The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm
CDI
16,4
342
Received 14 October 2010
Revised 3 December 2010,
28 March 2011
Accepted 29 March 2011
Career Development International
Vol. 16 No. 4, 2011
pp. 342-363
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/13620431111158779
A model of psychological contract
creation upon organizational
entry
Maria Tomprou
Heinz College and Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, and
Ioannis Nikolaou
Department of Management Science and Technology,
Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of a number of factors in
newcomers’ psychological contract development.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach taken is a literature review with the development
of a conceptual model.
Findings – The paper contributes to the psychological contract literature by adopting a sensemaking
perspective and focusing on the role of newcomers’ pre-entry expectations and emotions on the
psychological contract creation process. The authors also discuss the differential role of contract
makers and facilitators and the modes they employ to influence newcomers’ psychological contract
creation.
Originality/value – Psychological contract research has emphasized the consequences of
psychological contract breach and violation. The paper’s aim is to direct attention at understanding
the psychological contract in its very initial stages. The authors discuss implications for research and
practice on managing psychological contract creation.
Keywords Psychological contract, Socialization, Sense making, Employee behaviour, Employment
Paper type Conceptual paper
A concept that “neatly captures the spirit of our times” (Guest, 1998, p. 649) regarding the
contemporary employment relationships is the psychological contract. The plethora of
literature on this topic has to date predominantly focused on the processes of contract
violation and its attitudinal and behavioral aftermath (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000;
Edwards et al., 2003; Lo and Aryee, 2003; Robinson, 1996; Robinson and Morrison, 2000;
Turnley and Feldman, 1998, 1999a, b). This wealthy theoretical and empirical work has
contributed substantially to our understanding of the properties of the psychological
contract and its relevant outcomes.
However, we believe that this approach is rather pessimistic. The conventional
approach conceptualises the process through which psychological contracts are formed,
managed and breached (Rousseau, 1995, 2001). It is generally accepted among
researchers that contract violation refers to “the rule and not to the exception”
Part of this research was funded by the State Scholarships Foundation (IKY) to the first author.
The authors are also grateful to Denise Rousseau for her support and helpful comments during
the development of this article.
as predicted by Robinson and Rousseau (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000; Robinson and Psychological
Morrison, 2000; Turnley and Feldman, 2000). Here, we examine psychological contract contract creation
by looking in particular at the dynamics of psychological contract creation.
Psychological contract creation refers to the sensemaking process including an
amalgam of promises exchanged by the newcomer and the organizational insiders, as
experienced by the focal individual during her first days at work.
Psychological contract creation is very important from a careers perspective, as well. 343
Changes occurring in the employment relationships, as a result of the current economic
climate might have led employees to embed the new psychological contract in their
mentality (Baruch and Bozionelos, 2010). The traditional protean career shifts its focus of
career management to the individual, while the organisation’s role is to provide employees
with opportunities for growth and development (Briscoe and Finkelstein, 2009; Hess and
Jepsen, 2009). As a result, the newly recruited employees have also probably adopted a
different way of creating their psychological contract compared to previous generations.
Here, we consider a number of characteristics, such as pre-entry expectations, stemming
from previous work experiences and pre-entry information about the organization, certain
individual differences, and post-entry social influence that may affect psychological
contract creation. We also incorporate in our model the role of emotions, since upon entry
emotions can be considered a good indicator of comprehending how psychological contract
creation is perceived and experienced by the newcomer. We distinguish psychological
contract creation from psychological contract development since we mainly focus on
psychological contract processes occurring during the encounter stage of socialization.
Psychological contract creation is a process taking place during newcomers’ first days at
work and lasts for a few weeks. During this stage, the outsider becomes a newcomer and
faces the new working reality; promises and information are intensively exchanged and
expectations are being revised (Louis, 1980). On the other hand, psychological contract
development accounts for a longer time period (almost up to a year) and may include
perceptions of fulfilled and/or violated promise-based obligations (De Vos et al., 2003).
We have decided to concentrate on psychological contract creation during the first
days of employment for a number of reasons:
(1) A few studies have explored the early processes of psychological contract
development (De Vos et al., 2003, 2005; Rousseau, 1990; Thomas and Anderson,
1998). In these studies, participants have provided retrospective reports of their
perceptions of contracts at entry, with some reports involving lengthy periods
(e.g. four waves: first month, third month, sixth month and 12th month
(De Vos et al., 2003), two waves: first year, second year (Robinson et al., 1994); two
waves: first day and after eight weeks (Thomas and Anderson, 1998)). Although
retrospection over such lengthy periods does not necessarily lead to biased
reports, there is ample evidence suggesting that retrospective reports are prone to
various problems (Reis and Gable, 2000).
(2) The findings of these studies have shown that newcomer’s expectations and
perceived promises tend to change over time contingent on the employer’s
actual inducements and insiders’ perceptions of the psychological contract. Yet
these studies do not fully tap the dynamics occurring during psychological
contract creation. For instance, none of these studies explains the sources
and modes of psychological contract-related information, although they appear
to recognize their influential role.
CDI (3) Theory and research on organizational entry have primarily emphasized
16,4 newcomer’s cognitions and behaviors (i.e. how they think and act related to
their new job and organization) rather than newcomer’s emotions (i.e. how they
feel related to the new job and organization). Although emotions are considered
inherent in the sensemaking processes (Weick, 1995), they are systematically
neglected under the scope of contract creation with a few exceptions mainly
344 within the framework of psychological contract violation (Conway and Briner,
2002; Robinson and Morrison, 2000).
(4) Our conceptual model attempts to respond to recent calls (Bauer and Erdogan,
2011) for integration of the psychological contract and socialization literatures,
since there is limited interplay between the two approaches, although they are both
very significant for understanding newcomers’ adjustment in the organization.

Our aim is to provide a testable model of psychological contract creation upon entry,
from a socio-cognitive perspective. Our proposed model is graphically shown in
Figure 1.

