Breach of employer obligation and employee well-being during COVID-19 unlock phase

2.1Breach of employer obligations and family-work conflict

PC was first conceptualized by [23] as “an individual’s belief regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between the focal person and another party”. Employees perceive a breach of PC when the organizations do not meet or fulfill these obligations [13, 23, 24]. [25] explained the breach of employer obligations perceived as the loss of resources. When the employees feel that the organization do not provide support and resources as promised and the demand for work is high, then the experience of the breach can harm the attitude and behaviour [26]. Breach of employer obligations in the current situation is very critical to understand. The past studies of psychological contract breach are related to intension to leave the organization [27–29]. However, in the current situation, this response to the breach of employer obligations is not likely to occur. Because currently, employees would like to engage in their jobs to remain employed. Hence, when an employee cannot leave the organization, it leads to frustration, and it impacts their family-work conflict. Family-work conflict occurs when family life is interfering work life of an individual [30]. There is a dearth of literature on relationship between breach of employer obligation i.e. PC and family-work conflict. However, [105] explained that breach of psychological contract can impacts the work-family interface. PC is essential to understand the breakdown of family-work conflict in work-related expectations [31]. Therefore, we propose that;

2.2Family-work conflict and psychological distress

The family-work interface is having a high association with the psychological strain [32], poor physical well-being [33], higher fatigue [34] and depression and fretfulness [35]. Psychological stress can be defined as, “an umbrella term that encompasses stress, burnout, depression, anxiety and other related mental health problems” [33, p. 995]. At workplace psychological distress is originated from unhappiness, depression, anxiety, workload, the primary dimension [37] and also [38] reported as mental illness generation from occupational stress. It was found that psychological stress is a result of work-family interface, job pressure work experiences among the construction professionals of Australia. In past studies, the family-work conflict has been considered as predictors of burnout and stress [39, 40]. Previous studies have mentioned that family-work conflict is having a strong association with psychological distress [42–44, 102–104]. Hence, we propose that;

2.3Psychological distress and well-being

According to [43], the core concept of well-being is “the subjective experience of feeling good and/or feeling authentic and meaningful in one’s life, and it is conceptually different from perception, motivation and actions”. Psychological distress is having a substantial impact on the well-being of an individual [44, 45]. Majority of the past studies have focused on the multi-dimensional construct of well-being [66, 67]. In the current study, well-being is understood as life and family satisfaction. Life satisfaction can be understood as a cognitive appraisal of the overall degree of satisfaction an individual has with his/her life [46]. [47] argued that due to fear of COVID -19 increased psychological distress, and it results in decreased life satisfaction of the employees. Family satisfaction reflects the well-being of a person in the family domain [48]. It is defined as the “degree to which one is generally satisfied with one’s family of origin and the constituent relationships embedded therein” [38, p. 72] and conceptualized as a result of stress on the family domain. Incumbents often accuse that work ambiguity/overload, inflexible work and lack of job support will undermine their family satisfaction [50, 51]. Past studies confirmed the negative relationship between stress and well-being [52–56]. In this lockdown period during COVID-19 pandemic situation results in stress, and it negatively related to the life and family of employees. Social distancing has made it compulsory to work via technology. Moreover, workload and demand can be increased because of information technology [57]. It increases the chances of surveillance and thus increases stress [58]. Past studies have also argued that psychological distress can have a negative impact on life satisfaction [59, 60] and family satisfaction [61, 62] of the employee. Thus, we propose that;

3.1Sample and procedure

Our study surveyed service sector employees who belong to information technology and information technology enabled services (IT/ITes), financial services and education sector in India. The respondents of the study are not from same hierarchal level as well not of similar demographic profile. We have followed a quantitative approach and descriptive research design. We have adopted snowball sampling. Further, the cost-effective nature of forwarding the survey link is preferred due to non-funding nature of this study. This helped the researcher to reach to the targeted large sample size. The duration of data collection was from June 2020 to December 2020. Due to pandemic, it was not feasible to reach the respondents in person. Thus, the respondents were contacted through an online survey via Google Docs. Out of 600 questionnaires, we received 435 filled in questionnaires out of which 397 usable sample responses were identified. Remaining responses were rejected due to incomplete or missing data. Demographic profile of the respondents has been presented in Table 1.

3.2Measures

For the purpose of this study, we utilized multi-item measures that have been used in previous studies. All the variables measured using 5 point likert scale, where Strongly Disagree [1] to Strongly Agree [5], Extremely Dissatisfied [1] To Extremely Satisfied [5]. As each of the variables is subjective (e.g., One individual sees psychological contract is fulfilled and other individual feel that it is not fulfilled), the model is conceptualized and analyzed at the individual level.

