Are the constructs of the psychological contract, trust and organisational commitment as relevant in the African context as they are in the Western context?

Key components of the leadership process and systems that influences leadership effectiveness are leaders, followers and the situation:

Figure 1: Three types of variables that influence leadership effectiveness

Source: Yukl. 2002:11

5.  PERCEIVED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADERSHIP IN THE WESTERN AND AFRICAN CONTEXT

According to the literature there is a perceived difference between the Western approach to leadership and its African counterpart. 

In the current Western functionalist paradigm, transformational leaders pay particular attention to the building of trust, which ensures reliability and predictability of employee responses and reduces the need for supervision and control. They set the organisation’s direction and shape employee behaviour. The assumption is that employees will take initiative once broad goals have been set. If leadership is seen to believe in the organisation’s vision and values and lives it, the employee will also adopt these values and the vision. High value is placed on teamwork, empowerment, performance management, rationality, delegation, listening and learning. Leadership is responsible for setting the psychological tone of the organisation by displaying and promoting desirable attitudes, values and beliefs, which are the building blocks of organisational culture that is based on employee commitment, involvement and morale. Leadership is largely legitimised on the basis of performance.  If a leader fails to perform, followers and subordinates have the formal and informal power to unsettle or dethrone leaders. It is a culture of survival of the fittest where the leader must get rid of poor performers, with little tolerance and forgiveness. (Blunt, 1996)

 The African model of leadership differs from that of the West. Self-reliance and self-interest are subservient to ethnicity and group loyalty. Interpersonal relations are placed above individual achievements. Wealth is first of all extended family wealth and then ethnic or tribal wealth, often to the expense of the organisation (Blunt, 1996).  Ethnic cleavages can affect the performance of the organisation. Leadership is paternalistic of nature. Leaders bestow favours and expect and receive obedience and deference, with consensus playing a major role in decision-making resulting in decision making within levels to be taking a long time. There is also a great capacity for tolerance and forgiveness (Blunt, 1996). It was found that the leadership style in Africa is authoritarian, personalised, politicised and a high power distance, with power concentrated at the top. In this context, the leader’s job becomes one of operationalising directions received from above, making them clear to subordinates and providing advice and support. African leaders are therefore overwhelmingly concerned about the quality of hierarchical relationship with their superiors, rather than with individual or organisational effectiveness. This degree of dependence on seniors by the more junior individuals is seen as normal (Blunt, 1996). There is a masculine dominance across all ethnic groups. Managerial ideologies tend to reflect unitarist ideas seeing the organisation as a cohesive team (happy family) with the emphasis on loyalty and conflict avoidance, emphasising ubuntu (humaneness), group decision making and interdependence. Managerial styles reflect both Western values based on individualism and meritocracy and an authoritarian legacy of apartheid and colonialism (Horwitz, 2002).

From a followers perspective Africans prefer a leader that is kind, considerate and understanding to one who is too dynamic, productive and demanding. Leaders are seen to possess genuine authority but are expected by their subordinates to use it sparingly and in a humane and considerate way (Blunt, 1996).  

See Appendix A for a comparison of the elements of the Western “ideal” leadership with the African paradigm.

6. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Organisational Behavioural Constructs

There are different behavioural constructs in an organisation, e.g. psychological contract (PC), Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX), social exchange, perceived organisational support (POS), trust and organisational commitment (Shore, 2003).

As new markets, competitors, and technologies begin to emerge, organisations need a workforce that is highly committed and motivated to remain competitive and profitable. This motivation and commitment are a direct result of leadership within the organisation and the psychological contract that is formed between the employee and the organisation.

The result of a sound psychological contract is a high level of commitment and organisational support. The psychological contract has implications for employee performance/behaviour (absence, lateness, productivity, turnover, etc.) and their attitudes (commitment and satisfaction). Leadership within the organisation must manage and understand the psychological contract in order to enhance staff morale and thus organisational performance. The psychological contract offers a framework for managing the ‘soft’ issues of performance, focusing on people and highlighting the relationship between employees and the organisation and its management.

Crossman reasoned that the psychological contracted is rooted in three principal constructs –the relationship itself, trust and commitment.  There is an interaction between the trust and commitment constructs and they contribute to the construction and reconstruction of the psychological contract. These constructs influence each other and the contract as a whole. Changes in needs or motives may alter trust, which might in turn influence commitment. Likewise, changes in levels of trust and commitment may alter the expectations of the relationship. According to Crossman a prerequisite for the contract to flourish there is a need for reciprocity of trust and commitment and the perception of equality of contribution  (Crossman, date unknown).

The constructs of trust, commitment and the psychological contract will be discussed within the context of the model as seen in Appendix B.

