The Content of the Psychological Contract

Abstract

The perceived obligations of the two parties to the employment relationship, the employee and the organization, were explored using the critical incident technique. Incidents were elicited which exceeded or fell below the treatment which each party might reasonably expect from the other; obligations were then inferred from these incidents. Respondents were a representative sample of UK employees (n=184), and a sample of UK managers (n=184) (the organization group). Twelve categories of organization obligation and seven of employee obligation were inferred from these data. While the two groups identified the same content categories as each other, they did so with different relative frequency. The organization group quoted more relational than transactional forms of organizational obligation, the employee group the reverse. This finding was attributed to a lack of trust of the organization by employees, and to their job insecurity. The groups, however, did not differ in terms of the frequency of the most commonly cited employee obligations; timekeeping, good work and honesty. This was taken to indicate the prevalence of a traditional and input‐oriented view of employee obligations. Examples were discovered of a reciprocal element to the contract. It was concluded that, despite the level of agreement between the two parties regarding the elements of the psychological contract, they were in danger of holding different perceptions of its balance; and that organizations should only expect employee commitment if they themselves have fulfilled their side of the contract.

An Interview Study of the Experiences of Firefighters in Regard to Psychological Contract and Stressors

“…When asked about their expectations of their employer and the obligations that their employer should meet, evidence of both transactional and relational obligations was forthcoming (Rousseau 1990(Rousseau , 1995. The sorts of obligations cited by our participants overlapped with those cited by employees in other sectors that have formed the basis for the development of measures of PC (e.g., Bunderson 2001;Herriot et al 1997;PSYCONES 2005;Rousseau 1990Rousseau , 2000, for example, receiving a good rate of pay, having job security, being treated fairly by the employers, and being provided with opportunities for advancement and personal growth (Guest et al 2010). This suggests that quantitative measures of PC, such as these listed, should be applicable for use with firefighters.…”

“…In terms of 'employee obligations', 90% of the interviewees felt that they fulfilled their employer's perceived promises by being 'loyal' (Bunderson 2001;Herriot et al 1997) to the organisation, i.e., protecting the core values of the Fire and Rescue Service (being punctual, maintaining competencies, being a good team player, and performing duties with loyalty to the Fire Service). Moreover, the employers were perceived to have an expectation of their employees that equipment would be cared for (Herriot et al 1997) and that the station would be kept clean and tidy.…”

“…Moreover, the employers were perceived to have an expectation of their employees that equipment would be cared for (Herriot et al 1997) and that the station would be kept clean and tidy.…”

Organizational citizenship behavior, identification, psychological contract and leadership frames

“…The PC represents the relationship between the individual and employer (Noer, 1993) and is an employee's perceptions of their exchange relationship with the employer (Herriot et al, 1997). We posit that the PC is useful in explaining OCB at primary schools for three reasons.…”

A Phenomenological Exploration Of How West Indian Professionals In South Florida Perceive Their Career Construction

“…Scholars have explored the changing nature of the employer-employee relationship (Conway & Briner, 2002;Herriot, Manning, & Kidd, 1997;Maguire, 2002), by drawing upon Rousseau's (1995) distinction between transactional and relational contracts.…”