The role of the organisation in managing the psychological contract:
what local policies say to practitioners
Delia Wainwright and Sally Sambrook
Delia Wainwright
Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Wales, UK
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 01352 780507
Professor Sally Sambrook
Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Wales, UK
Email: [email protected]
Phone: ++ 44 (0) 1248 382046
The role of the organisation in managing the psychological contract:
what local policies say to practitioners
Delia Wainwright and Sally Sambrook
Abstract
Background
There has been little exploration of the positive benefits of a well managed
psychological contract in a health care setting. Research literature widely suggests
that a well managed psychological contract can have positive benefits for both the
organisation and the employee, including increased levels of commitment, (Guzzo et
1994) organisational citizenship behaviour, (Turnley et al 2003) and decreased staff
turnover.
Aim
This paper addresses the conference theme of innovation, management and leadership
by considering the role of managers in implementing local policies, and their role in
managing the psychological contract. We explore the extent to which managers are
viewed as agents of the organisation and the role the implementation of local policies
has on the construction and development of the psychological contract. We consider
the degree of congruence between what is communicated through government and
organisation policy in comparison to what is acted upon at a local level
Methodology
This paper draws upon a study investigating the psychological contracts of health and
social care employees, examining who is contracting with whom. An ethnographic
approach has been taken and a range of data collection methods employed, including
policy document analysis and qualitative questionnaires.
Findings
Initial findings indicate that not only are managers viewed as being agents of the
organisation and brokers of the psychological contracts but that they have a key role
to play in the interpretation and development of policy at a local level.
Conclusion
By having a better understanding of the role of managers in the development of
psychological contracts and the role they play in the development of local policy,
there exists the opportunity for enhanced practice which meets both individual and
organisational needs.
References
Guzzo, R.A., Noonan, K.A., and Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate Managers and the
Psychological Contract Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 79, No 4, pp 617-626.
Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., and Bloodgood,J.M. (2003) The Impact of
Psychological Contract Fulfilment on the Performance of In-Role and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management 29 (2) 187-206.
The role of the organisation in managing the psychological contract:
what local policies say to practitioners
Introduction
This paper addresses the conference theme of innovation, management and leadership
by considering the role of managers in implementing local policies, and their role in
managing the psychological contract. Our aim is to explore the extent to which
managers are viewed as agents of the organisation and the role the implementation of
local policies has on the construction and development of the psychological contract.
We consider the degree of congruence between what is communicated through
government and organisation policy (espoused) in comparison with what is acted
upon at a local level (in reality).
There has been little exploration of psychological contracts in a health and social care
setting, or through a qualitative lens. This paper goes some way towards presenting an
interpretive view of the interrelationships between the organisation, manager,
employee and the role of policy in the psychological contract. The paper draws upon
a study where Delia is investigating the psychological contracts of health and social
care employees, examining who is contracting with whom. Despite the large body of
literature examining psychological contracts, the context of health and social care has
largely been ignored. Delia is both doctoral researcher and team leader/manager
within this context. Adopting an ethnographic approach, Delia has collected
organisational documents, conducted an open-ended questionnaire survey of team
members and interviewed managers within a community learning disability service.
This paper focuses on a comparative analysis of policy documents and employee
perceptions.
We begin with a brief review of literature on the psychological contract, the role of
managers and documents in shaping the formation of the psychological contract and
the context of professionals and large organisations, such as the National Health
Service (NHS). Next we explain our research study. Then we review three specific
local policy documents and present findings from empirical research with team
members and managers. Finally, we discuss the interpretation and implementation of
local policies, concluding with what policies say to local practitioners about their
psychological contracts.
