Filetype Pdf Managing The Psychological Contract Using The Personal Deal To Increase Performance Pdf

Note on Managing the Psychological Contract

Managing Psychological Contract

At the heart, the Psychological Contract is a philosophy - not a process or a tool or a formula. This reflects its deeply significant, changing and dynamic nature. The way we define and manage the Psychological Contract and how we understand and apply its underpinning principles in our relationships - inside and outside of work - essentially defines our humanity, respect, compassion, trust, empathy, fairness, objectivity, qualities that characterize the Psychological Contract, just as they characterize a civilized outlook to life as a whole. Primarily, the Psychological Contract refers to the relationship between an employer and its employees and specifically concerns mutual expectations of inputs and outcomes. The Psychological Contract is usually seen from the standpoint or feelings of employees, although a full appreciation requires it to be understood by both sides. The objective of this paper is to encourage advances in the appreciation and application of its important principles. It is a hugely fertile and potentially beneficial area of study. It throws light on the complex dimensions of Psychological Contract. It also focuses on the strategic implications of Psychological Contract.

Psychological Contracts in the Workplace

Employee perceptions of psychological contracts were explored in a mixed methods design project. Although psychological contract research has been popular since its inception over 50 years ago, the field makes a number of assumptions about how employees truly experience psychological contracts (Conway & Briner, 2009). The primary goal of the present research was to identify how psychological contracts should be measured and theorized to reflect the natural experiences and language of employees. In Study 1, I examined a number of the theory's assumptions by asking employees in interviews about their psychological contract experiences. A descriptive phenomenological approach allowed me to best capture the real life contexts through the eyes of the employees. The interviews involved discussions about employees' perceived legal contract perceptions, the existence of psychological contracts, and the nature of their psychological contract experiences, if one existed. Interview findings revealed that while some psychological contract theory assumptions were supported (e.g., psychological contracts are perceived to evolve), others were not (e.g., universality of psychological contracts). The interview findings also identified the natural terminology used by employees, thus informing how psychological contracts should be measured. In Study 2, I used Study 1 findings to develop and test a revised feature-based measure of psychological contracts. I also further expanded Study 1 findings by quantifying the prevalence of and preference for psychological contracts, and their implications on organizational commitment, employee engagement, and turnover intentions. As predicted, those who did perceive a psychological contract were more likely to score high on commitment and engagement ratings, compared to those who did not. Contrary to predictions, there were no significant group differences for turnover intentions and contract preference did not play a moderating role on these relations. A revised measure is also presented in Study 2 which supported existing psychological contract theory typology (Relational and Transactional contract types). The contract type factors significantly predicted commitment, engagement, and turnover intention, mostly as hypothesized. The general discussion reviews how the two studies sequentially contribute to psychological contract measurement and theory. Guidelines are also presented to provide recommendations for both management and employees in how best to manage their psychological contracts.