Overview of the psychological contract creation

Since Rousseau’s (1989, 1995) landmark work, psychological contracts have been
construed as the perceived agreement of promise – based on obligations between the
focal person and the employing organization. According to Rousseau (2011, p. 193)
“psychological contract theory represents the employment relationship in terms of the
subjective beliefs of employees and their employers”. By definition, a psychological
contract implies a subjective nature (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1998) indicating that in
every mind there is a different world (Sparrow, 1996). A key issue in psychological
contracts is the belief that some kind of promise is made and a consideration is offered
in exchange for it, binding the parties to some set of reciprocal obligations (Rousseau,
1989, 2011). However, empirical work has shown that when newcomers enter an
organization, they already have expectations about the job itself, the organization and
their working relationship, which may function as the basis on which psychological
contracts are being formulated (Thomas and Anderson, 1998). Although not all
expectations are contractual (Rousseau, 1990, 1995), some actually are and therefore
cannot be neglected during psychological contract creation. Such expectations form the
basis of early evaluations of the organization’s (in)ability to fulfill contractual
obligations and might create a “reality shock”, which in turn can sow the seeds of
future (dis)engagement. Indeed, findings have consistently reported that employees
change their perceived obligations to the organization as a function of their evaluations
of the inducements and obligations offered by the organization adjusting thus their
psychological contract with the employing organization (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler,
2002; De Vos et al., 2003; Robinson et al., 1994; Tsai and Yang, 2010). Expectations
seem to be revised contingent on the messages conveyed by the contract makers;
pre-entry expectations can be either met, unmet or indeed, even overmet. Met and
overmet expectations are incorporated into a newcomer’s psychological contract.
In particular, expectations that are actualized through implicit or explicit promising
within the new employing relationship become part of the new psychological contract.
On the other hand, the promises exchanged between the newcomer and the employer
about the employment relationship establish the main fundamentals of the focal person’s
 Pre-entry expectations
Psychological
Cognitive biases contract creation
Previous work Anticipatory
experiences expectations
Pre-entry information

345
Contract makers Post entry experiences Facilitators
Power and authority Individual differences No power and Authority
Promising work ideologies Informing
Formal modes of Sensegivers Informal modes of
sensegiving - contracting sensegiving - facilitating

Monitoring

Emotional reactions
Intensity/type

Psychological contract creation

Update Expectations
Exchanged Promises Figure 1.
Fluctuation of Emotions A model of psychological
contract creation

psychological contract, as these comprise the main components of the unwritten

agreement between the two parties. Promises are the inherent property of psychological
contracting, as these messages encoded by individuals as promissory signify
psychological contract creation (Rousseau, 2001, 2011). Rousseau (2001) argues that
promises express intentions to provide the recipient with some benefit. This entails
that promises increase the psychological attractiveness of the transmitter and increase
the odds that agreements will be reached. Through promising not only obligations are
created but also trust by providing information that people would otherwise possess
about each others’ intention. As such, upon entry, promises are considered the main
ingredient of psychological contract creation as these imply two primary functions:
first, they initiate the negotiation between the two parties and, second, they engage both
parties in achieving a perceived mutual agreement about their obligations.
Salience is another property that appears to influence the way employees interpret
the messages sent by the organization (Herriot et al., 1997; Thomas and Anderson, 1998).
CDI Salience has been defined as the degree to which a stimulus becomes noticeable from its
16,4 immediate context (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). Depending on how important some
organizational inducements are to the employee, promissory messages about salient
inducements will have a greater likelihood of being detected and becoming part of her
psychological contract. Conway and Briner (2002) have found that the personal
significance of particular inducements is a key predictor of emotional reactions
346 regarding the occurrence of a broken or exceeded promise. Accordingly, newcomers
entering the organization actively seek information about the organizational
inducements they consider salient (De Vos et al., 2005; Thomas and Anderson, 1998).

Psychological contract creation as a sensemaking process

Rousseau has presented an approach on how an individual’s contract is created with
the other “party”, focusing mainly on constituent, intra-psychic processes, such as how
the focal person encodes and decodes external messages based on personal
dispositions and motives (Rousseau, 1995). Her theory of psychological contracting
has been developed based on schema theory focusing specifically on how the employee
makes sense of her psychological contract (Rousseau, 2001). Fiske and Taylor (1984)
have defined schema as a cognitive structure that demonstrates organized knowledge
about a given stimulus as well as the rules that direct information processing. Schema
serves as a mental map to make sense of the environment and guide the individual to
act accordingly (Harris, 1994; Louis, 1980). Schema-based sensemaking processes are
generally understood to be naturally occurring for organizational newcomers from
entry onwards (Harris, 1994). This paper will adopt a sensemaking approach
consistent with Rousseau’s (2001) position on psychological contracts as cognitive
schemata (De Vos et al., 2005; Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1989).
Sensemaking theory furnishes insight into how the psychological contract, as a
cognitive schema, is being created and evolves in an employee’s mind (Rousseau, 1995,
2001, 2011; Shore and Tetrick, 1994). Sensemaking refers to the actors’ attempts to build
meaning in relation to self and their context. The assumption is that people are
continuously engaged in a retrospective sensemaking process, particularly in new, novel
or unanticipated situations (Weick and Quinn, 1999). Within the socialization context,
sensemaking refers to the attempts of a newcomer to cope with their entry experiences
(Louis, 1980), and in particular by attributing meaning to their employment relationship
(De Vos et al., 2005). Previous literature on psychological contracts has employed
sensemaking theory mainly to explain dynamics of breach and violation (Conway and
Briner, 2005; Morrison and Robinson, 1997) or psychological contract development
(De Vos et al., 2003), but none of these has focused on psychological contract creation.
Here, we propose that pre-entry expectations based on previous work experience and
pre-entry information about the future employer might both affect what the newcomer
perceives as promissory messages sent by the organization whilst ignoring others.

