Fitting square pegs into round holes: mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological contract

Abstract

In this paper, we have endeavored to integrate the literature on psychological contracts with the literature on contingent work arrangements. We have further developed the theoretical foundation of the psychological contract and its dimensions. After reviewing previous work on contingent employment, we illustrate how the dimensions of psychological contracts (stability, scope, tangibility, focus, time frame, particularism, multiple agency and volition) highlight the dierences and similarities among alternative employment arrangements in a meaningful and parsimonious manner. In doing so, we have sought to oer an alternative to the categorization of employment arrangements that has, thus far, made comparisons across studies dicult. In addition, we argue that the dimensions of psychological contracts, more so than the content of these contracts, are more generalizable across various types of work arrangements, as well as across dierent types of jobs and across national boundaries.

Contingencies of Contingent Employment: Psychological Contract, Job Insecurity and Employability of Contracted Workers

“…In the case of contingent employment, one might suppose that the expectations of these employees, comparing to direct-hire permanent employees, are initially different. Psychological contracts of contingent workers tend to have more transactional entitlements, involving a specific, short-term period relationship and focusing upon monetary exchange (McLean Parks, Kidder & Gallagher, 1998;De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007). Accordingly, job insecurity may not breach these specific psychological contracts (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007), since these do not guarantee job security as a basic promise (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006;Sverke, Gallagher, & Hellgren, 2000).…”

“…One might ascertain that contingent workers establish a contract with their agency, so they develop the idea that this organization has a set of obligations towards them and they are constantly assessing if it is fulfilling them or not. Simultaneously, since these workers stay for a certain period of time at the premises of a client organization they also develop the idea that it also has obligations towards them, which can or cannot be fulfilled (McLean Parks, Kidder & Gallagher, 1998;Druker & Stanworth, 2004;Claes, 2005).…”

Understanding Reasons for Employee Unethical Conduct in Thai Organizations: A Qualitative Inquiry

“…Psychological contract theory is the idiosyncratic set of reciprocal expectations held by employees concerning their obligations and their entitlements (McLean Parks, Kidder & Gallagher, 1998). For example, the employee will work for an employer with the expectation that they will receive something in return.…”

Psychological Contract Breach: Consequences of Unkept Promises of Permanent Employment

“…Temporary employees are believed to have explicitly defined transactional contracts rather than relational psychological contracts with their organizations (Connelly & Gallagher, 2004;Guest, 2004a;Guest, 2004b;CoyleShapiro & Kessler, 2000;McDonald & Makin, 2000;Rousseau, 1995;Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1995). Organizational researchers have also suggested that temporary employees' psychological contracts have short and finite time frames, are narrower in scope, and are less dynamic than relationship contracts (Chambel & Alcover, 2011;Connelly & Gallagher, 2004;Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000;McDonald & Makin, 2000;McLean Parks et al, 1998). Chambel and Castanheira (2006) found that temporary employees hired directly by the organization develop similar psychological contracts as permanent employees, and these temporary employees build up relational psychological contracts with the organization.…”