2. Psychological Contract

According to Rousseau and others, the psychological contract is based on the concept of an exchange of benefits and rewards. Rousseau defines the psychological contract as “an individual’s beliefs, shaped by the organisation regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organisation” (Rousseau et al., 1995:9).  The employer benefits from the employee’s labour and co-operation while the employee is rewarded extrinsically and intrinsically.  She argues that it is only when both parties have something to gain that they will work to ensure a successful result.  In a balanced psychological contract both parties feel the exchange provides valued outcomes (Davidson, 2001).  This is illustrated in the simplified psychological contract, Appendix C.

According to Rousseau (2001) the promises that constitutes the psychological contract does not necessarily have to be in a spoken or written form, but can consist of words or actions taken in context. Thus an employee may perceive a promise as having been made without the employer having issued an explicit verbal statement of such an intention (Shore, date unknown).

1. Personal and Impersonal contract

There are conflicting theories on the nature of the relationships forming the psychological contract. Rousseau (1995) believes that the psychological contract is a one-to-one relationship between the employer and an individual employee existing within the organisation. This contract highlights the emphasis on the individual’s expectations and perceptions. Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler (2000) reason that, as there are mutuality in the exchange relationship (reciprocal obligation between two parties and expectations), the leader plays a role as representative of the organisation.  As employees view the actions of the representative of the organisation as the actions of the organisation itself, it follows that the leader (representative) can hold the psychological contract. Masterson et al (2000:740) believes that, “…. an employee is involved in at least two social exchange relationships at work: one with his or her immediate supervisor and one with his or her organization”. The contract exists on two levels, one that is ‘personal’ with the supervisor (an agent of the organisation) and one that is ‘impersonal’ with the organisation itself.

The soundness of the contract on the different levels may differ, an employee might have a well balanced contract with the immediate supervisor and a poor contract with the organisation or vice versa. The contract on the organisational level may limit the development of the contract on the personal level. In short these levels influence each other and the contract as a whole.

Major part of the content of a psychological contract is perceptual, unwritten and relies on the individual’s interpretation of actions and events within the organisation. Violation of obligation could result in a more intense and organisationally detrimental response than unmet expectations.

There is a relationship between employer contract behaviour and outcomes of job satisfaction, organisational commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB – readiness to contribute beyond literal contractual obligations). As this behaviour is not formally recognised by the organisation’s reward system, employees can exercise discretion in terms of engaging or withholding OCB. This decision is based on the organisation’s treatment of the employee. High levels of perceived organisational support are thought to create the impetus for employees to reciprocate (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000).

2. Transactional and Relational Contract

The psychological contract can be divided broadly into two categories namely transactional and relational elements. The transactional psychological contract is based on the Economy of Exchange Theory and is perceived to be “short term”. This is the specific, monetizable exchange (tangible benefits) over a limited period of time such as rapid advancement, high pay, and high performance in return for performance-based pay, merit pay, overtime, and training. It is narrow duties and is limited to worker involvement in the organisation. Ultimately if the employee perceives an imbalance between performance and reward, the individual may seek to redress the imbalance “by increasing the perceived entitlements or by decreasing perceived obligations” (Crossman, date unknown).

The relational psychological contract refer to where the employee perceives organisational commitment to be a long-term relationship leading to a “relational” psychological contract thereby creating ‘affective’ commitment typified by sharing of goals and ideologies and a mutual intention for continued association (Crossman, date unknown). It is based on mutual trust and loyalty. This includes aspects such as long term job security, career development and support with personal problems. The employee is obligated to support the firm, manifest loyalty and commitment to support the wellbeing of the organisation’s needs and interests (Rousseau, 2000). This differs with the different relationship between employee and employer e.g. a permanent employee and contract/casual worker as a casual worker may not perceive the employer to provide him with prospects (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). The relational contract is emotionally based, any perceived violation may result in procedural inequity and the psychological contract may be renegotiated in purely transactional terms (Herriot & Pemberton, 1996). The critical incident will feed back into the commitment form and may cause the individual to alter their commitment type (continuance to affective), which in turn will impact on the expectations of the relationship. Similarly the critical incident will impact on level of trust the individual places in the organisation or its agent leading to trustworthiness or distrust, which will also influence the level of expectations. The critical incident will also have a direct impact on the psychological contract itself through the individual’s perception of violation or enhancement, resulting in a reconstruction of the contract under the renegotiated terms (Crossman, date unknown).

For most employees the psychological contract contains both transactional and relational elements, as they are not mutually exclusive.

The nature of the psychological contract has changed over the last decade. The emphasis changed from length of service and job security to performance based reward and short term employment relationships, from a relational focus to an impersonal transactional/contractual basis.

3. Environmental and Organisational factors

The psychological contract does not exist in an organisational vacuum; each individual constructs and reconstructs their contract according to a variety of internal and external environmental stimuli. As changes occur so the psychological contract is redefined (Crossman, date unknown).