Pre-entry expectations
Pre-entry expectations are created during the anticipatory stage of socialization
(Louis, 1980). During this stage, recruits – while outsiders – anticipate their experiences
in the organization they are about to enter. According to Weick (1995), the most
distinguishable property of sensemaking is the focus on retrospect. The newcomer
entering the organization, and especially the young graduate (Hurst and Good, 2009;
Hess and Jepsen, 2009), relies on a number of inputs to interpret and understand the new Psychological
employment relationship (Louis, 1980; Weick, 1995), and to formulate expectations contract creation
about the prospective psychological contract. Individual predispositions influence how
newcomers interpret these expectations. Rousseau (1995) claims that an important
factor influencing the development of these expectations is cognitive biases, which
appear to be a generalizable information processing style. We believe that this style will
be heavily influenced by newcomers’ previous work experiences. Newcomers’ previous 347
experiences, either positive or negative, will affect how they encode and develop their
expectations from their new employer. Moreover, this is not the only influence on
recruits’ pre-entry expectations. These will also be affected by the pre-entry information,
the employee has gathered about the future employer through organizational and
recruitment image during the job seeking and recruitment process.
Cognitive biases. These pertain to the schemata that gradually develop from
previous experiences and subsequently guide the way new information is organized
(Louis, 1980; Weick, 1995). They provide a lens through which prospective employees
create their expectations about the content of their psychological contract acquired
prior to socialization (Rousseau, 2001). Within the anticipatory stage, previous work
experiences act as pre-entry schemata accounting for the formation of newcomer
expectations (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1998) and depict how the newcomer will act
within the new employing organization (Louis, 1980; Weick, 1995). Upon entry,
newcomers with previous work experience are considered as veterans vis-à-vis the
inexperienced neophytes (Carr et al., 2006). Veterans have created extant schemata that
serve as a guide for attributing meaning to the new employment relationship (Louis,
1980). Neophytes on the other hand are more reliant on schemata evolved in relation to
similar but different contexts (e.g. university or school context). During this stage,
recruits develop prospective expectations about their life in the organization and on the
job. According to Wanous (1977), it is during this phase that unrealistic expectations or
expectations inconsistent with organizational reality can develop. As a
pre-employment schema, previous work experience accounts for the extent to which
some employees develop stable psychological contracts (Rousseau, 2001). Veterans can
have well-developed psychological contracts that are more difficult to change and are
often less responsive to contradictory information than their neophyte counterparts.
Most people work for several organizations throughout their careers and it is not
uncommon for employees and organizations to change occupations, industries or
organizations. Newcomers’ previous experience of terminating psychological contracts
can influence the content of pre-entry expectations. Experiencing involuntary job
change or any other unpleasant job event also contributes to employees’ expectations for
future employment relationships (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Research has shown
that employees with a history of perceived breach of a relational (i.e. high trust) contract
are more likely to defensively pursue a transactional contract (i.e. quid pro quo) as a
pre-emptive strategy against other incidents of violation (Robinson et al., 1994). On the
other hand, individuals who have experienced job loss and organizational change are
more likely to expect job insecurity (Cavanaugh and Noe, 1999). Conversely, newcomers
with positive previous experiences, such as keeping promises and expectations on
behalf of the employer, would influence, respectively, the process of psychological
contract creation. It is also more likely that they would expect that their new employer
would keep their promises.
CDI Pre-entry information. Pre-entry information about the employing organization can
16,4 influence a newcomer’s expectations about the new employment relationship. Dineen
and Soltis (2011) in the most recent review of recruitment research emphasized the
importance of firm characteristics in the context of recruitment. Here, we focus on the
signalling messages sent by the employing organization through its brand and
organizational image. Signalling is a very significant part of the recruitment process.
348 Candidates often generalize from job and organizational attribute information they have
to job and organizational attributes about which they lack information (Breaugh et al.,
2008). The credibility of the source might also be an important factor in this process. Tsai
and Yang (2010) suggested that one of the main antecedents of organizational
attractiveness is corporate credibility image. Credibility is generally considered a valid
way of taking others “on board” and earn their trust. When an organization is positively
perceived by outsiders, people may normally associate such a positive impression with a
number of positive characteristics in the firm. Because of the functioning of social
identification, a positive image will attract larger number of applicants to the
corresponding organization.
Psychological contract researchers argue that the employer can send messages
(whether unwitting or contrived) about future contractual obligations during the
recruitment and selection process (Millward-Purvis and Cropley, 2003; Rousseau, 1995,
2001; Rousseau and Greller, 1994; Shore and Tetrick, 1994). Firm characteristics, such as
the corporate image, create general organizational impressions through advertisements,
campaigns and activities of corporate social responsibility (Rynes, 1991). In the absence
of inside information, applicants may rely on corporate image to decide whether to
pursue an employment relationship with the focal organization. Images actively used in
recruitment processes may likewise be used by prospective employees (Gatewood et al.,
1993). Rousseau and Greller (1994) argue that promises abound in descriptions of the
work, pay system, career progression and working conditions. Although these promises
may be considered by those who send the messages as personal opinions, the result is
more often than not to create lasting expectations. Selection procedures, such as the
employment interviews, realistic job previews and assessment centers can all furnish
expectations (Rousseau and Greller, 1994; Wanous, 1977).
The above provide the rationale for the following propositions:
P1. Pre-entry expectations will influence newcomer’s perceptions of
organizational promises.
P1a. Veteran newcomers will have more realistic expectations, and will perceive
fewer promises than neophyte newcomers.
P1b. Corporate and recruitment image will influence pre-entry expectations, which
will in turn affect newcomers’ perceptions of organizational promises.

Post-entry experiences
When new hires enter the organization, they have already formulated a gamut of
expectations about their future employment relationship (Robinson, 1996; Rousseau
and Greller, 1994). However, it is also clear that these expectations are subject to
revision through the course of interactive exchanges with insiders
(Thomas and Anderson, 1998). As earlier stated, one common newcomer experience
that can challenge pre-existing schemata is “reality shock”. Newcomers, in their early
days at their new position, are busy with many unfamiliar cues that need to be Psychological
handled. Louis (1980) argues that individuals experience events that may be starkly contract creation
divergent from their expectations and predictions. A perceived inconsistency of
promises (i.e. perceived obligations) and anticipatory expectations may be experienced
(Robinson, 1996), because pre-entry expectations are ill-founded in the reality of the
organization (Wanous, 1977; Wanous et al., 1992). It is also possible that new recruits
will perceive congruence and consistency between pre-entry expectations and 349
perceived obligations (Robinson, 1996). Met expectations are likely to become part of
newcomers’ psychological contracts. However, it should be noted that expectations can
exist in the absence of perceived promises (Robinson, 1996) contributing to some
uncertainty about where expectations end and promises begin in the employees’ minds
(Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000; Guest, 1998).
Whether the newcomer recognizes what was promised and whether these
expectations are actually met or unmet will also depend on the salience of perceived
obligations and expectations. Salience is likely to affect how vigilant an employee will be
in detecting whether perceived promises are upheld (Morrison and Robinson, 1997), and
also the perceived relevance of particular employer contributions to judgments about
whether obligations have been met. In addition, the influence of social environment
guides the individual’s attention to focus on certain information close to her salient
schemata and provide expectations concerning individual behavior (Harris, 1994). In the
following section, we explain the influence of certain individual differences and the role
of the social environment within the context of psychological contract creation.
Individual differences. Psychological contract and breach are individual-specific
constructs that are influenced by individual characteristics and differences, generally
represented by personality traits, work values and beliefs. A few studies have
investigated the role of individual differences on psychological contract violation
(Raja et al., 2004; De Vos et al., 2005; Rousseau, 2004; Nikolaou et al., 2007). Further,
previous research has investigated the effect of work values on psychological contract
development and type of information seeking (De Vos et al., 2005). We expand this
work by suggesting the potential role of work ideologies that could affect
psychological contract creation, since we believe that reciprocation ideology and
self-reliance play have important roles in psychological contract creation.
Proactive personality. Personality is less subject to changes during career and
organizational experiences relative to work values and ideologies (De Vos et al., 2005;
Gundry and Rousseau, 1994). As stated earlier, socialization researchers tend to conceive
newcomers as proactive in information seeking in relation to their new environment
(Bauer and Erdogan, 2011; Major et al., 1995; Morrison, 1993a, b, Nikolaou et al., 2007).
Proactive newcomers appear to adjust more readily to new organizational settings
(Morrison, 1993a, b). Proactive employees take action to influence their environment
(Bateman and Crant, 1993) and experience career success (Seibert et al., 1999) along with
increased levels of work engagement over time (Dikkers et al., 2010). Crant (2000) argues
that, in general, proactive people recognize opportunities and act on them, demonstrate
initiative, take action and persist until significant change occurs. In short, proactivity
may influence the sensemaking process during psychological contract creation, and may
in particular contribute to the development of realistic expectations as well as to their
ability to understand and interpret promissory messages sent by the organization.
Proactive newcomers would be more vigilant about organizational messages in order to
CDI understand the new working environment than less proactive individuals. Proactivity is
also associated with the willingness to take the initiative and to make promises as a way
16,4 to seek and initiate feedback (Crant, 2000). Proactive individuals also have an increased
tendency to control their work environment, thus demonstrating proactive behavior that
enhances socialization (Bauer and Erdogan, 2011). Therefore, we expect that more
proactive newcomers would report more employer promises than less proactive
350 newcomers.
Work ideologies. Ideologies have been defined as “a relatively coherent set of beliefs
that bind some people together and that explain their worlds in terms of cause-and-effect
relations” (Beyer, 1981). Work ideologies often exist prior to an encounter with a
particular employer (Rousseau, 2001). Ideologies within the organizational setting serve
to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity acting as an interpretation of employment reality,
minimizing the need to constantly explain an overload of complicated information (Beyer,
1981; Edwards et al., 2003). When the individual is about to enter the organization, her
pre-entry expectations direct sensemaking processes regarding psychological contract
creation. Based on the idea of the psychological contract as an exchange relationship
(Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro and Neuman, 2004; Teklab and Taylor,
2003), the role of reciprocation ideology has been found to influence the formation process
by means of biasing the way newcomers perceive information sent by the organization
(Coyle-Shapiro and Neuman, 2004; Eisenberger et al., 1987). Eisenberger et al. (1987)
have identified two independent dimensions of reciprocation ideology: one involving
beliefs that returning help greater than previously received will result in generous
repayments (i.e. creditor ideology), and one involving caution in returning help required
to avoid being taken advantage of (i.e. reciprocation wariness). Creditor ideologists are
more likely to pursue an over-reciprocation contract with the employer when they enter
an organization, due to a preference to have the other party in their debt rather than
experiencing the felt discomfort of indebtedness (Coyle-Shapiro and Neuman, 2004). As
such, a creditor newcomer will tend to be vigilant about their own promises but not to the
employer promises. Accordingly, newcomers with high reciprocation wariness may
appear to ignore promissory messages sent by the organization and being rather stingy
on their own promises maintaining a balance between their own and the organization’s
obligations. Another potentially important work ideology is that of self-reliance.
Employee’s self-reliance is a belief that employees should depend on their employers as
little as possible and should be responsible for their own employability (McKinley et al.,
1998). Edwards et al. (2003) argue that employees who are not self-reliant can have high
expectations of employers regarding training, benefits and job security (i.e. pursuing a
more relation-oriented psychological contract), whereas their counterparts subscribing
to a self-reliance ideology are likely to have lower expectations of employers regarding
these attributes, predisposed to more transaction-oriented contracts. Therefore,
self-reliant newcomers will tend to perceive fewer promises about employer promises.
This leads to the following propositions:
P2. Certain personality traits and work ideologies are likely to affect newcomer’s
psychological contract creation.
Specifically:

