Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Are You Thinking the Same Way?

Similarity and Communication Quality as Predictors of Psychological Contract Breaches in Doctoral Candidate–Supervisor Relationships

Published Online:October 14, 2016https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000222

Abstract

Abstract. This paper examines the impact of relationship parameters (communication quality and perceived similarity) between doctoral candidates and their supervisors on psychological contract breach, with reference to the theory of Morrison and Robinson (1997) and the schema theory of Rousseau (2001). A two-wave longitudinal study involving 101 doctoral candidates was conducted, with time points separated by 4 months. Hypotheses were tested using cross-lagged panel analyses. Perceived similarity and communication quality at T1 had no significant main effect on contract breach at T2 (controlled for contract breach at T1). However, the interaction of both variables was found to be significant. If similarity was high, there was a significant negative relationship between communication quality and psychological contract breach. We may conclude that shared mental models are important for the unfolding of the positive effects of communication quality within a doctoral candidate–supervisor relationship.


Siehst Du das genauso wie ich? Ähnlichkeit und Kommunikationsqualität als Prädiktoren des Psychologischen Vertragsbruches in Doktoranden-Betreuer-Beziehungen

Zusammenfassung. Diese Studie untersucht den Einfluss von Beziehungsparametern zwischen Promovierenden und deren Betreuern und Betreuerinnen (Kommunikationsqualität und wahrgenommene Ähnlichkeit) auf den Psychologischen Vertragsbruch. Nach Morrison und Robinson (1997) und der Schematheorie von Rousseau (2001) sollten beide Parameter die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Auftretens eines Bruches verringern. Neben den Haupteffekten von Ähnlichkeit und Kommunikationsqualität auf den Psychologischen Vertrag wird außerdem ein Interaktionseffekt der beiden angenommen. Es wurde eine längsschnittliche Onlineerhebung mit zwei Erhebungszeitpunkten, die vier Monate auseinander lagen, mit N = 101 Promovierenden durchgeführt. Die Hypothesen wurden mit einem Cross-lagged Panel-Modell getestet. Weder die wahrgenommene Ähnlichkeit noch die Kommunikationsqualität zu T1 zeigten einen signifikanten Haupteffekt auf den Psychologischen Vertragsbruch zu T2 (unter Kontrolle des Autoregressors). Vertragsbruch zu T1 zeigte jedoch einen signifikant negativen Effekt auf Kommunikationsqualität zu T2. Es resultierte außerdem ein signifikanter Interaktionseffekt der Ähnlichkeit und Kommunikationsqualität in Bezug auf den Bruch des Psychologischen Vertrages zum späteren Zeitpunkt. Beide Aspekte zeigten bei hohen Ausprägungen eine Verstärkung des negativen Zusammenhanges des jeweils anderen Faktors zu Psychologischem Vertragsbruch. Die geringste Wahrscheinlichkeit für Psychologische Vertragsbrüche ist demnach dann gegeben, wenn sowohl eine hohe Ähnlichkeit als auch eine gute Kommunikationsqualität vorhanden sind. Bei geringer Ähnlichkeit zeigten sich keine signifikanten Effekte der Kommunikationsqualität. Dies lässt den Schluss zu, dass ein Mindestmaß geteilter Vorstellungen vorliegen muss, damit die Kommunikationsqualität die Wahrscheinlichkeit Psychologischer Vertragsbrüche vermindern kann. Es zeigte sich aber auch, dass Ähnlichkeit im Denken bei geringer Kommunikationsqualität nicht vor Psychologischen Vertragsbrüchen schützt. Daraus wurde der Schluss gezogen, dass Ähnlichkeit und Kommunikationsqualität als Protektivfaktoren wirken und die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines Vertragsbruches verringern können. Die Befunde zeigen jedoch auch auf, dass Ähnlichkeit (bei gleichzeitig geringer Kommunikationsqualität) auch die Rolle eines Risikofaktors einnehmen kann. Ein weiterer Befund der Studie ist, dass Kommunikationsqualität auch eine Folge des psychologischen Vertragsbruches darzustellen scheint. Es ist demnach empfehlenswert für eine gute Doktoranden-Betreuerbeziehung gleichzeitig ähnliche Denkweisen auf Probleme zu entwickeln sowie die Qualität der Kommunikation auf einem hohen Niveau zu halten. Dies erfordert eine kontinuierliche und proaktive Beziehungsarbeit auf beiden Seiten.

