APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53 (4), 541–555
The Psychology of the Employment Relationship:
An Analysis Based on the Psychological Contract
Oxford, Psychology: Ltd.
B riginal UK Publishing International Review
David E. Guest*
King’s College, London, UK
On esquisse des perspectives conduisant à des changements dans les relations de travail et à la nécessité d’élaborer un cadre conceptuel convenant au monde actuel. La notion de contrat psychologique représente un modèle utile et l’on résume plusieurs études qui ont l’ont adoptée pour aborder certains aspects des relations de travail. A partir de ces investigations, on montre que le contrat psychologique doit être élargi pour accorder davantage de poids au contexte et à ce qui est décrit comme relevant du contenu même de ce contrat, à savoir les idées d’équité et de conﬁance qui résident au cœur des relations de travail. On présente un programme pour de futures recherches exploitant ce modèle. Developments are outlined that are leading to changes in employment relations and to the need for a conceptual framework that has contemporary relevance. It is proposed that the psychological contract provides a useful framework, and different studies that have adopted the psychological contract to study aspects of employment relations are outlined. Building on these, it is argued that the psychological contract needs extending to give greater weight to context and to what is described as the state of the psychological contract, incorporating issues of fairness and trust that lie at the heart of employment relations. Based on this model, an agenda for future research is presented.
The aim of this paper is to identify trends, issues, and research questions concerning the employment relationship that might engage researchers in the ﬁeld of work and organisational psychology and to offer a conceptual framework built around the concept of the psychological contract as a way of analysing and exploring the contemporary employment relationship. Work and organisational psychologists have a longstanding record of research in what has traditionally been termed industrial relations. It ranges from the seminal work of Walton and McKersie (1965) with their behavioural theory of negotiations, through the inﬂuential work of Emery and
* Address for correspondence: David E. Guest, The Management Centre, King’s College, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NN, United Kingdom. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Thorsrud (1976) and Heller, Pusic, Strauss, and Wilpert (1998) on industrial democracy, to analyses using theories from social psychology to explore propensity for militant action (see, for example, Klandermans, 1984; Kelly, 1998). Much of this research and writing has been presented within a wellestablished paradigm based upon a systems model of industrial relations initially presented by Dunlop (1993). This focused on analysis of inputs, processes, and outputs and the role of key institutions and actors. These actors included employers, unions, and governments. Given the somewhat different values, interests, and objectives of these parties, a pluralist perspective was considered to provide an appropriate framework for analysis. Indeed, this stimulated considerable interest among work and organisational psychologists in issues such as commitment to company and union (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson, & Spiller, 1980) and the feasibility of dual commitment (Angle & Perry, 1986). There is evidence that this traditional system of industrial relations has begun to break down, more notably in countries...
References: Allvin, M., & Sverke, M. (2000). Do new generations imply the end of solidarity?
Swedish unionism in an era of individualization
Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1986). Dual commitment labor–management climates. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 31 – 50.
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behaviour. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., & Jansen, P. (2001). Human resource management and
performance: Lessons from the Netherlands
Resource Management, 12, 1107–1125.
Clinton, M., & Guest, D. (2004). Fulﬁlment of the psychological contract and
related work attitudes
Conway, N., & Briner, R. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to
psychological contract breach and exceeded promises
Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2002). Reciprocity through the lens of the psychological contract: Employee and employer perspectives. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 11, 69 – 86.
Dunlop, J. (1993). I ndustrial relations systems (revised edn.). Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Emery, F., & Thorsrud, E. (1976). D emocracy at work. L eiden: Martinus
Foulkes, F. (1980). Personnel policies in large non-union companies. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber
Gordon, M., Philpot, J., Burt, R., Thompson, L., & Spiller, W. (1980). Commitment
to a union: Development of a measure and examination of its correlates
Gouldner, A. (1965). Wildcat strike. New York: Harper and Row.
Guest, D. (1998). Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 649 – 664.
Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: An
© International Association for Applied Psychology, 2004.
Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G., & Wilpert, B. (1998). Organizational participation:
Myth and reality
Herriot, P., & Pemberton, C. (1997). Facilitating new deals. Human Resource Management Journal, 7, 45 – 56.
Johns, G. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 31–42.
Kalleberg, A., & Rogues, J. (2000). Employment relations in Norway: Some dimensions and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 315–335.
Kelly, J. (1998). Rethinking industrial relations. London: Routledge.
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilisation and participation in trade union action: A
Leisink, P., Van Leemput, J., & Vilrokx, J. (1996). The challenge to trade unions in
Europe: Innovation or adaptation
Lewis, S., Smithson, J., & Kugelberg, C. (2002). Into work: Job insecurity and changing psychological contracts. In J. Brannen, S. Lewis, A. Nilsen, & J. Smithson
(Eds.), Young Europeans, work and family
McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D., & Gallagher, D. (1998). Fitting square pegs into
round holes: Mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the
Morrison, E.W., & Robinson, S.L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model
of how contract violation develops
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee–organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Porter, L., Pearce, J., Tripoli, A., & Lewis, K. (1998). Differential perceptions of
employers’ inducements: Implications for psychological contracts
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Rousseau, D. (1998). The “problem” of the psychological contract considered.
Rousseau, D. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal: Flexibility versus fairness. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 260 – 273.
Rousseau, D. (2004). Under the table deals: Preferential, unauthorized or idiosyncratic? In A. O’Leary-Kelly & R. Grifﬁn (Eds.), The darkside of organizational
Rousseau, D., Ho, V., & Greenberg, J. (2003). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in
Rousseau, D., & Schalk, R. (Eds.) (2000). Psychological contracts in employment:
Rousseau, D., & Tijoriwala, S. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues,
alternatives and measures
Schein, E. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in
the 21st century
Settoon, R., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organization support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity.
© International Association for Applied Psychology, 2004.
Shore, L., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. (2003). New developments in the employee–
Shore, L., & Tetrick, L. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. Cooper & D. Rousseau (Eds.),
Trends in organizational behavior ( Vol
Tekleab, A., & Taylor, S. (2003). Aren’t there two parties in the employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization–employee agreement
on contract obligations and violations
Thomas, D., Au, K., & Ravlin, E. (2003). Cultural variation and the psychological
Tsui, A., Pearce, J., Porter, L., & Hite, J. (1995). Choice of employee–organization
relationship: Inﬂuence of internal and external organizational factors
Please join StudyMode to read the full document