Critically Discuss the Psychological Contract in the Contemporary Organisation
Introduction
Every human being is an unique individual. This is an undeniable fact, thus organisations have to explore the various antecedences of the psychological contracts between employees and the organisation. Employees have different perceptions and thinking over the concept of psychological contracts. Generation Y is slowly filling up the positions in contemporary organisations. Therefore, what are the influencers revolve around this power craving group of people? Research has concluded that employees and employers have different perceptions on job support and resources (Attridge 2009, 392; Kahn 1990, 708) and even job satisfaction (McShane and Travaglione 2007, 180).
Employee disengagement has been occurring more and more often nowadays (Bates 2004, 44). Employee engagement is closely linked with the result of the organisation (Medlin and Green 2009, 948; Harter, Schmidt and Killham 2003, 27), where employee disengagement may cause unsatisfactory employee achievement; leading to undesirable organisational advancement and financial development. Because of these, organisations should examine the psychological contracts between them and the employees, especially that of the Generation Y.
Psychological Contracts
Ppsychological contract is defined as ones beliefs about shared responsibilities and commitments in the framework of the relationship between employees and the organization (Robert, Kristie and Kathryn 2010, 220). Cyril (2004, 1) mentioned that psychological contracts are the employees’ mindset about what they look forward to from the organization and what they feel they should commit to the organization.
The psychological contracts emphasize more on the relationship between an employee and employer as a whole rather than traditional compensation issues (Robert, Kristie and Kathryn 2010, 220). The concepts of the psychological contract are commitments particularly based on perceived obligations by the others (Robert, Kristie and Kathryn 2010, 220).
Every human being is an unique individual. This is an undeniable fact, thus organisations have to explore the various antecedences of the psychological contracts between employees and the organisation. Employees have different perceptions and thinking over the concept of psychological contracts. Generation Y is slowly filling up the positions in contemporary organisations. Therefore, what are the influencers revolve around this power craving group of people? Research has concluded that employees and employers have different perceptions on job support and resources (Attridge 2009, 392; Kahn 1990, 708) and even job satisfaction (McShane and Travaglione 2007, 180).
Employee disengagement has been occurring more and more often nowadays (Bates 2004, 44). Employee engagement is closely linked with the result of the organisation (Medlin and Green 2009, 948; Harter, Schmidt and Killham 2003, 27), where employee disengagement may cause unsatisfactory employee achievement; leading to undesirable organisational advancement and financial development. Because of these, organisations should examine the psychological contracts between them and the employees, especially that of the Generation Y.
Psychological Contracts
Ppsychological contract is defined as ones beliefs about shared responsibilities and commitments in the framework of the relationship between employees and the organization (Robert, Kristie and Kathryn 2010, 220). Cyril (2004, 1) mentioned that psychological contracts are the employees’ mindset about what they look forward to from the organization and what they feel they should commit to the organization.
The psychological contracts emphasize more on the relationship between an employee and employer as a whole rather than traditional compensation issues (Robert, Kristie and Kathryn 2010, 220). The concepts of the psychological contract are commitments particularly based on perceived obligations by the others (Robert, Kristie and Kathryn 2010, 220).
References: Bates, S. 2004. Getting engaged. HR Magazine 49 (2): 44-51. ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed 16 September 2010). Cyril van de Ven. 2004. The Psychological Contract; a big deal?. Behavioural Sciences Service Centre Ministry of Defence The Hague, The Netherlands. 1-6 http://www.internationalmta.org/Documents/2004/2004024P.pdf (Accessed 06 September 2010). Harter, J. K., F. L. Schmidt, and E. A. Killham. 2003. Employee Engagement, Satisfaction, and Business-Unit-Level Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. P27 http://alert.nova.edu/ie/qep/forms/meta_analysis_july_2003.pdf (Accessed 16 September 2010). Hung-Wen L. 2010. An Empirical Study on Work Attitudes in Government Service. Business Renaissance Quarterly. 5(1):92. ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed 03 September 2010). Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal 33 (4): 692-724. ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed 03 September 2010). Karin A. O. and L.R.Krista. 2010. Leader self-development: A contemporary context for leader development evaluation Kim, W. 2007 Fast-track for fast times: Catching and keeping Generation Y in the nursing workforce Contemporary Nurse : a Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession. 24(2): 154 ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed on 03 September 2010). Little, B., and P. Little. 2006. Employee Engagement: Conceptual Issues. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict 10 (1): 111-120. ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed 03 September 2010). Maslach, C., W. B.Schaufeli, and M. P. Leiter. 2001. Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 397-422. ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed 16 September 2010). McShane, S., and T. Travaglione. 2007. Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim. 2nd ed. North Ryde: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Medlin, B., and K. W. Green. 2009. Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and optimism. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107 (7): 943-956. Emerald Management Xtra. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/ (Accessed 03 September 2010). Poornima, S. C.2009. Motivating Through Satisfaction: An Ongoing Effort of HR in Organizations. 35. ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed on 20 September 2010). Pech, R., and B. Slade. 2006. Employee disengagement: is there evidence of a growing problem? Handbook of Business Strategy 7 (1): 21-25. Emerald Management Xtra. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/ (Accessed 16 September 2010). Robin, E. 2007. Personnel Best. Supply Management, How to retain your staff. 12 ( 4):34 ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed on 17 September 2010). Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family Roles. Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (4): 655-684. Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed on 03 September 2010). Saks, A. M. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21 (7): 600-619. ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed on 03 September 2010). Sara, D.H. and D.V. Ans. 2010. Millennials’ Career Perspective and Psychological ContractExpectations: Does the Recession Lead to Lowered Expectations? J Bus Psychol 25:296 ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed on 20 September 2010). Sue, S. and F.David.2008. Engaging a new generation of Graduates. 50(5): 368 ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/ (Accessed on 20 September 2010). Tulgan.B. 2009. Not Everyone Gets A Trophy, How to manage Generation Y. 3