This
issue, as to whether the concept of a psychological contract can be constituted
as a ‘contract’, In legal terms, the notation of a contract implies an
agreement or at least the outward appearance of an agreement. Yet, given that
the psychological contract is oriented towards subjective perceptions – or as
Rousseau (1995, 6) has stated ‘agreement is in the eye of the beholder’ – the
potential for reaching such agreement or finding the “zone of acceptance’ is
inherently problematic. To put it another way, it is very difficult to pin down
precisely at what point the psychological contract might be successfully
negotiated (Guest 2004a). Indeed, this problem is even more pertinent if the
contract is viewed as some form of ongoing process (Herriot and Pemberton
1997).
In
contrast to the psychological contract, a legal contract is one that is more
formal, written down and verbalized between the two parties. This suggests that
both parties have read and agreed to its terms and conditions. In such an
instance, this type of contract becomes quite difficult to change without some
degree of consent between the contacting parties Guest (1998). As the literature
on psychological contracting illustrates, however, it is not subject to such
contractual restrictions, because it has been exclusively constructed through
the individual’s unvoiced expectations and subjective feelings (Rousseau 1995).
As a result, there is very little to prevent it from being casually and
secretly changed by either party.
In
addition, there are further doubts surrounding the legitimacy of the term ‘contract’
being subsumed into an unvoiced social exchange interaction (Cooke et al. 2004). At face value, we often
accept that works and managers of an organization enter into a contract
agreement, more often than not when starting a new job. However, it can be extremely
unclear as to whom the parties to such an agreement are. This is because we
regard the worker and the organization as easily identifiable and recognizable
entries, which is in fact not always the case. Particularly in a large
organization, employees are likely to come into contract with a wide range of organizational
agents, creating what Setton et al.
(1996) have referred to as ‘multiple exchanges’. Clearly, it would seem
unlikely that each of these agents will provide employees with exactly the same
expectations. This leads to a rather ambiguous position in conceptualizing
which organizational agents are likely to be the most prominent or influential
in constructing different expectations (Setton et al. 1996).
Furthermore,
the notation of making a contract with an organization is made increasingly
difficult, given the increased use of non-standard forms of employment, such as
in the case of agency works or multi-site employers. In many instances, it is
often unclear as to who the actual employing organization might be (Rubery et
al. 2004). The blurring of organizational boundaries and the development of multi-employer
relationships has a number of implications for the management of human
resources and the construction of psychological contracts. For example, Cooke st al. (2004) provide an instance
of airport baggage handlers who identify strongly with the airline they work
for (Airline D), even though they are legally employed by an outside agency contractor.
In spite of the fact that employees were not actually employed by the airline,
worker felt committed to it because they saw their position as a temporary
stepping-stone towards gaining permanent employment. Indeed, many baggage handlers
actively portrayed themselves as airline employees and, in some cases, sought
to hide their true identity by hiding their actual employer’s ID badge from
boarding passengers. The apparent ambivalence towards their actual employer was
made explicit by one baggage handler who commented: ‘Our commitment will be to
Airline D because if they think we are not good enough, then we have to go back
to FH (their employer)’ (Cooke st al. 2004, 188).
In
relation to the construction of a psychological contract, the above illustrates
the contradictions for employees receiving and subsequently interpreting
managerial messages about their expectations and obligations, particularly when
employees identify less with their actual employer and more with a client
organization for whom they perform day-to-day tasks.
There
are further limitations with the use of the concept of contract. As discussed
above, a contract implies that the parties have entered into an agreement
freely and equally, and, in legal terms, the agreement cannot be changed
without some consent between the two contracting parties. However, this is a
flawed assumption. Employment contracts are rarely made between equals, nor are
they explicitly negotiated and agreed in the same way as buying a house or a
car. In entering into a relationship with an employer, for the majority of
employees, it means that they become subordinate to their employers’ power and
authority, because it is employers who control and direct the productive
resources of the enterprise (Fox 1974). In many instances, it is employers who
determine the rate of pay, the pace of work and what benefits are offered in
exchange for the employees’ physical and mental labour.
If
an imbalance of power is inherent in explicit, legal contracts, the privilege of
employers to direct and distribute resources as they see fit is magnified for
an implicit set of expectations that the psychological contract seeks to
capture. When we consider this imbalance of power between management and employee
and its implications for how unvoiced expectations are supposed to be
communicated and understood, it is perhaps not surprising that authors find
increasing contract violation (Morrison and Robinson 1997). It is perhaps time
that the psychological contract should be recognized for what it is: a social
exchange interaction.
References
Cooke, F.L., Hebson, G. and Carroll, M. (2004). Commitment and identity across organizational boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond Contract. Work, Power and Trust Relations. London: Faber & Faber.
Guest, D. (1998). Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of organizational Behaviour.
Herriot, P.and Pemberton, C. (1997). Facilitating new
deals. Human Resource Management Journal.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When Employees Feel Betrayed: A Model of How Psychological Contract Violation Develops. Academy of Management Review.
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organisations: Understanding the Written and
Unwritten Agreements.
Rubery, J., Earnshaw, J. and Marchington, M. (20014). Blurring the boundaries to the employment relationship: from single to multi-employer relationships. In Marchington, M., Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J. and Willmott, H. (eds), Fragmenting Work: Blurring Organisational Boundaries and Disordering Hierarchies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Setton, R., Bennett, N. and Liden, R. (1996). Social
exchange in organisations: perceived organisation support, leader-member
exchange and employee reciprocity. Journal
Applied Psychology.