There is causality between the political, economical and labour environments and the PC. Globalisation, transformation, downsizing and privatisation of organisations lead to job insecurity, employees have to be more self-reliant. Experience of previous employment is a key source of information and knowledge for the majority of individuals and might serve as a benchmark for the current expectations of the employer. Observations or knowledge of external employment relationships might act as stimuli for an individual to construct or reconstruct their own psychological contract. Employment status, opportunities for promotion and the tenure offered also influences the construction of the psychological contract.

 The nature of the psychological contract varies according to the size of the organisation and the hierarchy of management that exists.  Rousseau (1998) observes that the role played by the organisation’s ‘agents’, such as supervisors or managers, in the psychological contract will vary according to whom the employee perceives their psychological contract to be with. The relationship is likely to be different in smaller, conventional organisations where the parties are psychologically and geographically close, than in the large, faceless corporation (Crossman, date unknown).

 Individuals compare their own contributions and outcomes with those of others to determine distributive justice. If they perceive unfairness it will negatively impact on the psychological contract. Observed breach or violation may impact on the psychological contracts of other individuals, as they consider their own relationship in the light of these developments. For example, an individual who previously trusted management and felt secure might revise this after another colleague was laid off or disciplined.

 The psychological contract is thus a dynamic contract, constantly in a state of re-evaluation and change, consciously or sub-consciously, by the participants as a result of direct and indirect events. The psychological contract is not an objective reflection of the information collected, but rather a personal, subjective interpretation of it; every individual constructs his own organisational ‘reality’ (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998; Sparrow & Cooper, 1998). Robinson et al (1994) observed that there is a tendency for ‘overestimation of one’s own contributions and an underestimation of other’s contributions’.

Two reasons for breach of the psychological contract by the employer are reneging (unwillingness/inability of the employer to fulfil its obligations to the employee) and incongruence (when the employee and employer have different understandings of the promises made) (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler 2000:907).

3. Trust

There is no universally accepted definition of trust. However most scholars agree that an important component of trust is the willingness to be vulnerable, the risk that the other party may not fulfil that expectation, and for the relationship to be reciprocal in nature. Variations of risk and interdependence over the course of a relationship alter both the level and course of trust. Trust between the two parties is crucial to building a relational psychological contract.

4. Interpersonal trust

According to Whitener (1998) the definition of interpersonal trust reflects three facets namely that trust in another party reflects an expectation or believe that the other party will act benevolently, that the other party cannot be controlled or forced to fulfil this expectation and that there are some levels of dependency on the other party so that the outcomes of one individual is influenced by the actions of another (Whitener et al, 1998).  Interpersonal trust can be either affective or cognitive based trust depending on the motivation of the individuals. Although the underlying mechanisms are different for these two types of trust they are highly correlated (Stewart & Gosain, 2001).

5. Affect based trust

Affect based trust is trust based on emotions. It stems from an emotional attachment between a trustor and a trust target, that can be the organisation, the leader, group members, etc. It is a bond between individuals that develops over a period of time through repeated interactions. Affect based trust found expression in a high sense of group belonging, being part of a community, feeling of belonging to a “family”, intense loyalty and pride of achievement as a group and the experience of kindness to each other (Stewart & Gosain, 2001). Feelings of loss are experienced if the relationship is distanced (Oldroyd, 2001).

6. Cognition based trust

Cognition-based trust (Meyerson et al, 1996) is constructed from first impressions formed by the individual, derived from cognitive cues such as regulatory frameworks or high levels of autonomy. This form of trust has a broader application to typical organisational forms and temporal organisational relationships where swift trust (Meyerson et al, 1996) is essential. (Crossman, date unknown). Organisational justice perceptions also form an important component in the trust building process; the extent to which individuals believe they, or their colleagues, have been justly treated will impact on the level of trust created.

Individuals who perceive low distributive justice relating to outcomes received, or low procedural justice, the procedures through which the outcomes were determined, is likely to lead to low trust. As Gopinath & Becker (2000:65) observe, “employees can be expected to trust and become committed to organisations that treat them fairly”.

7. Breach (violation) of trust and distrust

The positive constructs of trust building and the establishment of trustworthiness, behaviours such as transparent communications and sharing control (Whitener et al, 1998) that engender trust, continue throughout the relationship. Likewise the negative trust constructs also continue. Breaches of trust can occur when the trust one party has placed in another is unfulfilled or fall short of expectation. This in turn may be regarded as a breach or violation of the psychological contract, however, as Robinson (1996) suggests, the extent or seriousness of the breach may depend on the degree of trust that previously existed. Where prior trust was high the individual may interpret a breach in positive terms by assuming it was not the fault of the organisation. If, on the other hand, prior trust was low, the individual might regard organisational transgressions as a deliberate act. Distrust, defined by Lewicki et al (1998) as “confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct” may be institutionalised into organisational roles such as supervisors and inspectors. Consequently trust, trustworthiness, breach of trust and distrust are products of the dynamics of the relationship and govern the way in which the participants conduct themselves within it (Davidson, 2001).

