reactions. It might therefore be recommended for the organization to offer training to immediate managers on how to effectively deal with a volunteer's experienced violation.