| Literature DB >> 35564799 |
Anna Rogozińska-Pawełczyk1, Katarzyna Gadomska-Lila2.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to identify the relationship between the fulfilment of relational and transactional psychological contracts and work results, taking into account the mediation effect expressed in organisational identification. The empirical research was conducted on a group of 402 HR professionals responsible for designing and implementing HR practices in one of the leading companies of the Polish energy sector. Hypotheses were tested using the partial least squares structural equation modelling technique (PLS-SEM). Based on our research, we found that the implementation of both relational and transactional psychological contracts positively influenced the results achieved by HR professionals, both directly and indirectly, through the mediating role of organisational identification. The results indicate that the relationship between the psychological contract and work results is stronger when mediated by organisational identification. It plays an important role, especially in relation to the transactional contract. The collected results lead to the conclusion that organisations, wishing to increase the level of work results achieved by HR professionals, should as much as possible fulfil the expectations of employees and meet the commitments made to them within the framework of the established psychological contract. The study makes an important contribution to the understanding of the "priority" importance of organisational identification in enhancing the efforts of HR professionals to deliver work results that benefit both employees and the organisation.Entities:
Keywords: HR professionals; organisational identification; psychological contract; relational psychological contract; transactional psychological contract; work results
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564799 PMCID: PMC9099778 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095404
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Research model of relationships between the fulfilment of the relational and transactional psychological contract and HR professionals’ work results and the mediating effect of organisational identification.
Structure of the research sample in the quantitative survey (n = 402).
| Demographic Criteria | Categories | Frequency | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ≤30 | 41 | 10.2 |
| 30–39 | 160 | 39.8 | |
| 40–49 | 111 | 27.6 | |
| 50–54 | 70 | 17.4 | |
| >55 | 20 | 5.0 | |
| Education | Bachelors | 71 | 17.7 |
| Masters | 287 | 71.4 | |
| Doctorate PhD | 44 | 10.9 | |
| Total length of service | ≤1 year | 2 | 0.5 |
| 1–5 years | 53 | 13.2 | |
| 6–10 years | 100 | 24.8 | |
| >10 | 247 | 61.5 | |
| Length of service for current firm | ≤1 year | 51 | 12.7 |
| 1–5 years | 83 | 20.7 | |
| 6–10 years | 144 | 35.8 | |
| >10 | 124 | 30.8 |
Model fit statistics.
| Factor | Value factor |
|---|---|
| AVIF | 1.94 |
| AFVIF | 2.35 |
| Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) | 0.51 |
| Sympson’s paradox ratio (SPR) | 0.87 |
| Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) | 0.89 |
| SRMR | 0.08 |
| SMAR | 0.08 |
Note: AVIF = Average Variance Inflation Factor (accepted if AVIF ≤ 5.00); AFVIF = Average Full Variance Inflation Factor (accepted if AFVIF ≤ 5.00); GoF = Godness of Fit/ Model Predictive. The higher, the better the fit of the data to the path model (low GoF ≥ 0.10, medium GoF ≥ 0.25, high GoF ≥ 0.36); SPR = Simpson’s Paradox Ratio. The higher, the fewer cases of Simpson’s Paradox (accepted SPR ≥ 0.70, ideal SPR = 1.00); SSR = Statstical Supression Ratio. The higher, the closer the path estimates are to the values of the correlation coefficients (accepted SSR ≥ 0.70, ideal SSR = 1.00); SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual. The lower, the better the fit of the data to the measurement model of the variables (accepted if SRMR ≤ 0.10); SMAR = Standardized Mean Absolute Residual. The lower, the better the fit of the data to the measurement model of the variables (accepted if SMAR ≤ 0.10).
Results Convergence accuracy of the measurement model and the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), correlation matrix.
