See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227544223

Towards a Dynamic Model of the Psychological Contract

Article  in  Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour · June 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2007.00330.x

CITATIONS READS

135 1,961

2 authors, including:

René Schalk
Tilburg University
210 PUBLICATIONS   4,393 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

empowerment View project

The analysis and design of mental information work View project

All content following this page was uploaded by René Schalk on 12 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 37:2
0021–8308

Towards a Dynamic Model of the Psychological

René
Original
Psychological
Blackwell
Oxford,
Journal
JTSB
©
0021-8308
XXX
2007Schalk
Articles
The
UK
for Robert
Publishing
theand
Contract
Author
Theory E. compilation
Journal
Ltd RoeBehaviour
of Social ©The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Contract

RENÉ SCHALK AND ROBERT E. ROE

The term psychological contract emerged in the literature about forty-five years ago;
it refers to a concept that captures implicit ideas about the employee-organization
relationship. The term was first used in the context of work organizations by
Argyris in 1960, as a footnote in Understanding Organizational Behavior (Argyris, 1960).
Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, and Solley (1962) elaborate the concept in a
case study of a utility company. Levinson and colleagues applied Menninger’s (1958)
concept of the “psychotherapy contract,” which ascribes the intangible aspects of
the contractual relationship that exists between psychoanalysts and patients, to the
work setting. They define the psychological contract, or “unwritten contract,” as
the sum of all mutual expectations between the organization and the employee.
It includes what both parties are entitled to receive and what each is obliged to
provide to the other. The underlying idea is that an exchange relationship exists
between the organization and the worker, as previously conceptualized by Barnard
and Simon (see March & Simon, 1958) and elaborated in equity theory and social
exchange theory (Homans, 1961; Adams, 1965).
Levinson and colleagues pointed out that psychological contracts are largely
implicit and unspoken, and they frequently antedate the formal relationship between
a person and an organization. Some of the expectations (e.g., regarding salary and
workload) concern concrete issues, but others are related to less tangible matters
(e.g., dignity at work, opportunity for growth, and a sense of being cared for by
the organization), which are revealed only indirectly. Nonetheless, all of these
expectations are assumed to determine the relationship between the organization
and the employee.
In this conceptualization, the psychological contract binds together individuals
and organizations (Herriot & Pemberton, 1995). It makes their actions predictable
and helps them to realize their goals (McFarlane Shore & Tetrick, 1994). The strategies,
structures, and processes of organizations determine what they want from their
employees and what they feel able to offer to them, in addition to affecting the way
that contract negotiations are conducted and the nature of the contracts that are
reached collectively (Herriot & Pemberton, 1995).

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007. Published by Blackwell
Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
168 René Schalk and Robert E. Roe
Research by Kotter (1973), which aimed to develop an operationalization
for mutual expectations, showed that organizational expectations are difficult to
operationalize. Because there is no single organizational counterpart for the
individual, and because the expectations of organizational members are far from
homogeneous, the two sets of expectations are difficult to balance.
Rousseau (1990, 1995, 2005) introduced a more focused view of the psychological
contract, conceiving it as “an individual’s beliefs regarding reciprocal obligations”
that arises within the context of the relationship between an organization and an
employee (Rousseau, 1990, p. 390). Such contracts encompass the perceptions
that employees have of the implicit and explicit reciprocal promises that exist
between them and their organizations, and their perceptions of what each party
is entitled to receive as a function of those promises (Rousseau & McLean Parks,
1993). According to this perspective, the psychological contract does not have
two levels (individual and organizational); it is an intra-individual perception that
exists in the eye of the beholder. The organization provides the context in which
the psychological contracts of its employees exist (e.g., Guzzo, Noonan & Elron,
1994).
The psychological contracts of employees are assumed to develop from beliefs
as individual employees feel obligated to make particular contributions in exchange
for particular benefits. According to Rousseau, psychological contracts are perceived
obligations, and not merely expectations (Rousseau, 1990). Psychological contracts
lend structure to expectations concerning future exchanges, thereby reducing
uncertainty (e.g., by defining roles and specifying future courses of action). The
contract also plays a role in creating social units (e.g., partnerships, organizations,
joint ventures), and managing interdependencies between individuals, groups, and
organizations (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993).