4. Commitment

A strong organisational commitment by the employee results in employee behaviour such as: make every effort to attend work; get to work on time; concentrate on their work; get as much done as possible while at work; work to the best of their abilities; be willing to take on tasks outside their job descriptions; be flexible in the hours they work to suit the organisation; be a good team player; develop and improve existing skills; exceeding the performance expectations of their job;

Commitment to the organisation by the employee is based on affective attachment, perceived costs and obligation. There is a link between an organisation and the employee that is based on organisational commitment. The stronger the commitment the less likelihood of turnover. Employees with strong affective commitment stay with the organisation because they ‘want” to, those with strong continuance commitment because they “need” to and those with strong normative commitment because they feel they “ought” to do so.

Meyer and Allen’s (1990) three-component model of commitment; affective, normative, and continuance, as discussed below relates well to the psychological contract.

8. Affective Commitment

According to Allen (1990) organisational commitment is seen as an affective or emotional attachment to the organisation when the individual strongly identifies with the organisation, is involved in it and enjoys membership in the organisation. There is an unwillingness to leave the organisation in spite of attractive inducements to do so. The antecedents of affective commitment fall into four categories: personal characteristics, job characteristics, work experiences and structural characteristics. Work experience antecedents are those experiences that fulfil the employee’s psychological needs to feel comfortable within the organisation and competent in the work-role.

9. Continuance Commitment

Kanter (1968) defined cognitive-continuance commitment as that which occurs when there is a ‘profit associated with continued participation and a “cost” associated with leaving. An employee will stay with the organisation as long as the benefits of staying are more than the costs of leaving the organisation. This is based on the magnitude and/or the number of investments made by the employee and a perceived lack of alternatives. The lack of employment alternatives also increases the perceived costs associated with leaving the organisation (Allen & Meyer. 1990).

10.  Normative Commitment

Normative commitment is defined by Wiener (1982) as the “totality of internalised normative pressures to act in a way which, meets organisational goals and interests”, and suggests that the individual exhibit behaviours solely because they believe it is the right and moral thing to do. Personal norms (internalised moral obligation) are important contributors to behaviour, including terminating employment with the organisation. (Allen & Meyer. 1990)

The literature differentiates between commitment to the job (referred to as job involvement) and commitment to the organisation, both influencing organisational success and effectiveness. When viewing the reciprocal nature of commitment one would expect the nature of the relationship to determine the level of commitment shown. In a shorter contractual relationship a transactional contract is formed with ‘continuance’ commitment. If, on the other hand the organisational commitment is perceived by the individual to be a long-term relationship, it is likely to lead to a ‘relational’ psychological contract, thereby creating ‘affective’ commitment typified by sharing of goals and ideologies and a mutual intention for continued association (Crossman, date unknown).

In practice an individual who feels his commitment to the organisation is not being adequately reciprocated might adjust his own level of commitment to restore the perceived balance.

7. METHODOLOGY

1. Procedure

The objective of this assignment is to analyse the behavioural context of an organisation and the way leadership does or does not influence the behavioural context.  The purpose of the analysis was to test the hypothesis that this influence would differ between a diversified and less diversified organisation, and that the constructs differ in relevancy and meaning for understanding organisational behaviour in an African and Western context (organisation). To gauge this the following was measured:

• the level of trust in the organisation,
• how trust was thought of in the organisation
• the psychological contract between employees and the organisation
• how committed the employees are to the organisation, and
• the perception that these constructs differ in relevancy and meaning for understanding organisational behaviour in an African and Western organisation.

Firstly the literature study was done to determine the theoretical scope of the survey. Secondly, following a quantitative approach, validated questions as provided by Professor Nkomo were used to draft a questionnaire. See Appendix D for the questionnaire that was used in this study. The questionnaire was pilot tested to determine the ease of completion and understanding.

Thirdly two organisations were identified and investigated to determine the composition, functioning and diversity of the organisations and the relevance to be representative of a more and less diversified organisation and being representative of the population. Demographic details were used to determine the level of diversity in the organisations. The race groups were broken down into the different language groups, that is a gauge of the ethnic groupings. (According to Vatala, 2001:1, “the conceptual definition viz. ethnic is a social group, which aspire common nationality, features, cultural tradition, race, nationality and language. In a nutshell ethnicity is an identifiable group of people differentiated from the main population of a state by racial or cultural background”). See Appendix E for Ethnic demographic details. It was found that these two organisations represented the population, with Rand Mutual Assurance (RMA) representing a less diversified workforce and leadership as being the experimental group. The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) represented the more diversified workforce and leadership and acts as the control group, in order to test the perceived differences in leadership in Western and African organisations. The assumptions made were that an organisation with mostly ethnic African employees are more diversified and representative of behaviour in the African context, and that with the less ethnic diversity to be representative of the Westernised organisational behaviour. Information was gathered on the composition of the sample groups regarding managerial levels, gender, race and vacancies existing in the organisations.

