Forced employment contract change and the psychological contract

Mark N. K. Saunders · Adrian R. Thornhill

40 citations0/0 files storedEmployee Relations

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior Higher Education and Employability Employment and Welfare Studies

Abstract

Purpose To explore the implications for all employees' psychological contracts of a forced change from permanent to temporary employment status for some employees within an organisation. Design/methodology/approach A random sample of 30 employees, stratified by employment status was selected. Each employee undertook a structured card sort of possible emotional responses to change followed by an in‐depth interview to explore and explain their categorisation of these responses. Findings The nature of psychological contracts and organisational attachments for both permanent employees and forced temporary workers is complex. Permanent employees generally continue to exhibit relational forms of attachment to the organisation. These, they believe, are reciprocated by the organisation. Reactions from forced temporary workers are more varied. After a period of denial, some develop a more calculative approach to their interactions. Others maintain aspects of their previously developed relational attachments. Only some temporary workers appear to recognise that their future direction is no longer a concern of the organisation. Research limitations/implications Although only based upon one organisation, the findings suggest that the process of psychological contract adjustment is likely to emerge through gradual re‐interpretation, rather than through re‐negotiation. Practical implications Management actions need to be recognised as important in re‐defining the nature of psychological contracts. The transitional nature of this process may be prolonged where management imposes transactional contracts and where communication and negotiation to create clear expectations is lacking. Originality/value The findings provide new insights into the implications of forcing employees from permanent to temporary contracts for their, and remaining permanent employees', psychological contracts.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.

References

2013Stress: Appraisal and Coping 2008Qualitative Data Analysis 2001Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.2001On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.1963Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms 1997WHEN EMPLOYEES FEEL BETRAYED: A MODEL OF HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT VIOLATION DEVELOPS 1986Interactional justice : communication criteria of fairness 1987A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories

Cited by

2022The tremors of interconnected triggers over time: How psychological contract breach can erupt 2018Managers’ perceptions of trust in the workplace in times of strategic change 2017Trainee programs: an emerging model on psychological contract reciprocity 2016Mediating Role of Organizational and Behavioral Factors between Visionand Retention Cognition of Knowledge Workers

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.