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT AND COMMITMENT

A psychological contract is a perception of mutual reciprocal obligations. How the

concept of the psychological contract is related to organizational commitment is
a fundamental question. Psychological contracts influence commitment (Conway
& Briner, 2005). Changes that affect the contract may have implications for
commitment and employee behavior. Employees respond to the organization’s
attempts to manage careers, reward, and commitment (Sparrow, 1996). Contracting
involves a dynamic process through which employee aspirations, motivations, career,
and commitment evolve (Herriot & Pemberton, 1995).
In our view, the existence of a psychological contract implies that the employee
is in a certain state of commitment; he or she is willing to accept work roles and tasks
offered by the organization and to carry them out in accordance with certain
standards. Organizational (affective) commitment implies a readiness to act for
the benefit of the organization (Brown, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997).

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
 Psychological Contract 169
Although contracts are, by definition, accepted voluntary agreements between
parties to do something (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993), the terms of the agreed-
upon contract may vary in the extent to which they converge with the employee’s needs
and expectations. The acceptance of a contract by an employee implies a willingness
to follow through with its terms (see also Rousseau & Schalk, 2000). The employee,
however, develops a perception of whether the contract is personally more favorable
or less favorable. In other words, employees evaluate the actual “state of affairs”
with regard to the mutual obligations between employer and employee, relative
to their needs and expectations (see also Shore & Barksdale, 1998).
Terms that are more favorable for the employee are likely to be associated with
a more favorable perception of the organization, thereby resulting in greater
commitment to the relationship. The perception of (un)favorability thus influences
organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1990; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982;
Steers, 1977) and, consequently, the readiness to accept work roles and tasks, the
willingness to engage in extra-role behaviors, and the willingness to avoid tardiness
and poor performance, and other negative behaviors. Good contracts result in
organizational citizens that are more committed, motivated, and trusting (Sparrow,
1996). Many studies have confirmed that psychological contracts that are more
favorable are related to higher levels of organizational commitment (Cassar, 2001;
Freese & Schalk, 1996; Guest & Conway, 1997, 1998; Guest, Mackenzie Davey
& Patch, 1998; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood & Bolino, 2002; Turnley & Feldman,
1998; Ten Brink, Den Hartog, Koopman & Van Muijen, 1999).
On the other hand, employees who feel that the organization has not fulfilled
its side of the bargain are less likely to engage in organizational citizenship behavior
or other extra-role behaviors (Lewis-McLear & Taylor, 1997; Robinson & Morrison,
1995; Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1998). Employees
who believe that the organization has overstepped the boundaries of their psychological
contracts (contract violation) are more likely to have high levels of tardiness,
absenteeism, and intent to leave (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994; Freese, Heinen &
Schalk, 1999; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Schalk, Freese &
Van den Bosch, 1995; Sparrow, 1996; Turnley & Feldman, 1998).

THE DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS

The aim of this article is to develop a model and a set of propositions that can
guide future research on the dynamics of psychological contracts and behaviors.
The concept of the psychological contract is inherently dynamic. Psychological
contracts are established at a certain point in time, and they are assumed to be
able to change over time. Psychological contracts can be breached or violated,
and can be abandoned or deserted. However, our knowledge on the way in which
psychological contracts develop, and on the conditions that initiate and influence
changes in the psychological contract is still limited. In addition, we know little