Rand Mutual Assurance (RMA), an organisation handling insurance services in the mining sector, was identified as the experimental group. The organisation is a relatively small organisation with 93 employees. This organisation was chosen as the workforce is less diversified with only four of the official languages being represented and 77% being English speaking. Race representation was 23% African, 31% Asian and Coloured and 46% White employees. See Appendix F for the demographic composition of the organisation. The organisation is more administrative of nature with few managers (26%) and more group functioning.

As a more diversified organisation the DPSA was chosen as the control group, with a workforce that is fairly representative of the population of South Africa and the African context, as nine of the official languages were represented and 67% African, 8% Asian and Coloured and 25% White. See Appendix F for the demographic composition of the organisation. The DPSA is a relatively small government department with a Post Establishment of 288 with 72 (24.2%) vacancies. This vacancy level is well above the acceptable rate of 5% and the 20% required to be able to deliver the required services   (Sefara, 2004). This department has been a leading agent in transformation and responsible for governing the government and very much politically driven. Due to the advisory and professional support function of the department, the organisation structure is very flat with 59% of the positions on different managerial levels. There is very little group work due to the flat organisation structure and the specialised nature of the work.

Fourthly the sample sizes were identified and questionnaires distributed to employees representative of the demographics and managerial levels in the organisation, to both leaders and as well as their subordinates.

2. Sample

1. RMA

At RMA the sample was restricted to permanent employees based at the head office in Johannesburg who returned a fully completed questionnaire. 20% of the head office staff took part in the survey. Since the respondents were brought together and the questionnaire explained to them as they filled it out, a 100% response rate was achieved.

The sample consisted of 46% male and 54% female. The mean period of service is 4.8 years.

The managerial level was 20% of the sample, with 66% male and 33% female.

8% of the posts at RMA are vacant.

Table 2: RMA respondents by Race, Gender and Salary Level

2. DPSA

The sample size decided on was 10% of the population. Of 25 questionnaires, 23 responded (response rate of 92%). The purpose of the questionnaires and method of completion was explained to the respondents. Due to the sensitive nature of the responses and to reassure the respondents of the privacy of their responses, they were assured of the confidentiality and that it is for study purposes only. The questionnaires were collected after each respondent was allowed two days for completion.

The samples were confined to permanent employees that were longer than six months in service of the DPSA and/or Government with an average of 4.8 years of service and were representative of the different races, genders and levels.

Table 3: DPSA respondents by Race, Gender and Salary Level

Source: Authors, 2004.

3. Measures

A questionnaire was drafted to measure the organisation behavioural constructs namely psychological contract, trust and organisational commitment, and the influence of the leader in shaping the behavioural context of the organisation.

3. Psychological Contract

Double-barrelled questions were used to measure the belief and importance of the perceived obligations, both transactional and relational, includes the training obligation, from the employee’s view of what the organisations obligation is toward themselves and conversely what their obligation toward the organisation is. To test this, the validated questions of Westwood, Sparrow and Leung (2001) were adopted with the importance scales as used by Ms C Strassheim, 2004, in order to determine the weight of importance of the factors and applicability thereof. The believe scale used was 1, don’t believe at all to 5 being a very high believe and 7 being not applicable. The importance scale was 1 being of very little importance to 5 being absolutely essential and 7 being not applicable. The same scales were used to test the employee’s belief regarding the obligation of the organisation towards them and their own obligation towards the organisation. For purposes of the discussions in this assignment the scores were converted into percentages.

To measure the extent to which employees and/or supervisors (leaders) perceive the psychological contract has been fulfilled and the effects of a breach on organisational commitment, satisfaction, trust and turnover, the questionnaire of Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood and Bolino (2002) was used. The same scales were used to assess the extent to which employees felt the psychological contract had been fulfilled were used to test the view of the supervisors (leaders) as to the amount of the inducement their followers received compared to the amount the followers had been promised. The two perceptions were compared to determine the differences, if any.

4. Trust

The Lykert scale was used to measure trust on four variables; measure of trust in leader, interpersonal trust, cognition based trust and affect based trust, with 1 being a low level of trust to 7 being the highest level. For purposes of the discussions in this assignment the scores were converted into percentages 

The questionnaire of McAllister (1995) was used to measure the affect and cognition-based trust as the foundation for interpersonal co-operation in the organisation. To measure interpersonal trust, the questionnaire of Cook and Wall (1980) was used. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter’s (1990) questionnaire was used to measure Trust in the Leader.

5. Organisational Commitment

The Lykert scale was used to measure commitment on four variables; normative, continuance, affective and ‘other’, with 1 being a very low level of commitment (disagreement) to 7 being the highest level, a very strong organisational commitment. The questionnaire of Allen and Meyer (1990) was used to measure Continuance, Normative and Affective commitment. The questionnaires of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) and Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) were used to measure other organisational commitments.

Information on race, gender and salary levels of both the follower and leader were gathered to determine influence on the behavioural constructs. For purposes of the discussions in this assignment the scores were converted into percentages.

