Since
its introduction under the work of Argyris (1960), the psychological contract
has offered an alternative reading of the employment relationship outside the
narrow legalistic frame of reference – one that expresses the subjective and
indeterminate aspects of employment relations and HRM. Under the influence of
Rousseau (2001) the construct has gone from strength to strength, and have a
considerable amount of knowledge concerning the implications and consequences
of unmet and unspecified expectations obligations. However, as Guest (1998,2004, 2007) has
acknowledged, there is much more to do if the psychological contract is to
become a viable framework capable of understanding the complex and uneven
social interactions of both employer and employee.
Considering
and communicating employee-employer expectations are vital requirements for
achieving fulfilled psychological contracts and corresponding vibrant and
effective employees. If not only for reducing turnover and inciting valuable
staff member, considering the psychological contract will likely have positive
influence on staff mentalities, welfare and overall happiness. And after all
working towards improving anyone’s happiness could never be considered a bad
day’s working.
Finally,
noted that, psychological contract remains extremely popular. In itself, this
is an important phenomenon to acknowledge in terms of both theory and future
research and, in this regard, required to understand the psychological construct
as an attractive reading of contemporary socioeconomic dynamics. That is, the
psychological contract and many of its underpinning assumptions have a native
ideological attractiveness. As much of the rhetoric of the new employment
relationship and the actual nature of work in contemporary society continue to
move in opposite directions.