P2a. Proactive personality will be positively related to perceived employer promises.

 P2b. Ideologies of reciprocation and self-reliance will be negatively related to Psychological
perceived employer promises. contract creation
Sensegivers. Psychological contract creation does not take place irrespectively of the
newcomers’ work environment. “Sensemaking is a social process that acts as a constant
substrate shaping interpretations and interpreting” (Weick, 1995, p. 39). Learning the
ropes involves exchanges with insiders (i.e. existing employees), who act as sensegivers;
they supply viable and workable interpretation of the new reality and influence 351
newcomers to adopt it as their own. Rousseau (2004) describes the psychological
contract as a product of a complex web of exchanges between the organization and the
employee. These exchanges occur within the organization on an interpersonal level
between the focal person and various organizational representatives (Rousseau, 1995). It
is too easy to personify the organization as a unified party to the exchange relationship
insofar as the feelings an employee may have for an agent of the organization may
sometimes be generalized to the whole organization (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002;
Dabos and Rousseau, 2004a). However, we have to note that individuals hold
psychological contracts, not organizations: the organization, as the other party in the
relationship, offers a framework for the creation of the psychological contract.
Organizations cannot “perceive”, but their representatives can perceive a psychological
contract and react accordingly (Rousseau, 1989). In psychological contract terminology,
organizational representatives with whom the employee interacts and perceives his/her
contract have been labeled as contract makers (Rousseau, 1995).
Contract makers. The contract maker is defined as any person who conveys some
form of future commitment to another person, implying that this contract maker has – at
least to some degree – the power and the authority to fulfill his/her obligation. Different
potential contract makers have been identified, such as managers, recruiters, top
management and mentors, along with structural signals, such as human resources
practices (Rousseau, 1995, 2004a; Rousseau and Greller, 1994). Empirical work has
focused mainly on the role of managers and supervisors as contract makers, with whom,
along with coworkers, the employee has the most frequent contact (Coyle-Shapiro and
Kessler, 2000, 2002; Tekleab and Taylor, 2003). Here, we differentiate the role of contract
makers from the informal social influence or alternatively the “third party” of the
psychological contract, such as co-workers. This is in order to comprehend more fully
their function in the sensemaking process on psychological contract creation.
Previous research on the effect of networks has shown that friends and ties within the
organization have important consequences for perceived psychological contract
fulfillment (Ho and Levesque, 2005; Ho et al., 2004). These researchers argue that the
perceived discrepancy between employees’ and employers’ evaluation of fulfillment is
partially accounted for by the fact that an individual’s network play a pivotal role in
shaping an employee’s fulfillment evaluation. However, there is still no clarity on
whether an employee’s network encompasses contract makers or other information
sources. Within early socialization, newcomers have not yet established their network
within the organization, therefore organizational insiders are considered as information
sources rather than as an established network. Rousseau (1995) identifies two external
sources based on the nature of the messages provided to the employee; contract makers,
who send organizational messages and co-workers who provide social cues. Applying
this distinction to a socialization context, we distinguish the two potential sources of
sensegivers into contract makers and facilitators. Here, we expand co-workers to all
CDI potential sources labeled as “facilitators” because although they do not have the power
16,4 and authority to make any promises, they do nonetheless influence the sensemaking
process of psychological contract creation, providing information that influences its
content.
To comprehend better this demarcation, we will focus on the differential functions
sensegivers serve during the process of newcomers’ psychological contract creation.
352 First, the contract maker conveys promises about future intent or warranties (Rousseau,
1995). These promises might correspond to employer’s obligations in exchange for
employee’s contributions; therefore they are made by those who can act on behalf of the
organization to fulfill these promises. To convey promises, the organizational
representative should satisfy at least two requirements:
(1) to have the power to fulfill them at least to some degree; and
(2) to have been given the authority to make promises on behalf of the organization.