Literature Review
A large body of literature exists relating to the psychological contract. This is usually
conceptualised as existing between an employer and employee, Argyris (1960),
Levinson et al (1962) and Schein (1965) but little research has explored the role of
organisational policy documents in shaping this relationship. Argyris (1960) first
utilised the term psychological contract, and defined it in terms of an implicit
relationship between the employees and their ‘foreman.’ He believed that the
psychological contract between the parties allowed for the expression and
gratification of each others’ needs. Levinson et al (1962) defined psychological
contracts as, ‘a series of mutual expectations of which the parties to the relationship
may not themselves be dimly aware but which nonetheless govern the relationship to
each other’ (p21). There are reciprocal elements to the relationship which will
continue as long as the parties continue to meet each other’s need and there is an
assumption of reciprocity. Schein (1965 in Anderson and Schalk 1998 p2) then
defined the term as, ‘the unwritten set of expectations operating at all times between
every member of an organisation and the various managers and others in that
organisation... Each employee has expectations about such things as salary or pay
rate, working hours, benefits and privileges that go with a job…the organisation also
has more implicit, subtle expectations that the employee will enhance the image of the
organisation, will be loyal, will keep organisational secrets and will do his or her
best.’ Here, there is reference to the potential parties involved, including employees,
managers and the organisation, but again no mention of the role of organisational
policy. Schein believed that the psychological contract has two levels: individual and
organisational (Anderson and Schalk 1998). Schein introduced the idea that various
managers exist within an organisation and the diversity of relationships within an
organisation could not simply be defined by labelling individuals as either the
‘employee’ or the employer’.
Later, Kotter (1973 p92) defined the psychological contract as, ‘an implicit contract
between an individual and [his] organisation which specifies what each expects to
give and receive from each other in their relationship’. This suggests the idiosyncratic
nature of psychological contracts. Conway and Briner (2005) argue that one of the
main explanations for the idiosyncratic nature is individual personality. Kotter (1973)
viewed the psychological contract as changing over time as the company’s and the
individuals’ expectations change. Rousseau and McClean Parks (1993 p29) state that
‘organizations and individuals create contracts through communications at critical
junctures …in the employment relationship.’ Ho, Weinghart and Rousseau (2004)
noted how individuals react differently to changes to their psychological contract.
Rousseau’s work (1989) shifted the emphasis away from expectations towards the
promissory nature of the psychological contract, and away from it being based on
individuals’ needs towards a concept based on individual perceptions of observable
behaviour. Rousseau also clearly emphasised the employee perspective, arguing
against organisations being anthropomorphised and holding their own contracts
(although accepting that individuals as representatives of the organisation hold
contracts). This orientation ignores the potential influence of policy documents in
shaping individuals’ perceptions of the evolving psychological contract.
There is a wide and growing body of evidence around the outcomes associated with
the psychological contract. Research suggests that a well managed psychological
contract can have positive benefits for both the organisation and the employee,
including increased levels of commitment (Guzzo, Noonan and Elron 1994),
organisational citizenship behaviour (Turnley, Bolino, Lester and Bloodgood 2003)
and staff retention (Rousseau, Ho and Greenberg 2006). A psychological contract
which meets the needs of the employee can lead to increased levels of commitment
and motivation and there is a decreased likelihood that the employee will seek to
leave the organisation. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) carried out a meta-analysis of
the literature particularly in the area of perceived organisational support (closely
related to the psychological contract) and found that it was strongly associated with
affective commitment, performance and lessened withdrawal behaviour. Coyle-
Shapiro and Kessler (2003) demonstrated that public service employees reciprocate
the treatment they receive from their employers and if public service employers can
fulfil their obligations to staff this can have positive consequences for the quality of
service provision.
It is argued that the psychological contract is shaped and held by people. Levinson
(1965) recognised that, ‘the actions of individual people in an organisation are viewed
by them, by the objects of the action, and by observers as actions of the organisation’
(p378). He also observed that many employees in their relationship with other people
act as agents of the organisation. Rousseau (1995) distinguishes between different
types of human contract makers, either as principles or agents. She describes
principles as individuals or organisations making contracts for themselves whereas
agents are described as individuals acting for another….(party) However, Rousseau
(1995) also referred to administrative contract makers – organisational mission and
strategy, HR policy documents and job adverts, for example. Although little research
has explored their impact on practice, these documents may communicate messages
regarding expectations and obligations and thus shape the psychological contact.
Shore and Tetrick (1994) believe that the employee is likely to view their manager as
the chief agent responsible for establishing and then maintaining the psychological
contract. Tekleab and Taylor (2003) point out that, ‘messages from top management
often refer to employees in general, but they do not state each respective employee’s
obligations and inducements’ (p586). They took the position in their research that the
immediate line manager represented the organisation when looking at perceived
obligations and reactions to perceived obligations.