References

  • Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective mentoring relationships: Strategies form the mentor’s viewpoint. Career Development Quarterly, 48, 59 – 73. doi:10.1002/j.2161 – 0045.1999.tb00275.x Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Aspland, T., Edwards, H., O’Leary, J., & Ryan, Y. (1999). Tracking new directions in the evaluation of postgraduate supervision. Innovative Higher Education, 24, 127 – 47. doi: 10.1023/B:IHIE.0000008150.75564.b3 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Bal, P. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P.G.W., & Van Der Velde, M. E. G. (2008). Psychological contract breach and job attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a moderator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 143 – 158. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.005 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Blickle, G. (2000). Mentor-Protégé-Beziehungen in Organisationen [Mentor–protégé relationships in organizations]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 44, 168 – 178. doi:10.1026//0932 – 4089.44.4.168 Link, Google Scholar

  • Chambel, M. J. (2014). Does the fulfillment of supervisor psychological contract make a difference? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(1), 20 – 37. doi:10.1108/LODJ-03 – 2012 – 0031 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325 – 334. doi:10.1007/s10869 – 010 – 9181 – 6 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874 – 900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 52 – 72. doi:10.1037/0021 – 9010.89.1.52 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460 – 481. doi:10.1006/ jvbe.1996.1547 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social Cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar

  • Franke, A., & Arvidsson, B. (2011). Research supervisors’ different ways of experiencing supervision of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 7 – 19. doi: 10.1080/03075070903402151 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Gardner, S. K. (2007). ‘‘I heard it through the grapevine’’: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history. Higher Education, 54, 723 – 740. doi:10.1007/s10734 – 006 – 9020-x Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Grant, B., & Graham, A. (1999). Naming the game: Reconstructing graduate supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 4, 77 – 89. doi: 10.1080/1356251990040105 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Guest, D. E. (1998). Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(S1), 649 – 664. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099 – 1379(1998)193.0.CO;2-T Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: An employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 12, 22 – 38. doi:10.1111/j.1748 – 8583.2002.tb00062.x Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2005). Statistical methods for communication science. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar

  • Hockey, J. (1996a). Motives and meaning amongst PhD supervisors in the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17, 489 – 506. doi: 10.1080/0142569960170405 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Hockey, J. (1996b). Strategies and tactics in the supervision of UK social science PhD postgraduate students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 481 – 500. doi: 10.1080/0951839960090409 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Holdaway, E., Deblois, C., & Winchester, I. (1995). Supervision of graduate students. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25, 1 – 28. Google Scholar

  • Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD postgraduate students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30,535 – 55. doi: 10.1080/03075070500249161 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Junker, N. M., Schyns, B., van Dick, R., & Scheurer, S. (2011). Die Bedeutung der Führungskräfte- Kategorisierung für Commitment, Arbeitszufriedenheit und Wohlbefinden unter Berücksichtigung der Geschlechterrollentheorie [The importance of leader categorization for commitment, job satisfaction, and well-being with particular consideration of gender role theory]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 55, 171 – 179. doi:10.1026/0932 – 4089/a000055 Link, Google Scholar

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar

  • Kyvik, S., & Smeby, J. (1994). Teaching and research. The relationship between supervision of graduate students and faculty research performance. Higher Education, 28, 227 – 39. doi: 10.1007/BF01383730 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Lapointe, E., Vandenberghe, C., & Boudrias, J.-S. (2014). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: The mediating role of role clarity and affect-based trust relationships. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 599 – 624. doi: 10.1111/joop.12065 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 511 – 526. doi: 10.1080/03075070701476225 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. methodology in the social sciences. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar

  • Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental contextual perspective on identity construction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation and commitment evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 42, 366 – 380. doi:10.1037/0012 – 1649.42.2.366 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • MacLean, T., Litzky, B. E., & Holderness, D. K. (2015). When organizations don’t walk their talk: A cross-level examination of how decoupling formal ethics programs affects organizational members. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 351 – 368. doi:10.1007/s10551 – 014 – 2103 – 1 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Martinsuo, M., & Turkulainen, V. (2011). Personal commitment, support and progress in doctoral studies. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 103 – 120. doi: 10.1080/03075070903469598 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Mohr, G., Wolfram, H.-J., Schyns, B., Paul, T., & Günster, A. C. (2007). Kommunikationsqualität zwischen Führungskräften und MitarbeiterInnen aus Sicht der MitarbeiterInnen (FKQ-MA) [Communication quality between leaders and team members from the perspective of the team members]. In A. Glöckner-RistEd., ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (ZIS Version11.00). Bonn, Germany: GESIS. Google Scholar

  • Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226 – 256. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1997.9707180 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Ployhart, R. E., & Ward, A.-K. (2011). The ‘quick start guide’ for conducting and publishing longitudinal research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 413 – 422. doi:10.1007/s10869 – 011 – 9209 – 6 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar

  • Raja, U., Johns, G., & Bilgrami, S. (2011). Negative consequences of felt violations: The deeper the relationship, the stronger the reaction. Applied Psychology, 60, 397 – 420. doi:10.1111/j.1464 – 0597.2011.00441.x Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574 – 599. doi: 10.2307/2393868 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525 – 546. doi:10.1002/1099 – 1379(200008)21:5<525::AID-JOB40>3.0.CO;2-T Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121 – 139. doi: 10.1007/BF01384942 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: understanding written and unwritten agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511 – 541. doi: 10.1348/096317901167505 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2003). Extending the psychology of the psychological contract – a reply to ‘putting psychology back into psychological contracts’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 229 – 238. doi: 10.1177/1056492603256339 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In L. L. CummingsB. M. StowEds., Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 15, pp. 1 – 47). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar

  • Salminen-Karlsson, M., & Wallgren, L. (2008). The interaction of academic and industrial supervisors in graduate education – an investigation of industrial research schools. Higher Education, 56(1), 77 – 93. doi:10.1007/s10734 – 007 – 9090 – 4 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Seagram, B.C., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 319 – 35. doi: 10.1023/A:1018781118312 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H., & Main-Dalton, R. R. (2008). Characteristics of the supervisor-subordinate relationship as predictors of psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Issues, 3, 295 – 312. Google Scholar

  • Sutton, G., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal study of new professionals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 493 – 514. doi: 10.1348/0963179042596487 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren’t there two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agreement on contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 585 – 608. doi: 10.1002/job.204 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Tien, F. F. (2008).What kind of faculty are motivated to perform research by the desire for promotion? Higher Education, 55, 17 – 32. doi:10.1007/s10734 – 006 – 9033 – 5 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Unsworth, K. L., Turner, N., Williams, H. M., & Piccin-Houle, S. (2010). Giving thanks: The relational context of gratitude in postgraduate supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 871 – 888. doi: 10.1080/03075070903348396 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Wade-Benzoni, K.A., Rousseau, D. M., & Li, M. (2006). Managing relationships across generations of academics: Psychological contracts in faculty-doctoral student collaborations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17, 4 – 33. doi: 10.1108/10444060610734154 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Wolfram, H.-J., & Mohr, G. (2009). Transformational leadership, team goal fulfillment, and follower work satisfaction – the moderating effects of deep-level similarity in leadership dyads. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 260 – 274. doi: 10.1177/1548051808326595 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647 – 680. doi:10.1111/j.1744 – 6570.2007.00087.x Crossref, Google Scholar