Otherwise, the promises conveyed to the newcomer may lead to a disoriented and
unrealistic psychological contract vulnerable to violations. Contract makers, on the
other hand, are not always an accessible source of information; they mainly convey
messages as organizational representatives through formal procedures, such as
recruitment and selection or socialization and induction processes (Miller and Jablin,
1991; Rousseau, 1995). Within these organizational practices, formal conversations are
the framework of sensegiving and sensemaking processes that create the content of the
psychological contract (Rousseau, 2001). This might occur, for example, through
realistic job previews (Premack and Wanous, 1985) or active communication.
Facilitators. By contrast, facilitators convey messages about the employment
relationship as information providers to help (facilitate) the newcomer to make sense of
his/her psychological contract. Ho and Levesque (2005) and Ho et al. (2004) conceived
the third party as friendships and networks, whereas Thomas and Anderson (1998)
defined the third party as insiders but not clearly distinguished from contract makers.
During organizational socialization, especially in the early beginning of the
employment relationship, the third party has a facilitative role to the extent that
they clarify promissory messages sent by organizational representatives. Therefore,
they are labeled as facilitators and act as a secondary informal information source.
When promissory messages are conveyed by organizational representatives, the
newcomer is likely to seek validation or clarification from facilitators. Facilitators can
provide helpful information for the newcomer to make sense of the promissory
messages sent by the organization. For instance, if an organizational representative
promises fringe benefits, the newcomer can make use of facilitator source to obtain
information of the process of obtaining these benefits. Facilitators can be co-workers,
administrative staff, and colleagues from other departments (Miller and Jablin, 1991)
but do not necessary have some type of relationship, such as friendship or network, as
in Ho and colleagues’ definition. During psychological contract creation, relationships
are not yet established and newcomers focus on the facilitative role of the third party to
obtain information. They may turn to experienced peers, or informal mentors (Eby,
2011), who act as helpful sources and guides to salient background information for
assigning meaning to events and surprises (Louis, 1980). In their study into army
recruits’ changes in psychological contracts, Thomas and Anderson (1998) argue that
newcomers’ changes in their pre-entry expectations are generally toward the existing
norms of experienced soldiers. All these arguments indicate the influential role of Psychological
facilitators in the psychological contract creation process. contract creation
Unlike contract makers, facilitators cannot make any official promises about
employer’s obligations as they are not assigned with the authority or the power to do
so. Therefore, they may not be considered as reliable source of information as contract
makers. Nonetheless, they do provide information about employer’s obligations. This
will definitely be the case if we are talking about an informal mentoring relationship 353
(Eby, 2011). This information may attribute both positive and negative meaning
compared to promises that have a primarily positive nature, as they refer to intention
to fulfill a perceived obligation. Researchers have consistently found that supervisors
evaluate contract fulfillment towards their subordinates higher compared to
employees’ evaluation of organizational contract fulfillment (Coyle-Shapiro and
Kessler, 2000; Porter et al., 1998; Tekleab and Taylor, 2003). Porter et al. (1998) have
also found that employees report greater amounts of employer’s inducements than do
their organizational representatives. These discrepancies can be explained by the
information provided by the facilitators who help the newcomer to learn the ropes by
providing both positive and negative information.
The second function that differentiates the role of contract makers from that of
facilitators is the differential sensegiving modes they adopt. Contract makers, as we
explained earlier, are more likely to employ formal tactics to convey messages about an
employer’s obligations, whereas facilitators use more informal tactics to provide their
information. The potential inefficiency of formal procedures to offer the newcomer a
holistic picture of the new employment relationship may lead to the development of
alternative modes of information seeking (Miller and Jablin, 1991). The use of facilitators
as informal socialization agents may provide a means by which the newcomer can
confirm or clarify contract makers’ promises. Facilitators are available to newcomers
through more informal modes, such as chatting, storytelling and advising. Previous
research has shown that advice and friendship relationships shape the content of
psychological contract (Dabos and Rousseau, 2004b; Ho et al., 2005). Therefore,
we develop the following propositions:
P3. During the encounter stage, different sources of sensegivers will influence
differently the process of psychological contract creation.
P3a. Newcomers will perceive more employer promises by contract makers than
by facilitators.
P3b. Newcomers will perceive more facilitative information about employer
inducements from facilitators than by contract makers.

Monitoring. As a sensemaking process, monitoring is also another potential tactic the

newcomer employs in order to scrutinize uncertain or ambiguous information and
events (Miller and Jablin, 1991; Rousseau, 1995). Monitoring refers to observation of the
interactions taking place within their new working environment and the respective
behaviors of others. Scanning the environment may be considered as a less explicit way
of interacting with insiders as the newcomer opts not for direct contact, either primarily
because the insiders are not always accessible or as an alternative mode to gain
knowledge and learn. According to social learning theory, the advantage of monitoring
as a sensemaking process lies in its inconspicuous nature and on the individual’s ability
CDI to imitate other’s behaviors (Bandura, 1977). Researchers suggest that newcomers are
16,4 more likely to monitor others, than ask questions (Miller and Jablin, 1991; Morrison,
1993b). During the first days at work there is overwhelming information that a
newcomer’s mind capacity cannot fully interpret. She will monitor and extract only this
information that entails discrepancy from the existing schema of her psychological
contract (Rousseau, 1995). It is also likely to employ monitoring when the information is
354 salient regarding her employer’s obligations and when the information source is not
readily accessible. However, the information obtained through monitoring may not be as
reliable as that derived from other modes, as it is highly implicit in nature and therefore,
promises inferred by monitoring may need further confirmation (Morrison, 1993b).
Morrison (1993b) argues that when the information is particularly salient and valuable
or very difficult to obtain through monitoring, employees will be more willing to ask
directly. Overall, monitoring is considered as a rather implicit tactic with relatively
unreliable inputs to making sense of the environment but frequently used, when the
focal information is considered highly important and is otherwise not easily accessible.
This leads to the following proposition:
P3c. When there is lack of communication, newcomers will view promises and
facilitative information via monitoring organizational representatives and
facilitators.
Emotional reactions. Another inherent property of sensemaking processes is the type
and the intensity of the newcomers’ emotions. We will first have a look at the intensity
of emotions. Weick (1995) argues that emotions are experienced when an organized
sequence is interrupted unexpectedly. Emotions are at stake when the newcomer
experiences contrast and change between the pre-entry expectations and the emerging
psychological contract. The frequency of emotions is likely to be intense as the
newcomer tries to attribute meaning to his/her new psychological contract based on
pre-entry expectations as well as on the congruence between promissory messages by
contract makers and information provided by facilitators. The revision of pre-entry
expectations is likely to provoke intense emotions as the newcomer is bombarded with
new and unknown interruptions of his/her pre-entry script. Further, the (in)consistency
of promises and facilitative information may also challenge the newcomer emotionally:
P4. The greater the extent to which exchanged promises refer to salient pre-entry
expectations, the more intense the emotion the newcomer is likely to
experience, either positive or negative.
P4a. The intensity of emotional reactions is contingent upon the consistency of
pre-entry expectations and perceived promises. The more inconsistent the
terms of the psychological contract are with pre-entry expectations, the more
intense the emotional reactions will be.
P4b. The intensity of emotional reaction is contingent upon the consistency of
facilitative information and perceived promises. The more inconsistent
the terms of psychological contract are with facilitative information, the more
intense the emotional reactions will be.
The type of emotions experienced may also vary. In psychological contract research,
emotions have been conceptualized by the term violation (Morrison and Robinson, 1997;
Rousseau, 1989, 1995). Violation conveys strong emotional experiences that involve Psychological
feelings of betrayal and deeper psychological distress, as well as anger and resentment contract creation
(Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1989). These strong emotions are provoked
under the assumption that the organization has failed to meet one or more obligations
corresponding to a focal person’s contributions namely perceived breach (Morrison and
Robinson, 1997). The above implies that the psychological contract is underpinned by
the concept of trust (Robinson, 1996). When the organization fails to fulfill its 355
obligations, trust is eroded (Lo and Aryee, 2003; Robinson, 1996) resulting into negative
emotions.
Promises may also increase the possibility of positive emotions (Conway and Briner,
2005). Promise implies an intention for future action, i.e. obligation (Rousseau, 1995).
The nature of a promise indicates a positive reaction insofar as the party involved is
obligated to fulfill her promise (Sull and Spinosa, 2007), and the fundamentals of an
alleged agreement are perceived to be set. Contract makers, therefore, are more likely to
provoke positive emotions. Accordingly, facilitators provide information that may
create positive but also negative experiences of the employment relationship. Sias and
Jablin (1995) argue that after an emotional event, coworkers are more likely to discuss
negatively valenced incidents amongst themselves than positively valenced events.
These findings indicate that the information provided by facilitators may provoke a
mixture of positive and negative emotions especially related to perceived employer’s
promises. Therefore, we believe that the consistency between perceived employer’s
promises and facilitative information will influence newcomer’s emotional reactions.
Thus, depending on the source and nature of the information provided, emotions are
likely to fluctuate. This leads to the following propositions:
P5a. During psychological contract creation, promises by contract makers will
provoke more positive emotions, due to its formal contracting process and
newcomer’s perception for negotiating, than information provided by
facilitators.
P5b. The more consistent the information provided by facilitators is with perceived
employer promises, the more positive emotions it will provoke.