Herriot, Manning and Kidd (1997) observe that different agents of the organisation
may be sending different messages regarding the content of the psychological contract
and Rousseau and Greller (1994) note that people do not necessarily differentiate
between a manager making commitments on behalf of the organisation and a manager
making those commitments personally. They also highlight that when managers speak
on behalf of organisations they may say more than the organisation expects them to
say. However this draws attention to the anthropomorphing of the organisation; an
organisation cannot want something in its own right so in effect it is actually likely to
be the wishes of another employee within the organisation that are or are not being
communicated, particularly in the case of large organisations where principal contract
makers are less apparent at most levels
Guest and Conway (2002) note that in large organisations the issue of who is the
employer may be more problematic than in smaller organisations. In the case of large
local authorities and the NHS there is an array of alternative options for whom the
employee may think is their employer and whilst as discussed above the line manager
may be the individual others identify with as the ‘nebulous other’ this may not be the
case. The matter is further complicated as managers differ in many ways within the
same organisational environment and when carrying out similar roles (Liden,
Sparrowe and Wayne 1997).
Given the health and social context of this study, there is recognition that certain
employee groups have specific needs and, as a result of this, develop specific
psychological contracts (e.g. Guzzo, Noonan and Elron 1994, Thomas and Anderson
1998). Also, the needs of professionals are distinct from other groups and
consideration needs to be given to this. Bunderson (2001) suggests that contract
formation for professionals takes account of both their professional and administrative
roles and perceived role obligations and makes clear distinctions between the
professional and administrative dimensions of the contract. Bunderson (2001) further
suggests that professionals also interact with their organisations on two different
levels, both as professionals and as employees. Employment in the public sector, and
especially within health and social care related professions, has tended to attract
individuals with a strong occupational or professional commitment (Bartlett 2007
p126).
Reviewing the literature, there is an opportunity to explore who is contracting with
whom, to investigate who and what shapes individual contracts within a health and
social care context, and how policy might influence practice.
Methodology
Context
This paper draws upon an ethnographic case study investigating the psychological
contracts of health and social care employees, examining who is contracting with
whom. The study was conducted in an integrated Community Learning Disability
Team, including nurses, therapists and social workers, where Delia is a team
manager. The team brings together employees from an NHS Trust and a Local
Authority Social Services department in Wales. It could be argued that these two
organisations have distinct cultures and policies, which have shaped employee
perceptions of their psychological contract. With the move towards integration, new
local policies have been developed, and it might be expected that employees’ original
psychological contracts will be different and may have changed in response to the
new structure. This paper focuses on three policy documents developed to support the
integrated team and their potential influence on perceptions of the psychological
contract.
Data collection
As Delia was both a team manager and researcher, we were careful to ensure data
collection was rigorous and free from any potential coercion. Ethical approval was
obtained from the Local Research Ethics Committee (LREC) and the NHS Trust’s
Internal Review Panel (IRP). A range of data collection methods were employed,
including policy document analysis, qualitative questionnaires and semi-structured
interviews.
Various government policies (Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) 2005, 2007)
regulate practice, and shape local policy. It has been argued that documents are
sources of data that have been underutilised by qualitative researchers (Silverman
2001, Prior 2003). The reason for this is that they place the researcher at a point
removed from the research participants, there is the removal of the face-to-face
contact which has recently been emphasised in ethnographic studies (Hammersley and
Atkinson 2007 p121). However, this is not to argue that they are not an important
data source. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that documents are, ‘a rich source of
information, contextually relevant and grounded in the contexts they represent’
(p277). Miller and Alvarado (2005) argue that whilst qualitative nurse researchers
have underused this data source, ‘efforts to incorporate documents can be expected to
significantly advance qualitative nursing research’ (p353). The specific local policy
documents examined were: (1) the Operational Policy for the Integrated Team, (2) the
Operational and Professional Management Protocol, and (3) the Integrated
Managerial Supervision policy.
To elicit their views on the psychological contract, anonymous open-ended
questionnaires were distributed to the health and social care team members (n=12)
and interviews were conducted with managers (n=10) within the wider Learning
Disability Health and Social Care setting. The questionnaire and interview schedule
focused on: who the contract is with; having a similar or different (idiosyncratic) deal
to others doing a similar job; personality and equity sensitivity; expectations and
obligations, and how these are communicated; and professional and
organisational/managerial roles. The questionnaire and interview transcripts were
analysed using framework analysis (Easterby-Smith et al 2008).