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
170 René Schalk and Robert E. Roe
about the way in which changes in the psychological contract affect changes in
attitudes and behaviors.
Profound changes in psychological contracts may be caused either by organizational
changes (for example, “new deals” that are imposed by organizational transformations:
Schalk & Freese, 1997) or by individual changes (for example, entering a new phase
in life that is associated with different needs and expectations: Schalk, 2004). Critical
events that can cause changes in psychological contracts occur quite frequently in
organizations (for examples, see Conway & Briner, 2002). The findings of two small-
scale studies involving in-depth interviews with employees provide a good illustration.
In a small sample of Dutch employees who had permanent employment contracts
(N = 27; 56% employed by profit organizations, 48% female, 67% non-managerial),
fifteen indicated that they had experienced events in which they had strongly
expected the organization to fulfill an obligation that it ultimately did not fulfill.
Three employees had not received a pay raise or reward, and four had been denied
promotions or particular positions; four had not been supported by the organization
or had seen promises that had not been kept, and three others had experienced
incidents that were related to the content of their work. Respondents reported
that they had reacted with anger and disappointment, a strong need for knowing
the reasons for the decision, decreased commitment, and stronger intent to leave.
Unexpected positive events were reported by nine employees: one reported having
received a bonus, six had received promotions or pay raises, and two reported
receiving special treatment or recognition.
Among forty employees (35% male, 73% non-managerial) of an Australian
telecommunications company who were interviewed about their experiences with
organizational changes in the company, eighty percent claimed to have experienced
violations of their expectations. The nature of these incidents involved work-related
issues (28%), relocation (18%), the denial of a pay raise or reward (18%), or the denial
of a promotion or particular position (15%). Almost all (93%) of the employees
also reported unexpected positive incidents. These incidents had involved bonuses,
vouchers, or awards (32%); positive work outcomes (20%); customer satisfaction (15%);
or promotions and pay raises (13%).
As these findings illustrate, events that violate expectations about obligations
that are included in the psychological contract (negative as well as positive) probably
occur quite frequently. These events may imply either gradual, continuous change
or discontinuous, sudden change at the side of the organization. The implications of
these changes for employee attitudes and behavior, however, are not clear. For example,
one phenomenon that has thus far received little attention from organizational-behavior
researchers is the fact that an employee’s commitment may remain relatively stable
over time, despite apparent variations in the exchange relationship between the
organization and the individual, but that it can decrease (or increase) suddenly
because of circumstances that the employee perceives as critical.
The situation that is described above seems to suggest that commitment accumulates
over time (Meyer, Bobocle & Allen, 1991; VandenBerg & Scarpello, 1994) and that

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
 Psychological Contract 171
it is maintained with little attention until some triggering event (change) sets off a
re-evaluation of this type of behavior (Guzzo, Noonan & Elron, 1994). Although
the psychological contract is always present, it receives full attention only in
response to certain situations. The psychological contract seems to include a
standard for evaluating whether changes are, or are not, important enough to
respond to. The psychological contract is therefore not “operating at all times”
(Schein, 1965), nor is it continually assessed through a constant method of accounting.
More specifically, the psychological contract seems to be a mental model that
provides cues to individuals with regard to the types of events they can expect and
how they should interpret them (Rousseau, 1995, p. 30).

CHANGE AND STABILITY

In order to explain the various ways in which psychological contracts can evolve
over time, we rely on self-regulation theory (Bandura, 1988; Carver & Scheier,
1990; Karoly, 1993; Latham & Locke, 1991; Vancouver, 2000). We postulate that
employees monitor changes in their organizational environment and evaluate
these with the help of their psychological contract. The psychological contract is
a mental model of the employee-organization relationship that serves to interpret
events and that is the basis for action and subsequent attitudes.
Self-regulation theory postulates (1) that there is a comparison of a variable
state with a desired state, and (2) that there will be a corrective action to significant
discrepancies. In employment situations, employees observe the actual behavior
of the organization (related to employer obligations) and themselves (related to the
employee obligations). They compare the behavior of the organization with their
own ideas about the behaviors that are implied in the current psychological contract.
This means that employees monitor and evaluate the possible occurrence of deviations
from agreed-upon mutual obligations within the framework of the existing
psychological contract.
With respect to the corrective action to significant discrepancies we assume
that the psychological contract implies standards for what is considered to be
acceptable. We postulate the existence of two sets of standards, one defining
acceptable discrepancies, and the other defining unacceptable discrepancies.
We refer to these standards as the “limits of acceptance” and the “limit of
tolerance”.

Proposition 1: The psychological contract includes acceptance bands that determine

the boundaries of what is considered as appropriate behavior with respect to the
mutual obligations included in the psychological contract.
Proposition 2: The psychological contract includes a tolerance band that determines
what is considered as inappropriate or intolerable behavior with respect to the
mutual obligations implied in the psychological contract.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
172 René Schalk and Robert E. Roe
Depending on whether the perceived discrepancies are interpreted as overstepping
these standards, we assume that employees will engage in different types of corrective
responses, i.e. balancing, revising, or deserting. Below we will explain under which
conditions the different types of responses will occur and how they differ from
each other.

Proposition 3: There are three different patterns of responses to changes in employer

behavior related to mutual obligations included in the psychological contract:
balancing (positive and negative), revision (positive and negative), and desertion.