Concluding remarks
We believe that the aforementioned dynamics provide a means of understanding how
the content of a newcomer’s psychological contract is formulated. Pre-entry
information and cognitive biases function as a cognitive lens through which the
newcomer interprets the new employment relationship. Yet this cognitive lens is likely
to be dysfunctional within the new context, as pre-entry expectations will need to be
revised and updated contingent upon entry experiences and social interchanges with
insiders (Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1989, 1995). Facilitators, as helpful sensegivers,
also influence the content of newcomer’s psychological contract as they convey
messages that attribute both positive and negative meaning to the new psychological
contract (Ho and Levesque, 2005). The type of a new hire’s psychological contract
is also being formed; promises emphasizing relational terms (e.g. long-term security
and concern for individual’s wellbeing) or transactional terms (e.g. encouragement
of external marketability and pay contingent on performance), shape the scope through
which the newcomer interprets the nature of her employment relationship
CDI (Rousseau, 1990; Robinson et al., 1994). The final point regarding the psychological
16,4 contract fundamentals involves the fluctuation of emotions the newcomer will
experience. Acknowledging explicitly the role of emotions in the workplace has been
on the rise recently (Elfenbein, 2007; Barsade and Gibson, 2007). In a similar vein to
Morrison and Robinson (1997) and Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) argument
about the need to distinguish between cognitive and affective components of the
356 concept of violation, the influence of the emotions may need to be considered as
inherent to psychological contracting. The degree of consistency between perceived
employer promises with pre-entry expectations as well as with facilitative information
can have a differential effect on how the psychological contract is being experienced
upon entry.
Despite the important work on psychological contract, little is known about how the
psychological contract is actually created and experienced during employees’ first days
at work. We have attempted to clarify the sensemaking processes occurring during
psychological contract formation taking into consideration emotional and social factors,
as well as conventional cognitive elements. In doing so, we have illustrated certain
pre-entry antecedents, the role of individual differences, as well as the differential
influence of sensegiving from contract makers and facilitators. Likewise, we have
emphasized the pivotal role of emotions as an inherent part of the psychological
contracting process. Next, we address the future research potential of our propositions,
and implications to promote both research and practice on psychological contracts.

