The Content of the Psychological Contract

Abstract

The perceived obligations of the two parties to the employment relationship, the employee and the organization, were explored using the critical incident technique. Incidents were elicited which exceeded or fell below the treatment which each party might reasonably expect from the other; obligations were then inferred from these incidents. Respondents were a representative sample of UK employees (n=184), and a sample of UK managers (n=184) (the organization group). Twelve categories of organization obligation and seven of employee obligation were inferred from these data. While the two groups identified the same content categories as each other, they did so with different relative frequency. The organization group quoted more relational than transactional forms of organizational obligation, the employee group the reverse. This finding was attributed to a lack of trust of the organization by employees, and to their job insecurity. The groups, however, did not differ in terms of the frequency of the most commonly cited employee obligations; timekeeping, good work and honesty. This was taken to indicate the prevalence of a traditional and input‐oriented view of employee obligations. Examples were discovered of a reciprocal element to the contract. It was concluded that, despite the level of agreement between the two parties regarding the elements of the psychological contract, they were in danger of holding different perceptions of its balance; and that organizations should only expect employee commitment if they themselves have fulfilled their side of the contract.