3.3Control variables

To eliminate the relationship between independent variables, dependent variables and mediator in this study [69], a number of variables were controlled: Age (measured in years), level of education (1 = graduate, 2 = post-graduate, 3 = others), gender (1 = male, 2 = female), marital status (1 = single, 2 = married, 3 = widow/divorcee), monthly income (measured in Indian rupees), number of dependents (measured in numbers e.g. one, two ...), number of children (measured in numbers e.g. one, two ...) such demographic variables were found to correlate with well-being and psychological distress and hence they were controlled.

4.1Reliability and validity

Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Table 2 depicts that all the variables under study demonstrate values above 0.7, and hence it is admissible [70]. We examined the convergent and discriminant validity. Bootstrapping was done to estimate the outer loadings and level of significance, and it was found that all the outer loadings were more than 0.6 except (PD1, PD2, PD4, LS4, LS5, FS4, FS5, FS7, FS8) and significant at p < 0.001. As per [71], the values of AVE should be more than 0.5, which explains that beyond 50 per cent of the variance of respective constructs as compared with the errors explained. Discriminant validity can be checked using the Forner-Larcker Criterion [71]. According to the Forner-Larcker measure, ‘the AVE of each construct should be higher than the construct’s highest squared correlation with any other latent construct’, and in cross-loadings’ represented in Table 2. Based on the diagonal elements (^a), discriminant validity is established.

4.2Multicollinearity issues

To check the issue of multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) among constructs was examined. The outer VIF values show the collinearity among the items in constructs and inner VIF shows the collinearity among the latent variable [72] suggested that the value of VIF should be less than five. Table 3 shows the collinearity statistics of all the constructs (inner VIF) and all the values of VIF are less than five. Similarly, for the outer VIF refer to Table 3. This implies that no collinearity problems are existing among the constructs.

4.3Common method bias and non-response bias

In PLS-SEM context, the common method bias (CMB) occurs because of the errors in the measurement model rather than the cause and effect in the structural model [73]. For this study, we collected the data through a structured questionnaire and thus, it was necessary to check whether the data is free from common method bias. We conducted Harman’s single factor test, and a single factor is accounted for 28.77 per cent of the variance. Hence, the data was free from common method bias [74]. Further, non-response bias is found as no difference was seen between the early and late respondents in the survey [75].

4.4Structural model

After checking the compatibility of the measurement model, the structural model (refer to Fig. 2) is analyzed to verify the proposed hypothesis and predict the model. In PLS-SEM, the model can be predicted by estimating R² and Q². R² is accurately predicting the variance explained by the construct, and Q² proposes predictive relevance by using the sample reusing method where part of the data matrix is being omitted, and results are used to predict the omitted part. [72] stated that the higher the R² (ranging from 0 to 1), the higher the predictive accuracy would be. The R² of the exogenous variables work family conflict, psychological distress, life satisfaction and family satisfaction were 0.178, 0.074, 0.036, 0.174, respectively. All the values were higher than 10 per cent (except psychological distress and life satisfaction), as recommended by [76] and considered to be good, as suggested by [72]. Hence, it signifies a robust explanatory power of the model (Table 4).

Fig. 1

Proposed Model.

Fig. 2

Structural Model.

Fig. 3

Bootstrapping Results.

To verify the predictive orientation of the model, the Stone–Geisser’s Q² is used [72]. The assessment of Q² proposes predictive relevance by using sample reusing method where part of the data matrix is being omitted, and results are used to predict the omitted part. Hence, this blindfolding technique assesses the model’s predictive accuracy. The higher value of Q² implies less deviation in estimated and original values. Hence, Q² should be more significant than 0 (refer to Table 4). [72] recommended that the values of Q², that is, the predictive indices 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, are regarded as small, medium and large effects, respectively. Here, Q² value of the family satisfaction, family-work conflict, life satisfaction and psychological distress were 0.085, 0.073, 0.028 and 0.03 respectively; it infers the medium effect of in predicting variance in family-work conflict, psychological distress and family satisfaction and life satisfaction during COVID-19 unlock phase. F² is calculated to estimate the effect size. [77] suggested that the values of f² as 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 are considered to have small, medium and large effects, respectively. Table 4 reflects the f² effect size. Family-work conflict and family satisfaction were having 0.216 and 0.211 respectively, i.e. medium effect size. Life satisfaction and psychological distress were having 0.03 and 0.08, i.e. small effect size (Table 4).

