|
Article Excerpt
Psychological contract (PC) theory has been the topic of considerable conceptual and empirical research for over two decades. Some researchers, however, have questioned its value-added contribution over social exchange theory (Anderson and Schalk, 1998; Guest, 1998). Social exchange theory relates more to behavioral aspects of the employment exchange (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002), while PC theory involves cognitive aspects (i.e., determining whether a contract has been breached or fulfilled) (Rousseau, 1989). Despite this cognitive component, studies to date have focused primarily on the outcomes (i.e., behaviors) associated with contract breach (e.g., Conway and Briner, 2002; Lo and Aryee, 2003; Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Robinson, 1996; Robinson and Morrison, 2000; Turnley and Feldman, 1999; Turnley et al., 2003). In this study, we examine the cognitive processes that lead to PC evaluations and behavioral outcomes.
We examine a variety of work-related activities thought to trigger the information-gathering schemas for evaluating individuals' PCs (Rousseau, 1995). Using Goodman's three categories of social comparisons (1974), we examine how individuals make sense of workplace events. Specifically, we link theory underlying system-referents to describe the process of PC evaluation. We also argue that social comparisons involving oneself and others enable individuals to contextualize situations (Elsbach et al., 2005) to make sense of information in the workplace. We argue that such comparisons mediate workplace events and PC evaluation.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS AND SYSTEM-REFERENTS
Psychological contract research has examined employee beliefs about employer obligations (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). Social cues help determine the degree of fulfillment between one's beliefs and what is provided by the employer (Rousseau, 1995; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). The negative impact resulting from perceived discrepancies on employee attitudes and behavior has been well documented, and includes changes in organizational citizenship behavior (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002), reductions in trust, satisfaction and intentions to remain, and greater turnover (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). Social comparison theory describes a similar phenomenon with system-referent comparisons. Here, employees cognitively evaluate what was previously promised to them relative to what actually occurred (Goodman, 1977). When discrepancies exist, cognitive dissonance results (Festinger, 1957) and determinations of unfairness can result in negative outcomes, including deviance (Kickul, 2001), lower satisfaction and commitment, and increased turnover (Simons and Roberson, 2003).
A theoretical link can be drawn between PC outcomes and the comparative evaluations inherent in system-referent comparisons that may help explain the cognitive processes preceding breach perceptions (Rousseau, 1995). When faced with uncertainty, individuals seek comparative information (Festinger, 1954; Goodman, 1977) and begin to scan the environment for clues as to what is happening (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Although a PC may exist between the individual and the organization, something must prompt the individual to compare perceived promises to perceived fulfillment in order to evaluate the PC. Until a comparison is made, fulfillment (or breach) determinations have not taken place and may theoretically never be made (O'Neill and Mone, 2005). Rousseau (1995) argues, however, that contract violations are commonplace and frequent, which suggests that contract evaluations are also frequently made. What remains unclear, however, are the cognitive processes underlying PC evaluation and the events that may trigger such processes. In the next section, we integrate sensemaking theory with social comparison theory to better understand and explain PC evaluation.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT EVALUATION ANTECEDENTS
Most individuals are not likely to wake up in the morning thinking about their employment relationship. In fact, "people often see what they expect to see, gather information only when they think they need it, and ignore a lot" (Rousseau, 1995: 31). Although prior theoretical research has attempted to examine antecedent processes thought to be required for interpreting one's PC (e.g., perceptions of salience, vigilance, uncertainty), this work has been too unwieldy for empirical testing and contained numerous cognitive processes which were difficult to tease apart (for a discussion, see Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Beyond this work, specific triggers have not been identified in any studies to date. However, we argue that a variety of common HR activities convey commitments and inducements to individuals on behalf of the organization, and provide an excellent starting point for identifying triggers. They may include job descriptions, procedural changes, performance reviews, recruiting decisions, compensation decisions, training, personnel manuals and benefits (cf., Kulik and Ambrose, 1992; Rousseau, 1995). Social comparison research also discusses how organizational roles are used in judgments of fairness (Goodman, 1974, 1977), which yields another potential trigger. Finally, Louis and Sutton's work on sensemaking describes situations that provoke an individual's switch from an automatic mode (i.e., noticing) to a more conscious cognitive processing mode (1991: 55). They identified events involving the individual that were likely to trigger this switch, such as performance reviews, career planning and assessment, role shifts that encompass promotions or transfers to a new job, job loss, or new employees entering the organization. At the organizational level, other more indirect processes were thought to be influential, including human resource planning and organizational assessment. From this body of work, we begin to identify a variety of events that may trigger PC evaluation.
