As mentioned earlier, psychological contracts have been shown to encourage employee reaction. This leads to a positive organizational attitude, a commitment to the initial employment contract, an increased value of the commitment to perform well for the company and a willingness to help colleagues. Psychological contracts are also important for management practitioners when a breach occurs, as psychological contracts are based on promises between the employer and the employee, so trust is an important basis for social exchange (Ruiter, Schalk, Schaveling & Gelder, 2017). The term was first introduced in 1960 by Chris Argyris and greatly expanded in 1989 by Denise Rousseau in the groundbreaking article « Psychological and Implicit Contracts in Organizations. » What appears to be a « fair » relationship will not remain the same throughout a person`s career. Their lives will evolve and what they need from their employer will evolve with them. In this way, the psychological contract helps to promote positive organizational behavior and plays an important role in increasing performance and productivity. Expectations must benefit both the employee and the employer. The psychological contract must serve the interests of all parties, not just some people. In fact, a rigid written psychological contract will not be able to adapt to the changing tide of employees, goals, and company agendas. The psychological contract is based on the employees` sense of fairness and trust and their belief that the employer sticks to the « agreement » between them. A violation (or breach) of the psychological contract by the employer can have sudden and serious consequences for individuals and organizations. This can negatively impact job satisfaction, engagement and performance, and increase revenue intentions.
The best way to resolve tensions around the psychological contract is to make sure that any common ground is actually common ground. Theoretically, the psychological contract is used to maintain a positive employee-employer relationship by establishing a set of mutually agreed ground rules. It pays particular attention to the « human side » of an employment relationship and not to the purely commercial or transactional side. Some workers may disagree with certain elements of the « contract » due to generational or cultural differences. Examines the history, state, and strategic implications of the psychological contract The psychological contract is a dynamic concept that can be applied to understand different employer-employee relationships. Nevertheless, patterns and trends can be observed over time. For many years, the traditional psychological contract has focused on the promise of job security. Now it focuses much more on learning and development to ensure that individuals remain employable throughout their careers. Ultimately, the psychological contract is the responsibility of both the employee and the employer.
The two have different responsibilities to protect against potential violations. For the employer, it is about ensuring that an employee does not have a bad perception and that promises are kept. For the employee, it is a question of managing his expectations so that difficult situations or adverse personal circumstances are not perceived as having a negative effect on productivity and not as a worker who « lives ». If an employer violates an employment contract, there are legal consequences. Although a psychological contract can be much more informal, violating it still has very real consequences. Therefore, empirical research is rigorous enough in terms of evidence to demonstrate the importance of psychological contracts; What we need is more research on the theoretical foundations of the phenomenon. Psychological contracts are the most important in their function in the workplace, as they define the relationship between employer and employee. Psychological contracts are essential but implicit agreements that form the basis of employer-employee relations, as they are reciprocal and based on expectations (Rousseau, 2001). Personal diaries can also lead to the violation of the psychological contract. Some employees may assume that their views will be accepted by everyone else. This can lead to false assumptions and therefore to a breach of the psychological contract. Such differences can make the implicit psychological contracts even more confusing.
People from different generations or cultures may have very different views on reward systems, leadership styles, and social or professional behavior. A metaanalytical review also found support for the relationship between psychological contract violations and negative emotional responses (Zhao et al., 2007) and additional research supported metaanalytical findings (Suazo, 2009). Since the treaty itself is not formal and codified, it is in full mutation. It is constantly evolving, based on communication between the employer and the employee. Although consistent communication has a positive effect on the psychological contract, it should be noted that a lack of communication can have a negative impact on the contract. This includes conversations, tone of voice, body language, and even the implications or conclusions between the two parties. Coyle-Shapiro, J., Costa, S. P., Doden, W. and Chang, C. (2019). Psychological contracts: past, present and future.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6.1, 145-169 Introductory Guidelines on the « Service Contract, » Written Explanation of Details, and Variation in Contract Terms However, this is an area where an organization can leverage the employee-manager relationship by equipping and encouraging managers to discuss and meet the psychological expectations of the contract with employees. Managers can help employees explore and, if necessary, modify their expectations to compensate for negative reactions when unrealistic expectations are not met. The psychological contract is different from a legal employment contract, which provides a limited reality of the employment relationship. The legal contract refers to an agreement, usually written and sung, about the mutual obligations of the employer and the employee. The psychological contract, on the other hand, describes how the parties themselves understand their relationship, their own views on the commitment, and what they can expect in return. The psychological contract is usually unenforceable. However, courts may be influenced by a view of the underlying relationship between employer and employee, for example in the interpretation of the usual duty of mutual trust. Without an effective two-way conversation, the contract between the employee and the employer (or even the employee and the employee) can become unbalanced and a « breach » can occur. Violations and how they occur will be discussed later in the article. Vertical psychological contracts reflect the traditional employer-employee relationship in organizations. They regulate the social relationship between people who work in a traditional hierarchical environment (e.B. Leader – Follower).
More and more people are also working in freelance or remote jobs. This means that there is an increased need for flexibility. Today`s working relationship is much more individual than when Rousseau originally conceived the psychological contract. In most cases, any problem at work is a violation of the psychological contract and not the actual employment contract. Although Rousseau`s 1989 paper[1] was, as Coyle-Shapiro pointed out, « very influential for contemporary research »[2], the concept of psychological contract was first introduced by Argyris (1960): « Since foremen realize that employees of this system tend to produce optimally under passive leadership, and since employees agree, a relationship may arise between employees and foremen, which could be referred to as a « psychological employment contract. » . . .