In the case of minor discrepancies between perceptions and expectations, an employee

may take corrective action without changing the psychological contract. In novel
situations or situations that involve drastic deviation from the psychological contract,
the employee is similarly likely to take corrective action. These actions, however,
may result in a change of the psychological contract. As a cognitive model, the
psychological contract serves as a frame of reference that makes it easier to evaluate
events that take place within the work domain (cognitive ease). People attempt to
fit events into this schema as long as they continue to perceive it as valid. The contract
model is applicable to a particular range of acceptable experiences; in other words,
there is a “zone of acceptance” (Rousseau, 1995, pp. 148–149, also referred to as the
“zone of indifference”: Barnard, 1938; Simon & Barnard, 1976). This zone of
acceptance refers to the perceived variety of behaviors that one party will accept
from another party without question. In our model this zone is bounded by the
limits of acceptable behaviors.

Balancing

When the psychological contract is stable, we assume that the relationship between
the psychological contact and behavior is regulated in a more or less automated
way as proposed by control theory (e.g., Campion & Lord, 1982; Lord & Hanges,
1987). Sandelands, Glynn, and Larson (1991) argue, “The differences between human
social systems and control systems are such that they prevent either from serving
as an adequate metaphor for the other” (p. 1110). They reject the control theory
approach, stating that people neither act nor regulate their behavior automatically,
mechanically, or unthinkingly, as a mechanical system does. Although we agree
with Sandelands and colleagues (1991) that this applies to the total spectrum of
human behavior, we are of the opinion that the control metaphor is appropriate
for describing a particular type of human behavior: behavior that is regulated by
a “fixed” cognitive mechanism, as in the case of a stable psychological contract.
In situations in which the contract is not clearly affected, people do tend to act
rather automatically, predictably, and mechanically without giving much thought
to their behavior.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
 Psychological Contract 173
Revision

When mutual obligations change over time, however, different patterns should be
used to describe changes in psychological contracts and the consequences of such
changes. In this case, control theory does no longer apply, and employees have to
rely on more conscious and deliberate forms of self-regulation. The development
of the exchange relationship between employer and employee, in relation to the
employee’s perceptual biases regarding that development, may create significant
changes in the employee’s perception of the contract. If the change implies an
overstepping of the standard of acceptability, a revision of the psychological contract
is to be expected. That is, the terms of the contract will be reconsidered, and a new
contract will be established. In other words, the information that employees obtain
from observing their own and their employers’ behavior may alter their ideas about
what they owe the organization and what the organization owes in return (Salancik
& Pfeffer, 1978). The shift to a more instrumental perspective in MBA alumni
described by Robinson et al. (1994) is a good example. Although most of the
employee obligations that were perceived by these MBAs decreased over time,
most of the employer obligations (as perceived by the MBAs) increased. The
passing of time permits employees (as well as employers) to estimate whether the
other party has honored promises that have been made for the future (Herriot &
Pemberton, 1995).

Desertion

Revision of the psychological contract will only occur when the deviation is mod-
erate and within the range of what is seen as negotionable. In case of extreme
events or changes that are perceived as intolerable the psychological contract will
be deserted. Employees loose commitment at once and no longer feel obligated
to keep the promises implied in the psychological contract.

THE CHANGE MODEL

Figure 1 illustrates the general patterns of changes in psychological contracts that

have been described before.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the psychological contract serves as a cognitive model
of monitoring behavior, and it continues to serve as a basis for action until it becomes
clear to the employee that the contract is no longer valid. This may occur because
of unexpected events or in response to a gradual drift that leads to the crossing
of critical boundaries. In such cases, the contract is no longer valid in the individual’s
perception, and it is prone to revision. When the changes cannot be incorporated
into a revised contract, the contract will be deserted.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
174 René Schalk and Robert E. Roe

Figure 1. Change Model of the Psychological Contract.