To verify the postulated hypothesis and check the relationship among the constructs, the path coefficients are calculated by using the bootstrapping, t values and P values. From Table 4, it is revealed that the bootstrapping results of resampling technique (5,000 subsamples) examine the influence of breach of employer obligations on family-work conflict; family-work conflict on psychological distress; and psychological distress on family satisfaction and life satisfaction. Table 5 depicts the path coefficients, t values and P values of the proposed hypothesis. H1 postulating a positive relationship between breach of employer obligations and family-work conflict is significant as β= 0.422 and t value = 8.66, P-value < 0.05. Hence, it supports H1. It implies that during COVID-19 if employees’ expectations were not fulfilled, then it causes family-work conflict. Likewise, H2 conjectured that family-work conflict positively impacts psychological distress, and it is supported as β= 0.272 and t value = 5.09, P-value < 0.05. This means that as the family-work conflict increases psychological distress also increases. Similarly, H3, H3a, and H3b postulated that psychological distress was negatively impacting life satisfaction (β= –0.191 and t value = 3.67, P < 0.05), and family satisfaction (β= –0.418 and t value = 10.44, P < 0.05) respectively.

5.1Theoretical implications

The study is drawn from multiple theories such as SET, COR and SIP. [92] suggested that in the Asian context, the psychological contract is explained by single theory only such as social exchange theory. [93–95] argued that social exchange theory is a transactional model of understanding the employer-employee relationship. Thus, multi-theoretical lens aid in explaining the employer-employee relationship and outcomes of psychological contract in a better manner. In the era of social distancing, social information processing theory suggested that an individual’s behaviour is an outcome of the observation of the social environment and information that he/she received from surroundings. In the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the individual has limitations on the social information, and according to COR theory, we argued that employee experience distress at work when employer/manager is unable to provide appropriate resources to perform the task [20]. COR model [21] indicated that people do their best to keep valued matters, called resources, in their lives [96] (including meeting their familial obligations). It also emphasized that occurrence of resource loss creates higher importance of resource gain as it provides emotional respite and increases an individual’s ability to sustain goal pursuit [96]. Thus, the employees try to emotionally and cognitively attach to their jobs and try to access and exploit more resources. This leads employees to perceive that they can handle psychological distress which result in decreased life and family satisfaction. The findings of the study indicated that when employees’ expectations are not met, it leads to family-work conflict. This conflict generates stress, and it affects negatively on well-being. Finally, the study was done in the developing country i.e. India during the COVID-19 pandemic situation. This is an additional advantage in terms of bringing evidence and support for the proposed model. Therefore, the importance of the most recent models during the pandemic and should be given much attention.

5.2Practical implications

The study has some practical nuances. Well-being is an integral part of an individual’s health and hence organization need to find a way of retaining the degree of vigor and ardor that people bring to work, especially as people work with minimal resources. [97] explicitly explained, human resources management is responsible for establishing as well as upholding the psychological contract between organization/employer and their employees. In other words, the employer should indicate what organization expects from its employees and what employees expect in return from the organization in this pandemic era. An organization should keep in mind that when employees suffer from an inability to balance work and family, they contemplate the reasons for failure and tend to blame the domain responsible for conflict and associated undesirable outcomes [98]. Once a breach of employer obligation arises, employees enter a sense-making process that determines their responses [99], which preventing them from meeting their home needs, ultimately decreasing their well-being. If anything is promised, then it must be real and there should be an attempt of fulfilling it. If the expectations are fulfilled then employee feels confident about the time spent and efforts made for the task completion, which creates the positive exchange relationship between both the parties [100]. HR managers and line managers should be aware that they need to assist their employees in fulfilling their legitimate demands because our finding has shown that stress negatively impacted their family satisfaction and life satisfaction. Therefore, the organizations should not only encourage the employees by meeting their expectations but also support them by providing adequate resources. When the employees perceive a breach of obligations, it has an adverse impact on family life, which creates conflict between family-work life. In the current situation, supervisors and managers must support their subordinates in an accurate and timely manner and should guide them to handle the job responsibility during this pandemic. This support and feedback amplify members’ confidence in dealing with tasks and create a positive environment [101].

5.3Limitations and future research direction

This study has several limitations that need to be addressed in further studies. First, the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Hence, the results obtained summarizing the respondents’ status of mind during pandemic situations only. Secondly, the study has considered the only breach of employer obligations as antecedents of outcome variables such as family-work conflict, psychological distress and well-being. In future breach of employee, obligations can be taken into consideration to validate the results. Thirdly, there are many factors which affect the well-being and this study has included only two factors, namely life satisfaction and family satisfaction. In future, other industry-specific variables can be taken to understand overall well-being. Fourth, the study has taken into consideration outcome or dependent variable, i.e. well-being. In future studies, other outcome variables can be taken into consideration which can be affected by psychological distress. Fifth, the researchers have adopted a cross-sectional design. Breach of employer obligations may affect the long term domains of behaviour, whereas stress can be short term or time or situation-specific. In future, the longitudinal study could make it possible to explore different time effects on well-being, and it can make results stronger and justifiable.