| Variable | Loading | t-Value | CR | Cronbach’s α | AVE | Mean | SD | FTPC | FRPC | OID | RW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRPC | 0.861 | 18.11 *** | 0.975 | 0.96 | 0.825 | 3.39 | 1.21 | 0.567 *** | |||
| FRPC1 | 0.816 | 16.77 *** | 0.554 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC2 | 0.845 | 17.34 *** | 0.601 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC3 | 0.761 | 18.35 *** | 0.496 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC4 | 0.731 | 18.17 *** | 0.551 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC5 | 0.719 | 16.63 *** | 0.498 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC6 | 0.765 | 17.01 *** | 0.563 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC7 | 0.699 | 17.30 *** | 0.489 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC8 | 0.797 | 15.94 *** | 0.667 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC9 | 0.866 | 16.45 *** | 0.517 *** | ||||||||
| FRPC10 | 0.689 | 15.91 *** | 0.647 *** | ||||||||
| FTPC | 0.711 | 16.87 *** | 0.951 | 0.86 | 0.686 | 2.34 | 1.39 | 0.694 *** | 0.754 *** | ||
| FTPC1 | 0.709 | 16.97 *** | 0.644 *** | 0.532 *** | |||||||
| FTPC2 | 0.699 | 16.94 *** | 0.541 *** | 0.501 *** | |||||||
| FTPC3 | 0.638 | 15.91 *** | 0.711 *** | 0.817 *** | |||||||
| FTPC4 | 0.702 | 14.82 *** | 0.499 *** | 0.676 *** | |||||||
| FTPC5 | 0.742 | 17.08 *** | 0.618 *** | 0.592 *** | |||||||
| FTPC6 | 0.800 | 16.87 *** | 0.523 *** | 0.534 *** | |||||||
| FTPC7 | 0.791 | 16.65 *** | 0.717 *** | 0.643 *** | |||||||
| FTPC8 | 0.736 | 16.27 *** | 0.800 *** | 0.716 *** | |||||||
| FTPC9 | 0.687 | 17.09 *** | 0.451 *** | 0.541*** | |||||||
| FTPC10 | 0.681 | 16.63 *** | 0.329 *** | 0.678 *** | |||||||
| OID | 0.821 | 17.30 *** | 0.988 | 0.90 | 0.693 | 3.43 | 1.03 | 0.785 *** | 0.733 *** | 0.816 *** | |
| OID1 | 0.791 | 18.11 *** | 0.731 *** | 0.697 *** | 0.815 *** | ||||||
| OID2 | 0.764 | 17.38 *** | 0.691 *** | 0.495 *** | 0.495 *** | ||||||
| OID3 | 0.782 | 15.88 *** | 0.499 *** | 0.592 *** | 0.591 *** | ||||||
| OID4 | 0.712 | 17.99 *** | 0.692 *** | 0.687 *** | 0.693 *** | ||||||
| OID5 | 0.682 | 17.21 *** | 0.495 *** | 0.655 *** | 0.716 *** | ||||||
| OID6 | 0.811 | 16.94 *** | 0.679 *** | 0.491 *** | 0.511 *** | ||||||
| RW | 0.734 | 17.99 *** | 0.938 | 0.94 | 0.766 | 3.44 | 1.41 | 0.729 *** | 0.695 *** | 0.804 *** | 0.832 *** |
| RW1 | 0.729 | 17.43 *** | 0.652 *** | 0.715 *** | 0.705 *** | 0.816 *** | |||||
| RW2 | 0.735 | 16.77 *** | 0.595 *** | 0.396 *** | 0.629 *** | 0.549 *** | |||||
| RW3 | 0.691 | 16.43 *** | 0.820 *** | 0.719 *** | 0.551 *** | 0.791 *** | |||||
| RW4 | 0.687 | 16.41 *** | 0.659 *** | 0.802 *** | 0.774 *** | 0.609 *** | |||||
| RW5 | 0.712 | 18.17 *** | 0.798 *** | 0.709 *** | 0.605 *** | 0.598 *** |
Note: (α) = Cronbach’s alpha, value above 0.75 is acceptable; CR = Composite Reliability, value above 0.75 is acceptable; AVE = Average Variance Extracted, preferred value > 0.50; t = Student’s t statistic for factor loading *** p < 0.001.
Direct effects between variables and mediating effects of the Organizational Identification (OID) between Fulfillment of the Relational Psychological Contract (FRPC); Fulfillment of the Transactional Psychological Contract (FTPC) and Results of Work (RW).
| Effect | Path Analysis | β-Standardized | t-Value |
| Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct effect | FRPC---->RW | 0.304 | 3.049 | 0.002 | H1 is confirmed |
| Direct effect | FTPC---->RW | 0.371 | 3.655 | 0.001 | H2 is confirmed |
| Direct effect | FRPC---->OID | 0.158 | 0.340 | 0.003 | H3 is confirmed |
| Direct effect | FTPC---->OID | 0.215 | 1.461 | 0.001 | H4 is confirmed |
| Direct effect | OID---->RW | 0.367 | 1.984 | 0.002 | H5 is confirmed |
| Indirect effect | FRPC---->OID---->RW | 0.146 | 0.347 | 0.002 | H6 is confirmed |
| Indirect effect | FTPC---->OID---->RW | 0.189 | 0.467 | 0.002 | H7 is confirmed |