Triggers and Social Comparison Processes
Rousseau suggests that, "all sorts of commitments are ... being made all the time in organizations" (1995: 85). However, in order to evaluate the commitments made to employees, events must be noticed. Until an event is noticed, sensemaking and evaluation cannot occur (Starbuck and Milliken, 1988), and we argue, PC evaluation cannot occur. Louis and Sutton suggest that individuals rely on "habits of mind" in which we engage in much of our behavior without paying attention to it (1991: 55). They also argue that a trigger is needed for individuals to switch gears from an automatic mode into cognitively attending to the situation and begin sensemaking. Sensemaking, then, is linked to PC evaluation in that "it highlights the invention that precedes interpretation" (Weick, 1995: 14).
Sensemaking has been distinguished from simply noticing something in that "noticing refers to the activities of filtering, classifying, and comparing, whereas sensemaking refers more to interpretation and the activity of determining what the noticed cues mean" (Weick, 1995: 51). Although noticing increases our awareness of something as potentially relevant to us, sensemaking "is about the enlargement of small cues" that are originally noticed, and involves a search for "contexts within which small details fit together and make sense" (Weick, 1995: 133). We believe that social comparisons provide such a context for making sense of employees' PCs, and we examine the relationships between triggers, social comparisons and PC evaluation to better understand these processes.
Self-referent Comparisons
To move beyond simply noticing an event to actively making sense of it and determining its salience to oneself, additional cognitive processing is necessary. We argue that social comparisons, and in particular self-referent comparisons, assist individuals in making sense of workplace events that specifically involve oneself. Self-referent comparisons involve comparisons made with oneself and include comparisons involving one's own past, the present situation and/ or some ideal situation (Kulik and Ambrose, 1992). For example, individuals might compare job duties from a prior position with current job duties to help make sense of their current obligations (a self-past comparison). Individuals might also compare current job accomplishments with established performance goals (a self-present comparison). And, what employee has never made a comparison between his/her current job situation and some ideal job (a self-future comparison)? In each case, some event triggers individuals to consciously think about what is happening, and self-referent comparisons help us make sense of the situations. We are not suggesting that individuals never consider their employment relationship without engaging in social comparisons. However, in the absence of some serendipitous act (e.g., an unexpected salary increase that one dares not question), social comparisons provide an important sensemaking mechanism for PC evaluation (O'Neill and Mone, 2005). We are also not suggesting that trigger events like those described above never lead to referent-other comparisons. Indeed, the uncertainty that individuals face may be so overwhelming that it exceeds the limits of one's own sensemaking abilities. However, as the most promixal referents available to individuals, self-referents are the most relevant and useful (Goodman, 1974; Kulik and Ambrose, 1992), especially in situations involving primarily oneself. From this, we offer the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1a: Triggers involving oneself are positively associated with self-referent comparison.
Morrison and Robinson (1997) suggest that the frequency of PC breach is influenced by how closely employees monitor their employment agreements. Monitoring, in and of itself, does not discriminate between the various social cues that individuals gather; it relies primarily on individuals making sense of what is observed (Miller and Jablin, 1991). Engaging in a self-referent comparison provides the unique opportunity to switch from an automatic processing mode into cognitively attending to something important (Louis and Sutton, 1991)--in this case, evaluating one's PC. As a result, self-referent comparisons are likely to result in increased PC evaluation. We are not suggesting that one must select a self-referent before engaging in PC evaluation, but rather, that as more self-referent comparisons occur, PC evaluations also increase.
Hypothesis 1b: Self-referent comparison is positively associated with PC evaluation.
Other-referent Comparisons
Recent research has suggested that peers can be an important source of information for fairness determinations (Lamertz, 2002). Such comparisons are considered other-referent comparisons in that they involve comparisons between oneself and some other individual. Common work-related interactions that may trigger selection of an other-referent include attending professional meetings, attending training sessions in which individuals have a chance to network with others, observing the promotion of a co-worker, conversations with individuals at other firms, or learning about someone else receiving organizational rewards. The difference between triggers involving oneself and these triggers is that there is likely to be much greater uncertainty surrounding these situations due to the involvement of other individuals. Although self-referents involve the most proximal--and most useful--source for comparisons...
|
