Psychological contracts are dynamic, but few studies explore the processes driving change and how employees influence them. By adopting a process approach with a teleological change lens, and drawing upon the sensemaking and coping literatures, this study positions individuals as active and adaptive agents driving contract change. Employing a mixed methodology, with a four-wave longitudinal survey (n = 107 graduate newcomers) and qualitative interviews (n = 26 graduate newcomers), the study focuses on unfolding events and develops an "adaptive remediation" process model aimed at unraveling contract dynamics. The model demonstrates how breach or violation events trigger sensemaking, resulting in initially negative employee reactions and a "withdrawal" of perceived contributions, before individuals exercise their agency and enact coping strategies to make sense of, and adapt and respond to, these discrepancies. A process of contract "repair" could then occur if the coping actions (termed "remediation effects") were effective, with individuals returning to positive exchange perceptions. These actions either directly addressed the breach and repaired both it and the psychological contract (termed "remedies") or involved cognitive reappraisal of the broader work environment and repaired the contract but not the breach (termed "buffers"). The results highlight the unfolding, processual nature of psychological contracting.
Innovation is critical to organisational success and is a process steered, and potentially thwarted, by individuals. However, despite the importance of public sector innovation given the complexity of policy issues faced and the sector's specific contextual features, our understanding of innovation processes in government requires expansion. This study, using in-depth case analyses of three Australian Public Service agencies, focuses on understanding the 'human component' of the innovation process by drawing on both innovation champion and promotor theories to explore, through the lens of organisational power, how multiple human agents progress public sector innovations. The results highlight the key, and often tandem, roles of individuals at multiple organisational levels who work to inspire and motivate others to progress an innovation (champions) and those with specific power bases who help overcome organisational barriers to innovation (promotors).
Using artificial intelligence (AI) to make decisions in human resource management (HRM) raises questions of how fair employees perceive these decisions to be and whether they experience respectful treatment (i.e., interactional justice). In this experimental survey study with open-ended qualitative questions, we examine decision making in six HRM functions and manipulate the decision maker (AI or human) and decision valence (positive or negative) to determine their impact on individuals’ experiences of interactional justice, trust, dehumanization, and perceptions of decision-maker role appropriateness. In terms of decision makers, the use of human decision makers over AIs generally resulted in better perceptions of respectful treatment. In terms of decision valence, people experiencing positive over negative decisions generally resulted in better perceptions of respectful treatment. In instances where these cases conflict, on some indicators people preferred positive AI decisions over negative human decisions. Qualitative responses show how people identify justice concerns with both AI and human decision making. We outline implications for theory, practice, and future research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.