The mental model of the psychological contract includes beliefs about which
behaviors fall within the boundaries of acceptability and which are intolerable in
the interaction with the organization (Schalk & Freese, 1997). These boundaries
of what employees perceive acceptable and tolerable with respect to reciprocal
obligations should be taken into account in any explanation of changes and con-
sequences of changes in psychological contracts.
In this context, the psychological contract is a set of beliefs that employees hold
with regard to two dimensions: the activities of the organization relative to employer
obligations and the activities of individual employees relative to their obligations
towards the organization. The activities that are related to mutual obligations may
change over time. The actual behaviors of both parties influence the perception
of mutual obligations.
As a cognitive model, the psychological contract is balanced under normal
circumstances (Rousseau, 1995). In other words, balanced implies being in a state
of homeostasis. As mentioned above, this model serves as a frame of reference into
which employees attempt to fit events, as long as they continue to perceive the
schema to be valid. The behavior of the organization and the employee (as perceived
by the employee) varies over time, with fluctuations within a given range. For example,
employees may work harder, be more helpful to colleagues, or be more successful
and perform more effectively on some days than they do on others; conditions at
work or the support of supervisors fluctuate over time as well. The psychological
contract allows for such changes within the limits of acceptability. The boundaries
of what is considered acceptable are determined by the obligations that are
deemed important within the framework of the existing psychological contract.
Tolerable variation is determined by the basic values of individual employees,
regardless of the framework of specific obligations in the existing contract (Schalk
& Freese, 1997). In practice, tolerability has only a lower limit, as it is hard to imagine
a type of positive action towards another party that would be perceived as intolerable.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
 Psychological Contract 175
Deviations can be positive or negative. Positive deviations are assumed to have
less weight (and therefore to have a broader zone of acceptability) than negative
deviations do. This is because of the “negativity effect” (Kanouse & Hanson, 1971),
which also plays a role in the prospect theory of decision-making, as proposed by
Kahneman and Tversky (1979): there is a positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations
(Peeters & Czapinsky, 1990).
When the terms of the contract are agreed upon, they always fall within the
tolerable variation that is determined by basic values. Employees do not voluntarily
accept contract terms that violate their basic values (Rousseau & Schalk, 2000).
When basic values are threatened in the work situation (e.g., the prohibition of
practices that are considered obligatory in a religious context, or when the work
environment becomes excessively dangerous or threatening), the boundaries of
tolerable variation will be considered as having been overstepped. Responses from
employees of home-care organizations when asked what would be intolerable for
them in their employment relationships provided such answers as “If my health
was affected;” “If I were no longer able to build a relationship with clients or to
provide quality care;” “If my job was no longer challenging or fun;” “If the
organization were to become too negative;” “If I cease to be treated as a person;”
and “If I were to be confronted with sexual harassment.”
Specific contracts include a zone of acceptance that reflects what the employee
feels is acceptable variation within the agreed-upon contractual obligations. For
example, an employee may expect feedback from the supervisor to consist of weak
or moderate praise or criticism (within the limits of acceptability). The employee
is therefore likely to find strong praise either surprising or inconsistent with the
framework of the existing psychological contract (i.e., it is likely to exceed the
limits of acceptability), and strong criticism may be found intolerable, as it violates
the employee’s basic value of maintaining self-esteem (i.e., it exceeds the limits of
tolerability).
Employment relationships that are based upon trust and good faith are likely
to be accompanied by broad zones of acceptability. For example, employees who
perceive their managers as credible are likely to have a broader zone of change
acceptance than do employees who assign low credibility to their managers.
There are three typical patterns of variations in organizational and individual
behavior. Variations in the perceived behavior of the organization, the individual,
or both that remain within the limits of acceptability are of no consequence to the
psychological contract, and thus to commitment and subsequent behavior. Positive
behavioral deviations by the organization are likely to be followed by positive
behavioral deviations by the individual, while negative deviations are likely to
have the opposite effect. This pattern is called balancing.
If the perceived behavior of the organization, individual, or both reaches or
exceeds the limits of acceptability, the consequences are likely to change. In case of
negative deviations, employees are likely to reconsider the contract and to exhibit
a decline in commitment and subsequent behaviors (Kotter, 1973, Robinson &

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
176 René Schalk and Robert E. Roe

Figure 2. Examples of balancing, revision, and desertion.

Morrison, 1995; Robinson et al., 1994; Rousseau, 1995; Sparrow, 1996). In case of
positive deviations, commitment is expected to increase. Furthermore, clarification
about and re-negotiation of the contract is likely, resulting in the creation of a new
contract, which is likely to have positive effects on commitment and behavior.
This pattern is known as revision, as it may lead to a revised contract.
When negative behavioral deviation exceeds the negative limit of tolerability,
contracts are likely to break down. Accordingly, commitment is likely to drop
strongly and behavioral responses are likely to be extreme. Open conflicts, expressions
of emotion, and signs of aggression and depression may also occur (Rousseau, 1990).
This condition is called desertion. Figure 2 gives examples of balancing, revision,
and desertion.