8. ANALYSIS

1. Psychological Contract

The items measured covered the factors of the psychological contract namely transactional and relational obligations, including the training obligations. The analysis highlights the reciprocity of the contract as recognised by respondents from both RMA (experimental, less diversified organisation) and DPSA (control, more diversified organisation). See Appendix G for results on the psychological contract and Appendix J for the statistics.

The relevance of the organisation’s obligation toward the employee is recognised by both organisations as being important. At RMA 79% viewed it as very important/absolutely essential to the 73% of DPSA. Employees from both organisations believed that the organisation met the obligation towards the employees, with RMA at 72% and DPSA 75%.

 In exchange for the benefits and rewards expected from the organisation the employee is expected to provide labour and co-operation. The relevance of the employee’s obligation towards the organisation is recognised as being important by 70% of the RMA respondents viewing it as very important/absolutely essential to the 63% of DPSA. Employees from both organisations believed that they have a responsibility towards the organisation to perform and co-operate with RMA at 76% and DPSA 71%.

Breach (violation) of psychological contract: both groups indicated that they highly value the honoring of the psychological contract and that they experienced relatively minor contract breach from their organisations. Only 31% of RMA and 34% DPSA respondents believed that their respective organisations did not delivered on the transactional, training and relational obligations of the psychological contract.

Belief regarding breach of the psychological contract by the organisation:

From the above results it is perceived that the employees from both organisations are mostly satisfied with the psychological contract. However the levels of trust and commitment as seen in Appendix H and I respectively influence the contract either positive or negative. There are low levels of affect based trust and affective commitment in the DPSA, that does not correlate with the positive perception of the contract and relative low levels of perceived violation of the contract. The view of the DPSA respondents on the importance of their obligation to the organisation might be an indication of the underlying negative experiences on emotional level.

As the leader is the “agent” of the organisation, the above results confirm that leadership in the two organisations did have a positive impact, especially as far as the on the transactional and training obligations are concerned, on the construction and maintenance of the psychological contract, irrespective of the level of diversity.

2. The level of trust in the organisation

Interpersonal trust reflects an expectation that the other party will act benevolently and that there are a level of interdependence between the employee and the leader/manager as representative of the organisation. The results of the survey indicated that respondents have two exchange relationships: one that is personal with his leader as representative and one that is “impersonal” with the organisation itself. Respondents from the DPSA indicated a low level of trust in the organisation 30% (moderate to strong agreement) to the 43% in RMA. On the contrary the levels of trust in the leader, are higher with 40% in the DPSA to 52% in RMA. See Appendix H.

Affect based trust: It is not evident that there is a high level of affect based trust present in the DPSA with 62% respondents being indifferent (responses in the bracket between slightly disagreeing to slightly agreeing), to the 34% in RMA. This reflects that there is not a very close relationship, feelings of emotional attachment or feelings of belonging between the respondents and the DPSA than what exists in RMA. See Appendix H. The reason for this could be the high presence of the different ethnic groups in the DPSA and the perceived ethnic loyalty in the “African” context. This could influence trust if the employee and the leader are from different ethnic groups, e.g. distrust between a Xhosa leader and Zulu follower.

Cognition based trust is based on the perception of the employee being treated fairly by the organisation/leader. Respondents from both organisations experienced relative fair treatment by their organisation/leaders, with 46% of the respondents from the DPSA and 48% of RMA agreeing moderately to strongly.

The results of the analysis indicate that there are higher levels of trust in RMA (47%) than in DPSA (35%) with DPSA more indifferent to trust (54%) than RMA (39%). In the case of RMA the work is more group related and administrative of nature as in the DPSA where there is very little group work with most of the employees on managerial level, working autonomously in advisory capacity. The degree of diversity could also influence the levels of trust, as RMA is less diverse than the DPSA.

3. Employee commitment to the organisation

Affective commitment: 43% of the RMA respondents indicated that they experience a strong affective commitment (moderate to strong agreement) and 43% being indifferent (slightly agree/disagree), to 19% strong commitment and 59% of the DPSA being indifferent. The low affective commitment in the DPSA is contrary to the fact that the average tenure of staff is around 5 years, implying either that employees identify with the organisation and are largely happy with the organisation or a lack of opportunities and or a high cost to change. The political objectives were forced down from the top with no/very little participation by the employees, therefore they might not fully identify with these objectives. The ethnic diversity might also influence the commitment, especially if leadership is from a different ethnic group.

There could be many reasons why leadership in a government organisation does not have as positive an impact on affective commitment as does an organisation in the private sector. This is an area for further research.

Continuance commitment: The results show that the continuance commitment level is relative neutral with 36% of the respondents at RMA experiencing high continuance commitment and 35 % being indifferent. In the DPSA only 31% experience high commitment to the 46% being indifferent. In the DPSA, the more diverse organisation, the higher indifference towards continuance commitment correlates with the high vacancy level of 24.2% contrary to 8% in RMA. This could be because of the current economic climate, shortage of jobs and Affirmative Action policy of government, with less job-opportunities for non-Africans and preference for African males.

