Psychological contacts – should managers spend time?
To a large extent, I disagree with the statement ‘since psychological contracts are subjective, managers should not waste time to manage them.’
As a matter of fact, according to the survey conducted by Guest and Conway (2002), 90% of 1,300 senior United Kingdom human resource managers reported that the concept of psychological contract is useful. 36% said that their organisations use it to manage the employment relationship.
Before anything else, a psychological contract is defined by Rosseau (1989) as an individual’s belief regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between the focal person and another party. A psychological contract emerges when one party …show more content…
In my opinion, I do agree to a great extent that the old psychological contract is dead and that the new psychological contract is being employed.
It would be best to understand both the old and the new psychological contracts. In the old psychological contracts, employees promise to work hard and act with loyalty. In return, they expect retention, opportunities for development and promotion. On the other hand, in the new psychological contracts, employees promise to bring work effort and creativity. However, in return, they would expect a salary that is appropriate to the contribution. Although, the relationship would be short term, the employee will remain as long as he or she received the developmental opportunities to build his or her career.
To support my opinion, the subject guide author, Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, noted substantial change in many industries especially in terms of reduced employee loyalty.
Stiles, stated that all jobs are less secure than before. There is less opportunities for promotion today and career planning is the responsibility of the individual employee and not the employer anymore. As a matter of fact, there is little prospect of employment beyond the age of …show more content…
What you are offered is a chance to pursue one.’ This shows that career planning has indeed become the responsibility of the individual employee.
On the contrary, Guest and Conway, disagrees and says that there is not much change in the psychological contracts, except in the public sector. They argued that there is no dramatic increase in redundancies and very few managers have personal experiences of job losses or are worried about it.
Combining both perspectives and the evidence we can personally see with our own eyes, we can say that change is occurring. One main difference we can note is the job security that was present before and has been removed today. In the past, the employer has provided job security. On the other hand, today, we have seen that the employer can no longer offer job security and that to offer job security this has damaged the basis of employee
To a large extent, I disagree with the statement ‘since psychological contracts are subjective, managers should not waste time to manage them.’
As a matter of fact, according to the survey conducted by Guest and Conway (2002), 90% of 1,300 senior United Kingdom human resource managers reported that the concept of psychological contract is useful. 36% said that their organisations use it to manage the employment relationship.
Before anything else, a psychological contract is defined by Rosseau (1989) as an individual’s belief regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between the focal person and another party. A psychological contract emerges when one party …show more content…
In my opinion, I do agree to a great extent that the old psychological contract is dead and that the new psychological contract is being employed.
It would be best to understand both the old and the new psychological contracts. In the old psychological contracts, employees promise to work hard and act with loyalty. In return, they expect retention, opportunities for development and promotion. On the other hand, in the new psychological contracts, employees promise to bring work effort and creativity. However, in return, they would expect a salary that is appropriate to the contribution. Although, the relationship would be short term, the employee will remain as long as he or she received the developmental opportunities to build his or her career.
To support my opinion, the subject guide author, Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, noted substantial change in many industries especially in terms of reduced employee loyalty.
Stiles, stated that all jobs are less secure than before. There is less opportunities for promotion today and career planning is the responsibility of the individual employee and not the employer anymore. As a matter of fact, there is little prospect of employment beyond the age of …show more content…
What you are offered is a chance to pursue one.’ This shows that career planning has indeed become the responsibility of the individual employee.
On the contrary, Guest and Conway, disagrees and says that there is not much change in the psychological contracts, except in the public sector. They argued that there is no dramatic increase in redundancies and very few managers have personal experiences of job losses or are worried about it.
Combining both perspectives and the evidence we can personally see with our own eyes, we can say that change is occurring. One main difference we can note is the job security that was present before and has been removed today. In the past, the employer has provided job security. On the other hand, today, we have seen that the employer can no longer offer job security and that to offer job security this has damaged the basis of employee