1 / 16

Nele De Cuyper & Thomas Rigotti

Balancing psychological contracts: Validation of a typology. Nele De Cuyper & Thomas Rigotti. Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. University of Leipzig, Germany. Psychological contracts.

enye
Download Presentation

Nele De Cuyper & Thomas Rigotti

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Balancing psychological contracts: Validation of a typology Nele De Cuyper & Thomas Rigotti Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium University of Leipzig, Germany

  2. Psychological contracts “the idiosyncratic set of reciprocal expectations held by employees concerning their obligations (what they will do for the employer) and their entitlements (what they expect to receive in return)” (McLean Parks, Kidder & Gallagher, 1998, p. 698)

  3. Transactional vs. Relational contracts • Ongoing • Monetary Benefits • Identity linked with Organisation • Non Monetary Benefits • Mutual Loyalty • Support • Career Rewards / Development • Time Based • Immediate Rewards • Monetary Benefits • Identity linked to skills & competencies • Little emotional attachment invested

  4. Concepts of breach and violation • One perceives another as failing to fulfill promised obligation • Breach refers to cognitive awareness, whereas violation involves emotional reaction • Undermines trust

  5. Research on temporary employment – in a nutshell • Dominant approach is to compare employees on temporary assignments to those on permanent contracts • Inconclusive findings concerning job satisfaction, commitment, well-being, ... • Representative surveys rather report a disadvantaged position of employees on temporary, as comparedto permanent contracts – field studies inWork- and Organizational Psychologyreported mixed findings • Possibly the only consistent finding is, thatthose on temporary employment report higherperceptions of job insecurity – but with lower correlations to negative outcomes

  6. Typology based on reciprocity Employee under-obligation Mutual high obligations Mutual high obligations Employers‘ obligations Mutual low obligations Employee over-obligation Employees‘ obligations

  7. Hypotheses H1: Temporaryworkers are more likely to have psychological contracts with mutual low obligations, or with employee overobligation, than permanent workers, whereas they are less likelyto have psychological contracts with mutual high obligations, or with employee underobligation. H2: Employees perceiving mutual high obligations report higher organizational commitment (H2a), job satisfaction (H2b), and life satisfaction (H2c) than employees perceiving mutual low obligations, employee overobligation, or employee underobligation. H3: Employees perceiving mutual high obligations report less psychological contract violation than employees perceiving mutual low obligations or employees perceiving imbalanced psychological contracts (employee overobligation and employee underobligation).

  8. Sample characteristics

  9. Descriptive statistics and Correlations among dependent variables

  10. Employers‘ & Employees‘ Promises 1 1

  11. Latent Class Cluster Analysis…. thanks to QMSS-Workshop ..Iterative procedure „to identify a set of mutually exclusive latent classes that account for the distribution of cases that occur within a crosstaulation of observed disrcete variables“ (McCutcheon, 1987, p. 8)

  12. Profile of latent clusters

  13. H1: Differences between employees on temporary vs. permanent contract Odds Ratios for permanent employees (N = 687) as compared to temporary employees (N = 580) from Germany and Belgium Mutual high obligation 1.3 Employee overobligation 0.6 Employee underobligation 3.0 Mutual low obligations 0.8

  14. H2/H3: PC-Typology and outcomes (ANCOVA) Job satisfaction Commitment Life Satisfaction Violation

  15. Conclusions • Transactional contents build the core of psychological contracts • Type of employment contract (temporary vs. permanent) proved to be an important antecedent of psychological contracts: employees on temporary employment contracts were more likely • Results underpin the role of reciprocity in social exchange processes – the high perceptions of violations in the mutual low cluster suggests, that this type may be caused by former breaches of the psychological contract • As expected, mutual high obligations were related to the most favourable outcomes, but it was not lacking reciprocity per se that showed the most negative outcomes

  16. Thank you! De Cuyper, N., Rigotti, T., De Witte, H., & Mohr, G. (in press). Balancing Psychological Contracts: Validation of a Typology. International Journal of Human Resource Management (Publication in early 2008)

More Related