Research and practice implications

The model outlined in this paper not only presents a framework on psychological
contract creation during the early days at work, but also provides an agenda for future
empirical research and guidelines for how such research could be conducted. For each
part of our model, we have neatly identified variables that we deem likely to affect the
processes of psychological contract creation. Researchers should also focus on the
neglected issue of emotions as an inherent part of psychological contract creation.
Sentiments and emotional reactions may fill the gap regarding differential perceptions
of the psychological contract, as well as its subsequent behavioral and attitudinal
reactions. Likewise, the role of facilitators (with no formal authority to make promises)
not just contract makers (with the authority to make promises) also needs to be further
investigated within the process of psychological contracting. Further, the individual
should not be considered as “tabula rasa” when entering the organization, since
previous experiences and knowledge has articulated certain expectations that would
guide individual’s perceptions about the new working environment.
The most important challenge, however, will be in developing an appropriate
methodology for capturing the dynamics of psychological contract creation. One-shot
cross-sectional surveys cannot fully tap the dynamics of contract creation.
Longitudinal surveys and diary methods are potentially much more conducive to
capturing postulated processes. Diary methods are especially likely to capture subtle
emotional reactions and moods, more so than traditional surveys (Bolger et al., 2003),
as well as narrative methods of interviewing which capture the chronological and
temporal nature of experience and sensemaking.
The exploration of these questions will shed light not only in the area of
employment relationship, but also in other areas, such as recruitment, selection
and career management. We consider that career management will especially benefit Psychological
from understanding newcomers’ psychological contract creation. Despite the contract creation
heightened effect of employability on employees’ work life (Scholarios et al., 2008) and
the shift towards individual or group responsibility for career management, as Baruch
and Bozionelos (2010) suggest, employees value and will still value more in the future
employers offering better career deals than the market, leading to increased levels of
organizational commitment (Ng and Feldman, 2008). 357
Our model has also practical implications for both employees and organizations
regarding how to manage psychological contracts from the beginning of the
employment relationship. The psychological contract has been often criticized as a
construct developed by researchers rather than practitioners (Arnold, 1996; Cullinane
and Dundon, 2006). However, when violated it becomes more dominant in the
organization than ever. This is primarily because organizations mainly focus on the
pathology of a phenomenon than on the aetiology. Organizations thus invest money to
increase desired outcomes, such as enhancing organizational commitment and morale,
instead of investing on how to create the fundamentals that will lead to these outcomes.
Therefore, understanding how the psychological contract is created may assist
practitioners to comprehend employment relationships better and manage them
accordingly. First, organizations should invest on dealing effectively with newcomers’
pre-entry expectations. Although nowadays most large corporations spend a great deal
of money on improving their corporate and recruitment image, job applicants can
gather information from many different sources, which are not easily managed by
the company. In a “connected” world, candidates can easily form expectations about
a company and if these are provided by credible sources, it might be difficult for a
company to change them, if it is required to do so. Moreover, pre-entry expectations are
also formed during the recruitment and selection process (Millward-Purvis and
Cropley, 2003). Organizations should understand the important role of recruitment and
selection in forming and developing newcomers’ psychological contract.
Newcomers play an active role in making sense of their new psychological contract.
Socialization researchers have repetitively reported the proactive role of the neophytes
in the information-seeking process (Major et al., 1995; Morrison, 1993a, b; Ostroff and
Kozlowski, 1993). They can creatively use the multiple sources of psychological
contracting to filter their new expected role and working relationship. Although
some of the sources may be considered more accessible, such as co-workers and
administrative personnel, these may not always be as reliable and powerful as they
may appear.
Understanding the differential role of contract makers and facilitators will enhance
newcomer’s ability to recognize the reliability of the exchanged information. For the
organization, it may be more productive to use facilitators more actively in the
socialization practices instead of neglecting their influential role. In that way, implicit,
incongruent and distorted messages sent by the facilitators can be reduced. Team
leaders or newcomers’ supervisors should be aware of this exchange of information and
intervene, when and if it is possible. This can be achieved, for example, through close
contact with the neophytes or with the development of “unofficial” mentoring programs.
In practice, drawing a distinct line between the contract makers and facilitators may not
be easy, but organizations should make an attempt to recognize the influential role of
facilitators during psychological contract creation.
CDI In general, we suggest that sensegivers play a pivotal role in the establishment of a
16,4 psychological contract. When the psychological contract is still open to negotiation and
malleable, sensegivers can exercise their communication skills effectively to influence
psychological contract creation. Accordingly, it is important for the organization to
become aware of its implicit messages to attract recruits and promote its corporate
and recruitment image to the society. These messages may be considered as valid
358 indicators of their prospective working relationship, especially for inexperienced
newcomers. Organizational agents, especially recruiters, HR specialists and first-line
supervisors may need to work together to deliver messages in a more realistic way.
Within the context of positive organizational behavior, certain HRM interventions
are applied within organizations to increase positive emotions at work and thus
increasing employees’ commitment and work performance. In short, these interventions
mainly refer to “positive programs”, such as empowerment, fun at work and emotional
intelligence (Fineman, 2006). Without by any means condemning these structured types
of emotion management programs, we want to prioritize emotions through active
psychological contract management on an everyday basis especially from the very
beginning of a newcomer’s organizational life.