The high turnover in an organisation may also be linked to perceived breach of the psychological contract (which is not the case here). Employees who have experienced this breach are more likely to leave than employees who have not are.

Normative commitment: The belief that commitment and loyalty between an organisation and its employees is required, and that it is morally and socially expected, was found to be stronger within RMA 43% felt a strong commitment and 43% were indifferent, to the 30% strong commitment and 61% indifference of the DPSA.

The results of the analysis indicated that there is overall a higher level of commitment in RMA (43%) than the DPSA (30%) and that DPSA is more indifferent (54%) to commitment than RMA (39%). The RMA, being a private company and less diversified, experienced a higher overall commitment than the DPSA, being a politically orientated government organisation and more diversified.  This is contrary to the belief in academic circles (Western) that the psychological contract has gravitated to a purely transactional level.  The fact that South Africa has recently joined the competitive global market and the major changes in the political and social arena might have resulted in this transactional contract not yet been implemented fully in an effort to remain competitive. Whether this is in fact going to happen in the future in an accelerated fashion needs to be further investigated.

On all the trust measures RMA consistently scored higher than the DPSA, this could be as a result of the different types of and diversity of the organisations in question.

This reflects that there is less organisational commitment in the more “African” organisation (DPSA). This could be two-fold firstly that some employees stay with the DPSA due to a lack of better opportunities or that the organisation is used as a stepping stone for better opportunities in the private sector, as is often the case with government and African males.

9. THE RELEVANCY OF THESE CONSTRUCTS IN AN AFRICAN CONTEXT

In the Western leadership context there is a much more affective relationship (trust and commitment) in the organisation where participation, relative equality of authority and status, teamwork, “empowerment”, high levels of trust and openness, commitment and high morale are highly valued. In the African context power is centred at the top management of the organisation, with bureaucratic controls, authoritarian leadership, pre-occupation with rules and procedures etc. (See Appendix A).  This is not conducive to affect based trust and affective commitment to the organisation.

The purpose of the analysis was to measure the relevance of the constructs (psychological contract, trust and organisation commitment) in an African context. This was done by comparing the results of a less diversified leadership group, RMA (assumed to be more Western) with that of a more diversified leadership group namely DPSA (assumed to be more African) in two organisations.

 The importance of the employee’s obligation to the organisation and vice versa is recognised in both organisations. The reciprocal nature of the psychological contract is evident. The importance of breach by the organisation from the employee’s perspective in the two organisations is also evident

The major differences were with the affective based trust and affective organisational commitment, where the results were substantially lower in the DPSA than in RMA. This could be as a result of the DPSA being a government organisation where employee involvement is perceived to be less and prescriptive rules and regulation more than that in a private organisation. The probability of the presence of high diversity influencing the leader employee relationship, trust and commitment are very high. Group work often result in the development of affective relationships. The lack of group work in the DPSA could also influence the levels of affect based trust and affective commitment.

10. CONCLUSION

The analysis has highlighted the fact that the constructs of the psychological contract, trust and organisational commitment are as relevant in the African context as they are in the Western context.

The leadership provided in both organisations can be regarded as relative effective and will play an important role in shaping the organisation and the behaviour of its employees.

However it seems that the political environment, ethnicity and group work affect the relationships in the organisation, as seems evident in the responses from the DPSA.

However, the analysis has highlighted the fact that there is no great change in the psychological contract (the move from a relational to transactional employment relationship) as explained in great detail by the literature. There is however change, but in a different manner to the rest of the western world. In the African context this could be explained by the changing nature of the societal contract in general, from the apartheid era to the current day democracy and employment equity policies and South Africa becoming a major global player.

The long-term effects of this change on the societal contract will have to be investigated. On an organisation and personal level the levels of trust between management and employees could deteriorate, as will OCB and the interpersonal relationships between employees of all races.

11. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the study the authors have the following recommendations:

• The validated questionnaires used did not really cater to measure leadership and behavioural constructs from an “African” perspective, where political and social power, and ethnicity plays a major role. It is recommended that specific validated questionnaires be developed to test leadership and behavioural constructs in the “African” context.  
• The study would have been more valid if the two organisations being compared had both been in the same industry, with leadership in an organisation in South Africa being compared to the leadership in a Western organisation e.g. in an American organisation.
• The fact that South Africa has recently joined the competitive global market and the major changes in the political and social arena might have resulted in the transactional contract not yet been implemented fully in an effort to remain competitive. Whether this is in fact going to happen in the future in an accelerated fashion needs to be further investigated.

---

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen NJ and Meyer JP. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organisation. Journal of Occupational Psychology (1990), 63, 1-18.