Proposition 4: Balancing, revision and desertion influence commitment and

employee behavior.

The perspective on commitment that is implied by this dynamic model of the

psychological contract differs from those that are implied by the value-expectancy
model (Heckhausen, 1980; Vroom, 1964), goal-setting theory (e.g., Locke, Latham
& Erez, 1988), and other models. Our model assumes neither a monotone relationship
between motivating factors and behavior nor a constant computational evaluation

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
 Psychological Contract 177
process in which positive and negative factors compensate for one another. This
dynamic model assumes that commitment is durable and somewhat insensitive to
situational conditions. Nonetheless, it is possible for commitment to change drastically
in response to a single event that violates a norm, as perceived by the employee.
This model expands on the model of psychological contract violation that was
developed by Morrison and Robinson (1997); these authors focus on antecedent
factors that influence the development of psychological contract violation. In contrast,
our model attempts to capture the process of psychological contract change, as well
as the consequences of these changes.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE

The validity of the dynamic model of the psychological contract is an important

issue that must be addressed in further research. The model’s validity concerns
the structural aspects of the model and its supposed dynamics. In terms of structure,
the model attributes a role to perceptions of obligations regarding the multiple
dimensions of individual and organizational behavior. Psychological-contract
studies have indeed shown that the obligations of both employee and employer are
important determinants of organizational commitment (e.g., Robinson, Kraatz &
Rousseau, 1994; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000).
As for the dynamics of the model, a study by Freese (2007) reveals that individuals
do indeed evaluate actual behavior with regard to two sets of norms (limits of
acceptability and tolerability, proposition 1 and 2) and that the three patterns that
have been described exist (proposition 3), and can have attitudinal and behavioral
consequences (proposition 4).
Forty-two employees in three home-care organizations were interviewed concerning
their experiences with organizational changes that were taking place at the time
of the interview. Several examples of processes related to revision were found. At
the time of the interview, some of the respondents were experiencing an imbalance
in their psychological contracts or were thinking about the consequences of possible
future imbalances. For example, one female employee (age 41, 17 years in the home-
care organization, and two years of work experience as a home care nurse, with
a contract for 32 hours a week) reported that the working methods in the organization
were becoming more businesslike. She was considering making a voluntary change
from her current position of team coordinator to a non-supervisory job. She
reported feeling that her psychological contract was not in balance and that she
was expected to do more for the organization—particularly with regard to working
extra hours—than the organization did for her.
Another female employee (age 33, five years in a home care organization, with
a contract for eight hours a week) wondered, “What they are up to now? I try to
remember that it’s only twenty percent; it’s only eight hours a week that you are
dependent. I will have to wait and see how it turns out. If it is not what I would

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
178 René Schalk and Robert E. Roe
like to have, I will go and try to find something else, because the way it is now is
not good. I have given them time until. . . . My commitment has changed very much.
Yes, at this moment, I am very clearly indifferent towards the organization. . . . If
they reorganize again, I will certainly leave.”
In addition to these examples of negative revisions, several examples of positive
revisions were reported as well. For example, one female employee (age 27, five
years in a home-care organization, one year of experience in an intake job, and
a contract for 24 hours a week) used the following terms to describe her new job:
“fun, great, keeps me awake, dynamic, higher pay.” A male manager (age 34, seven
years in a home-care organization and six months in a management job, with a
contract for 38 hours a week) reported having experienced considerable pleasure
in his work. He also reported that his new job was challenging; he found this to
be positive, although it did cost a great deal of energy.
Examples of desertion are likely to be found among employees who have voluntarily
quit their jobs because of problems at work. Interviews with twelve people who
reported having felt that their psychological contracts had been deserted revealed
differences in the processes that led up to the actual abandonment. Limiting
commitment to the work itself, and particularly contacts with clients, was a commonly
reported reaction to initial violations of the psychological contract. Two of the
twelve respondents reported they had initially reacted to violations by putting
more effort in their work. Emotional and behavioral reactions (conflicts, increased
absenteeism, putting less effort into work) were other commonly reported reactions.
The situations that led to the desertion of the contract were diverse; examples
included harassment or bullying by supervisors or colleagues, excessive work pressure,
unmet promises with respect to pay, opportunities for promotion or individual
development, rejection of individual ideas by the organization, excessively boring
work.
These examples illustrate that unexpected deviations from the limits of acceptance
and tolerance can have drastic consequences, not only for the contract as perceived
by the individual, but also for the level of commitment and subsequent organizational
behaviors. This is preliminary evidence that must be elaborated in future research
to demonstrate the model’s validity.

