presentation thesis print corrigé
-
Upload
pieter-labie -
Category
Documents
-
view
48 -
download
0
Transcript of presentation thesis print corrigé
Effect of social accounts on stress and trust repair after a psychological contract breach
Pieter Labie
introduction section of the master thesis
Pag.
Research design
2
H1+
Pag.
Research design
3
-H2
H1+
STRESS (y1)
TRUST (y2)
PCB
Pag.
Research design
4
-H2
H1+
Social accounts (x1) (moderator)
Pag.
Research design
5
-H2
H1+
STRESS (y1)
TRUST (y2)
H3a-
-H4a
Social accounts (x1) (moderator)
Pag.
Research design
6
-H2
H1+
STRESS (y1)
TRUST (y2)
H3a-
-H4a
Appology (x2)>
Denial (x3)
Social accounts (x1) (moderator)
H3b-
-H4b
TRUST (y2)
Pag.
Psychological contract
7
Pag.
Psychological contract breach
8
• Cognition of a person
• Organization has failed to meet obligations within the psychological contract
• Affect the employee-employer relationship
Pag.
More stress after PC-breach
9
• Conservation of resources model (Hobföll)
• A reaction to the environment in which there is:• the threat of a net loss of resources• the net loss of resources
• For employees, the PC holds a lot of resources
• The loss of one of these resources could lead to a PCB-breach
Pag.
Less trust after PC-breach
10
• Intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another
• Attribution of trust theory• PC-breach anger less willingness to
be vulnerable less trust
• Affective events theory• PCB is a negative event negative
emotions colours cognitive evaluation negative job attitudes less trust
Pag.
Social accounts
11
• A statement made to explain • unanticipated behavior • untoward behavior
• To bridge the gap between actions and expectations
• 4 factors that may play a role in a reconciliation tactic:
• the type of social account • the time at which it is proposed• the perceived sincerity by the victim.• the interactions of these factors
• Infinite social account types • Exampels: denial, excuse, justification,
and apology
Pag.
More trust: appology VS. denial
12
• Attribution theory:• Trust is restored most successfully when:
• apologizing if there is evidence of guilt• denying if there is evidence of innocence• apologizing if their skills are in question• denying their integrity is in question
• Denial: behavior can’t be attributed internally• Questions remain about the future actions of the
trustee
• Apology: behavior is internal and controllable, but it is not stable
• Repentant factor + the resulting damage will not continue.
• Apology > denial
Pag.
Less stress: appology VS. denial
13
• Conservation of resources model: denial and apology offer as resources some clarity
• Denial, loss of recourse: worry• Questions can persist about the guilt of the
trustee• questions remains about the future actions
of the trustee.
• Apology: win of recourse: no worry• The resulting damage will not continue.
• Apology > denial
Pag.
Questions
14