References
Arnold, J. (1996), “The psychological contract: a concept in need of closer scrutiny?”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 511-20.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Barsade, S.G. and Gibson, D.E. (2007), “Why does affect matter in organizations?”, Academy of
Management Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 36-59.
Baruch, Y. and Bozionelos, N. (2010), “Career issues”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 67-113.
Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. (1993), “The proactive component of organizational behavior:
a measure and correlates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 103-18.
Bauer, T.N. and Erdogan, B. (2011), “Organizational socialization: the effective on
boarding of new employees”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 51-64.
Beyer, J. (1981), “Ideologies, values, and decision making in organizations”, Handbook of
Organizational Design, Vol. 2, pp. 166-202.
Bolger, N., Davis, A. and Rafaeli, E. (2003), “Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived”,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 579-616.
Breaugh, J., Macan, T. and Grambow, D. (2008), “Employee recruitment: current
knowledge and directions for future research”, in Hodgkinson, G.P. and Ford, K.J. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23, Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 4582.
Briscoe, J. and Finkelstein, L. (2009), “The ‘new career’ and organizational commitment: do
boundary less and protean attitudes make a difference?”, Career Development
International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 242-60.
Carr, J.C., Pearson, A.W., Vest, M.J. and Boyar, S.L. (2006), “Prior occupational experience,
anticipatory socialization, and employee retention”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 343-59.
Cavanaugh, M.A. and Noe, R.A. (1999), “Antecedents and consequences of relational Psychological
components of the new psychological contract”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 20, pp. 323-40. contract creation
Conway, N. and Briner, R. (2002), “A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological
contract breach and exceeded promises”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23,
pp. 287-302.
Conway, N. and Briner, R. (2005), Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work: A Critical 359
Evaluation of Theory and Research, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Conway, N. (2005), “Exchange relationships: examining psychological
contracts and perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90
No. 4, pp. 774-81.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Kessler, I. (2000), “Consequences of the psychological contract for the
employment relationship: a large scale survey”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37,
pp. 903-30.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Kessler, I. (2002), “Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the
psychological contract: employee and employer perspectives”, European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 69-86.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Neuman, J.H. (2004), “The psychological contract and individual
differences: the role of exchange and creditor ideologies”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 64, pp. 150-64.
Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 435-62.
Cullinane, N. and Dundon, T. (2006), “The psychological contract: a critical review”, International
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 113-29.
Dabos, G.E. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004a), “Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts
of employees and employers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 52-72.
Dabos, G.E. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004b), “Social interaction patterns shaping employee
psychological contracts”, paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting,
New Orleans, LA.
De Vos, A., Buyens, D. and Schalk, R. (2003), “Psychological contract development during
organizational socialization: adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 537-59.
De Vos, A., Buyens, D. and Schalk, R. (2005), “Making sense of a new employment relationship:
psychological contract-related information seeking and the role of work values and locus
of control”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13, pp. 41-52.
Dikkers, J., Jansen, P., Annet, L., Vinkenburg, C. and Kooij, D. (2010), “Proactivity, job
characteristics, and engagement: a longitudinal study”, Career Development International,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 59-77.
Dineen, B.R. and Soltis, S.M. (2011), “Recruitment: a review of research and emerging directions”,
in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 43-66.
Eby, L.T. (2011), “Mentoring”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 505-25.
Edwards, J.C., Rust, K.G., McKinley, W. and Moon, G. (2003), “Business ideologies and perceived
breach of contract during downsizing: the role of ideology of employee self-reliance”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 1-23.
CDI Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N. and Marvel, J. (1987), “Reciprocation ideology”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 743-50.
16,4
Elfenbein, H. (2007), “Emotion in organizations: a review and theoretical integration in stages”,
Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 1, pp. 315-86.
Fineman, S. (2006), “On being positive: concerns and counterpoints”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 270-91.
360 Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1984), Social Cognition, Random House, New York, NY.
Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J. (1993), “Corporate image, recruitment
image and initial job choice decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 414-27.
Guest, D.E. (1998), “Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously?”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 649-64.
Gundry, L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Communicating culture to newcomers”, Human
Relations, Vol. 47, pp. 1068-88.
Harris, S.G. (1994), “Organizational culture and individual sensemaking”, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 309-21.
Herriot, P., Manning, W.E.G. and Kidd, J.M. (1997), “The content of the psychological contract”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 151-62.
Hess, N. and Jepsen, D. (2009), “Career stage and generational differences in psychological
contracts”, Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-83.
Ho, V.T. and Levesque, L.L. (2005), “With a little help from my friends (and substitutes):
social referents and influence in psychological contract fulfillment”, Organization Science,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 275-89.
Ho, V.T., Weingart, L.R. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Responses to broken promises: does
personality matter?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65, pp. 276-93.
Hurst, J. and Good, L. (2009), “Generation Y and career choice: the impact of retail career
perceptions, expectations and entitlement perceptions”, Career Development International,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 570-93.
Lo, S. and Aryee, S. (2003), “Psychological contract breach in Chinese context: an integrative
approach”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 1005-20.
Louis, M. (1980), “Surprise and sensemaking: what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 226-51.
McKinley, W., Mone, M.A. and Barker, V.L. (1998), “Some ideological foundations of
organizational downsizing”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 7, pp. 198-212.
Major, D.A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G.T. and Gardner, P.D. (1995), “A longitudinal
investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes and the moderating
effects of role development factors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 418-31.
Miller, V.D. and Jablin, F.M. (1991), “Information seeking during organizational entry:
influences, tactics and a model of the process”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16,
pp. 92-120.
Millward-Purvis, L.J. and Cropley, M. (2003), “Psychological contracting: processes of contract
formation during interviews between nannies and their ’employers’”, Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 213-41.
Morrison, E.W. (1993a), “Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer
socialization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 173-83.
Morrison, E.W. (1993b), “Newcomer information seeking: exploring types, modes, sources, and Psychological
outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 557-89.
contract creation
Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When employees feel betrayed: a model of how
psychological contract violation develops”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22,
pp. 226-56.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2008), “Can you get a better deal elsewhere? The effects of
psychological contract replicability on organizational commitment over time”, Journal of 361
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 268-77.
Nikolaou, I., Tomprou, M. and Vakola, M. (2007), “Individuals’ inducements and the role of
personality: implications for psychological contracts”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 649-63.
Ostroff, C. and Kozlowski, S.W. (1993), “The role of mentoring in the information gathering
processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 42, pp. 170-83.
Porter, L.W., Pearce, J.L., Tripoli, A.M. and Lewis, K.M. (1998), “Differential perceptions of
employers’ inducements: implications for psychological contracts”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 769-82.
Premack, S.L. and Wanous, J.P. (1985), “A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 706-19.
Raja, U., Johns, G. and Ntalianis, F. (2004), “The impact of personality on psychological
contracts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 350-67.
Reis, H.T. and Gable, S.L. (2000), “Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday
experience”, in Reis, H.T. and Judd, C.M. (Eds), Handbook of Research Methods in Social
and Personality Psychology, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 190-222.
Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 574-99.
Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000), “The development of psychological contract breach
and violation: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 525-46.
Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Changing obligations and the
psychological contract: a longitudinal study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37,
pp. 137-52.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, Employee
Responsibilities & Rights Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 121-38.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990), “New hire perceptions of their own and employer’s obligations: a study of
psychological contracts”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, pp. 389-400.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and
Unwritten Agreements, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rousseau, D.M. (2001), “Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological
contract”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 511-41.
Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Psychological contracts in the workplace: understanding the ties that
motivate”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 120-7.
Rousseau, D.M. (2011), “The individual-organization relationship: the psychological contract”,
in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 191-220.
Rousseau, D.M. and Greller, M.M. (1994), “Human resource practices: administrative contact
makers”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33, pp. 385-402.
CDI Rousseau, D.M. and Tijoriwala, S.A. (1998), “Assessing psychological contracts:
issues, alternatives and types of measures”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19,
16,4 pp. 679-95.
Rynes, S.L. (1991), “Recruitement, job choice, and post-hire consequences: a call for new research
directions”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto,
362 pp. 399-444.
Scholarios, D., Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., Van der Schoot, E., Bozionelos, N., Epitropaki,
O. and Jedrzejowicz, P. (2008), “Employability and the psychological contract in European ICT
sector SMEs”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 1035-55.
Seibert, S., Crant, J. and Kraimer, M. (1999), “Proactive personality and career success”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 416-27.
Shore, L.M. and Tetrick, L.E. (1994), “The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in
the employment relationship”, in Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), Trends in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, Wiley, Somerset, NJ, pp. 91-109.
Sias, P.M. and Jablin, F.M. (1995), “Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of
fairness, and coworker communication”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 22,
pp. 5-38.
Sparrow, P.R. (1996), “Transitions in the psychological contract in UK banking”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 75-92.
Sull, D.N. and Spinosa, C. (2007), “Promise-based management: the essence of execution”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 79-86.
Tekleab, A.G. and Taylor, S.M. (2003), “Aren’t there two parties in an employment
relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agreement on
contract obligations and violations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24,
pp. 585-608.
Thomas, H.D.C. and Anderson, N. (1998), “Changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts
during organizational socialization: a study of recruits entering the British Army”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 745-67.
Tsai, W.-C. and Yang, I.W.-F. (2010), “Does image matter to different job applicants?
The influences of corporate image and applicant individual differences on
organizational attractiveness”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 48-63.
Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (1998), “Psychological contract violations during
corporate restructuring”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 71-83.
Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (1999a), “A discrepancy model of psychological contract
violations”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 367-86.
Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (1999b), “The impact of psychological contract violations on
exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect”, Human Relations, Vol. 52, pp. 895-922.
Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2000), “Re-examining the effects of psychological contract
violations: unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 25-42.
Wanous, J.P. (1977), “Organization entry: from naive expectations to realistic beliefs”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 22-9.
Wanous, J.P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L. and Shannon, D.K. (1992), “The effects of met Psychological
expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 288-97. contract creation
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weick, K.E. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), “Organizational change and development”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 361-86.
363
Corresponding author
Ioannis Nikolaou can be contacted at: inikol@aueb.gr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:

1. Ruth Penfold, Linda Ronnie. 2015. Peer-to-peer psychological contracts in the South African wine
industry. Sa Journal of Human Resource Management 13:1. . [CrossRef]
2. Dr Vicki Culpin Professor Carla Millar Professor Kai Peters Susanna Kultalahti Department of
Management, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland Riitta Viitala Department of Management, University
of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland . 2015. Generation Y – challenging clients for HRM?. Journal of Managerial
Psychology 30:1, 101-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Robert Buch Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI Norwegian Business School,
Olso, Norway Bård Kuvaas Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI Norwegian
Business School, Olso, Norway Lynn Shore Institute for Diversity and Inclusiveness, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California, USA Anders Dysvik Department of Organizational Behavior, BI
Norwegian Business School, Olso, Norway . 2014. Once bitten, twice shy? Past breach and present
exchange relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology 29:8, 938-952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]