René Schalk
Organization Studies/Tranzo
Tilburg University
PO Box 90153
5000 LE Tilburg
the Netherlands
m.j.d.schalk@uvt.nl
Robert A. Roe
Organization and Strategy
University of Maastricht

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
 Psychological Contract 179
Acknowledgments. We extend our thanks to Denise Rousseau, Jone Pearce, and
Charissa Freese for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
We also wish to thank the participants in an AMR Theory Development workshop
in Boston and to the participants in a workshop entitled “Changes in Psychological
Contracts” in Tilburg, all of whom commented on the model. The examples that
are discussed in this article were derived from in-depth interviews held by Jennifer
Campbell, Nicky van Dijk, Charissa Freese, Martijn Paulen, Ronald Schouten,
and Charlotte Vermond.

REFERENCES

A, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental
social psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, pp. 267–299.
A, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. London: Tavistock Publications.
B, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In
V. Hamilton, G.H. Bower & N.H. Frijda (Eds.). Cognition, motivation and affect: A cognitive
science view. Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff, pp. 37– 61.
B, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
B, R.B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying
the existing construct typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230 –251.
C, M.A. & L, R.G.A. (1982). A control-systems conceptualization of the goal
setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 265 –287.
C, S. & C, C.L. (1994). The human effects of mergers and acquisitions.
In: Cooper, C.L. & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.). Trends in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 1. London:
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 47–61.
C, C.S. & S, M.F. (1990). Principles of self-regulation. Action and emotion.
In E.T. Higgens & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition. Vol. 2.
New York: Guilford, pp. 3 –52.
C, V. (2001). Violating psychological contract terms amongst Maltese public service
employees: occurrence and relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 194 –208.
C, N. & B, R. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological
contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 287–302.
C, N. & B, R.B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work. A critical
evaluation of theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
C-S, J.A-M. & K, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract
for the employment relationship: a large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies, 37,
903 –930.
F, C. (2007). Organizational change and the dynamics of psychological contracts: A longitudinal
study. PhD Dissertation, Tilburg University: Tilburg, The Netherlands.
F, C., H, J. & S, R. (1999). Organisatieverandering en het psychologisch
contract, betrokkenheid en intentie tot verloop bij werknemers in de thuiszorg [Organ-
izational change and the psychological contract, commitment, and intention to quit in
employees in home care]. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 15, 208–218.
F, C. & S, R. (1996). Implications of differences in psychological contracts for
human resource management. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5,
501–509.
G, D. & C, N. (1997). Employee motivation and the psychological contract (Issues in
People Management). London: Institute of Personnel and Development.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
180 René Schalk and Robert E. Roe
G, D. & C, N. (1998). Fairness at work and the psychological contract. (Issues in People
Management). London: Institute of Personnel and Development.
G, D., M D, K. & P, A. (1998). Employment contracts, psychological
contracts and innovative behavior: A conceptual model and empirical test. Paper presented at the
24th International Congress of Applied Psychology, August. San Francisco.
G, R.A., N, K.A. & E, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological
contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 4, 617–626.
H, H. (1980). Motivation und Handeln. Berlin: Springer.
H, P. & P, C. (1995). New deals: The revolution in managerial careers. New York,
Wiley.
H, G. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.
K, D. & T, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
K, D.E. & H, L.R. jr. (1971). Negativity in evaluations. In: E.E. Jones, D.E.
Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbitt, S. Valins & B. Weiner. Attibution: percieving the cause
of behavior. Morristown: General Learning Press, pp. 47–62.
K, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology,
44, 23 –52.
K, J.P. (1973). The psychological contract. California Management Review, 15, 91–99.
L, G.P., & L, E.A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
L, H., P, C.R., M, K.J., M, H.J. & S C.M. (1962). Men,
Management and Mental Health. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
L, S.W., T, W.H., B, J.M. & B, M.C. (2002). Not seeing eye
to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for
psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 39 –56.
L-ML, K. & T, S. (1997). Not seeing eye to eye: Implications of discrepant psychological
contracts and contract violation for the employment relationship. Boston: Academy of Management
Proceedings, pp. 335 –339.
L, E.A., L, G.P. & E, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 23–39.
L, R.G. & H, P.J. (1987). A control system model of organizational motivation:
theoretical development and applied implications. Behavioral Science, 32, 161–178.
MF S, L. & T, L.E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory
framework in the employment relationship. In: Cooper, C.L. & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.).
Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley, pp. 91–109.
M, J.G. & S, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
M, K. (1958). Theory of psychoanalytic technique. New York: Basic books.
M, J. & A, N. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–
18.
M, J.P. & A, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
M, J.P., B, D.R. & A, N.J. (1991). Development of organizational commitment
during the first year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences.
Journal of Management, 17, 717–733.
M, E.W. & R, S.L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of
how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226 –
256.
M, R.T., P, L.W. & S, R.M. (1982). Employee-Organization Linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
 Psychological Contract 181
P, G. & C, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The
distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. In: W. Stroebe &
M. Hewstone. European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
pp. 33 – 60.
P, L.W., P, J.L., T, A.M. & L, K.M. (1998). Differential perceptions
of employer’s inducements: Implications for psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 769 –782.
R, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 574 –599.
R, S.L., K, M.S. & R, D.M. (1994). Changing obligations and the
psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137–152.
R, S.L. & M, E.W. (1995). Organizational citizenship behavior: A psychological
contract perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289 –298.
R, S.L. & R, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245 –259.
R, D.M. (1990). New hire perspectives of their own and their employer’s obligations:
A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389 – 400.
R, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Understanding written and unwritten
agreements. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
R, D.M. (2005). I-deals, idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. Armonk, NY:
ME Sharpe.
R, D.M. & ML P, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations.
In: Staw, B.M. (Ed.). Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 15. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press,
pp. 1–43.
Rousseau, D.M. & Schalk, R. (Eds.) (2000). Psychological contracts in employment: Cross national
perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
S, G.R. & P, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224 –253.
S, L., G, M.A. & L, J.R. (1991). Control theory and social behavior
in the workplace. Human Relations, 44, 1107–1130.
S, R. (2004). Changes in the employment relation across time. In: J.A-M. Coyle-
Shapiro, L.M. Shore, M.S. Taylor & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.). The employment relationship.
Examining psychological and contextual perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 284–
311.
S, R. & F, C. (1997). New facets of commitment in response to organizational
change: Research trends and the Dutch experience. In: Cooper, C.L. & Rousseau,
D.M. (Eds.). Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 4. New York: Wiley, pp. 107–124.
S, R., F, C. & V  B, J. (1995). Het psychologisch contract van part-
timers en full-timers: Een onderzoek naar de verwachtingen van werknemers over
wederzijdse verplichtingen tussen organisatie en werknemer in de werksituatie [The
psychological contract of part-time and full-time employees: An investigation into the
expectations of employees about the reciprocal obligations between the organization
and the employee in the employment situation]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 8, 307–317.
S, R. & R, D.M. (2001). Psychological contracts in employment. In: Anderson,
N., Ones, D.S., Kepir Sinangil, H. & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.). Handbook of industrial, work
& organizational psychology; Vol. 2. Organizational Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage,
pp. 133–142.
S, E.H. (1965). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs. New York: Prentice Hall.
S, L.M. & B, K. (1998). Examining degree of balance and level of obligation
in the employment relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 731–744.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
182 René Schalk and Robert E. Roe
S, H.A. & B, C.I. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes
in administrative organization (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
S, P.R. (1996). Careers and the psychological contract: Understanding the European
context. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 479 –500.
S, R.M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 22, 46–56.
T B, B.E.H., D H, D.N., K, P.L. &  M, J.J. (1999). De
bindende kracht van inspirerend leiderschap [The binding force of inspirational
leadership]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 12, 241–254.
T, W.H. & F, D.C. (1998). Psychological contract violation during corporate
restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37, 71–83.
V, J.B. (2000). Self-regulation in organizational settings: A tale of two paradigms.
In: M. Boekaerts & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.). Handbook of self regulation. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, pp. 303 –341.
V, R.J., & S, V. (1994). A longitudinal assessment of the determinant
relationship between employee commitments to the occupation and the organization.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 535 –547.
V, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

View publication stats