Blunt P and Merrick LJ. 1996. Exploring the limits of Western Leadership theory in East Asia and Africa. Personnel Review 26, 1 /2 (Date

Burger T. 2003. South Africa: musing of an ordinary citizen Part II. Management Today, June 2003.

Charlton G. 2002. Human Habits of Highly Effective Organisations. Van Schaik. 1st Edition, 4th Impression.

Coyle-Shapiro J. Kessler I. 2002. Consequences of the Psychological Contract for the Employment Relationship: a large-scale survey. Journal of Management Studies 37:7 November 2000 0022-2380.

Crossman A. Exploring the Dynamics of the Psychological Contract. Senior University Management Lecturer. University of Surrey. Guildford. Surrey. GU2 7 XH [Online]. Available from <www.som.surrey.ac.uk/som/StaffDirectory/Profiles/Academic /ACPDFs/TheDynamicsof thePsychologicalContract.pdf>.  [Accessed on 30 January 2004]

DPSA. 2003. Senior Management Services Database according to Race, Gender and Salary Level. Updated December 2003.

Davidson P. 2001. The Changing Nature of the Psychological Contract in the IT Industry: 1997 – 2001. Research papers in Human Resource Management. Kingston University.

Davis BJ. And Pullen V. 2002. Illusionary Leadership: A Reflection on Relational Process [Online].  Available from <www.academy.umd.edu/ila/2002proceedings/davis.htm>.  [Accessed on 30 January 2004]

Horwitz F M, et al, 2002. Looking East: diffusing high performance work practices in the southern Afro-Asian context. Int J. of Human Resource Management 13:7 November 2002 1019-1041.

Le Roux et al. 1995. Business Management. A practical approach. Van Schaik. 1st Edition, 2nd Impression.

Nkomo S M. 2004. Leadership and Organisation Dynamics. Course Study Letter. MBL 921-M. January 2004.

Oldroyd J B. 2001. Interpersonal Trust and the Reversal of Attribution Error. Kellogg Journal of Organization Behavior. [Online]. Available from <www. kellogg.nwu.edu/research/ktag/kjob.htm>.  [Accessed on 26 January 2004]

Rousseau D M. 2000. Psychological Contract Inventory Technical Report. Version 2: February 2000.

Sefara M. 2004. Vacancies crippling Public Service. Pretoria News. 4 March 2004.

Shore L. Psychological Contracts: Definition and Distinctiveness. Employment Relations Workshop. [Online]. Available from <www.rhsmith.umd.edu/hcit/docs/psychon.pdf>.  [Accessed on 26 January 2004]

Stewart K and Gosain S. 2001. An exploratory study of ideology and trust in Open Source Development groups. Twenty-Second International Conference on Information Systems 2001. [Online]. Available from  <www.rhsmith.umd.edu/hcit/kstewart /ResearchInfo /ICISproceedings.pdf>.  [Accessed on 26 January 2004] 

Swanepoel B. 2003. Change: making the environment more complex. Management Today, June 2003.

Unknown. 2003. Managing the psychological contract. [Online]. May 2003. Available from <www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltnspsycntrct>.  [Accessed on 30 January 2004]

Vatala S W. 2001. Ethnicity and conflict paradigm shifts within the South African Public Sector environment.

Weeks R. 2003. ICT and business strategy: two sides of the same coin. Management Today, June 2003.

Whitener E M, et al, 1998. Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, July 1998 v23 n3

Yukl G. 2002. Leadership in Organizations. Prentice Hall. 5th Edition.

Questionnaire

Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990).  The Measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organisation.  Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1018.

Cook, J. & Wall, 1. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need nonfulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.

Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino (2002). Not seeing eye to eye: differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach.  Journal of Organisational Behavior, 23: 39-56,

McAllister, D. (1995). Affect and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, (1), 24-59.

Mowday R T, Steers R M, & Porter L W (1979).  The measurement of organizational commitment.  Journal of Vocational Behavior 14:224-247.

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter (1990).   Transformational Leader Behaviors and their effects on followers' Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.  Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Westwood, R., Sparrow, P. & Leung, A.   (2001).  Challenges to the psychological contract in Hong Kong.  The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12:4, 621-651.

---

APPPENDIX A: A comparison of the elements of the Western “ideal” leadership with the African paradigm.                                     

Source:  (Blunt, 1996. P19).

APPPENDIX B: Model on the Construction / Reconstruction of the Psychological Contract.                                      

Source:  Crossman, no date

APPPENDIX C: Simplified Psychological Contract                                        

 

Source:  Davidson , 2001.

APPPENDIX D: Questionnaire

APPPENDIX E: Ethnic demographic details

Source:  Authors

APPPENDIX F: Demographic composition of the organisations

Source:  DPSA Human Resource Database, December 2003                                Source: RMA, 2004

---

APPPENDIX G: Results on Psychological contract                              

---

 

---

APPPENDIX H:    Results on Trust                                  

APPPENDIX I:    Results on Organisational commitment                                  

---

---

APPPENDIX J:    Statistics                                  

---