Findings
Our key question was who was contracting with whom, and how was the
psychological contract shaped. First we analyse local policy documents, which
provide the broad government and organisational context and possibly communicate
messages regarding expectations and obligations in the psychological contract. Next
we present findings from the questionnaires and interviews. Then we compare
statements from policy documents with employee and managerial perceptions. Initial
findings indicate that not only are managers viewed as being agents of the
organisation and brokers of the psychological contracts but that they have a key role
in the interpretation and development of policy at a local level.
Policy documents
1. Operational Policy for the Integrated Team
One of the key documents that have the opportunity to communicate to team
members’ elements of the psychological contract is the operational policy for the
integrated team. This document includes introduction and background, service values
and principles, role and function, service information, access to the integrated team,
generic mainstream healthcare services, carers’ assessment, care co-ordination,
information and record keeping systems, quality assurance, performance indicators
and operational management issues. The document initially provides an explanation
of what integration is and why it is taking place, the emphasis being on the
development of services to meet user need. There is a section on service values and
principles taken from WAG 2005 and 2007 documents:
‘All people with a learning disability are full citizens, equal in status and value to
other citizens of the same age. They have the same right to
live healthy, productive lives with appropriate and responsive treatment and
support to develop their maximum potential
be individuals and decide everyday issues and life-defining matters for
themselves joining in all decision-making which affects their lives, with
appropriate and responsive advice and support where necessary
live their lives within the community, maintaining the social and family ties
and connections which are important to them
have the support of the communities of which they are part and access to
general and specialist services that are responsive to their individual needs,
circumstances and preferences.’
Contemporary statement on Policy and practice for Adults with a learning
disability: Welsh Assembly Government 2007 (this updates the All Wales Strategy)
‘The Welsh Assembly Government has a specific commitment that health and
social services will promote;
the provision of services and support for people at home, or as close to
home as is safely possible
a focus on helping everyone achieve the highest level of independence and
personal potential
services that are accessible, fast, safe and effective, simple to understand,
easy to use and responsive to changing needs
care environments that are safe, offer proper protection to children and
vulnerable adults, and respect people’s dignity
skilled staff who provide services that work every time, but are still
personal to the individual.’
Designed for Life; Creating World Class Health and Social Care for Wales in the
21st Century, Welsh Assembly Government 2005.
Within these statements it can be seen what the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG)
views to be the obligations of learning disability services and what it expects will be
delivered. By adopting these statements within the operational policy the team locally
is showing connection to wider policy rather than necessarily to the local
organisation. The statements themselves demonstrate the context within which the
document has been produced and shows links to the wider political arena. Whilst
many of these statements do not make particular reference to human resources, there
are implications that they will be of high quality, enshrined in the phrase that health
and social services will have, ‘skilled staff who provide services that work every time,
but are still personal to the individual.’ (p4) and ‘services that are accessible, fast, safe
and effective, simple to understand, easy to use and responsive to changing need’
(p4).
2. Operational and professional management protocol
The purpose of the operational and professional management protocol is purported to
be, ‘to clarify operational and professional management responsibilities, so as to
enable smooth and effective team working.’ The specific aims of the protocol are:
‘To ensure role clarity, promote fairness, consistency and continuity for all
CLDT members, to aid the delivery of effective, efficient and person centred
services, to enhance team working, to avoid smaller disciplines becoming
distanced and dislocated from their professional support networks.’ (p1)
This is followed by sections that show which manager takes lead responsibility for
different areas. The areas are: operational management supervision, clinical
supervision, professional practice and development, individual management support,
leadership and delivery of integrated services, study leave, annual leave, sickness,
mandatory training, recruitment, accommodation and facilities, complaints, health and
safety. The protocol then has a section for signing by both the team manager and the
professional manager. Within each specified area there are a few lines of explanation
relating to the item. The protocol does communicate a variety of expectations through
a range of statements in the different sections. The operational professional
management protocol reflects wider organisational policy as some statements embody
reference to other documents, for example, regarding appraisal and supervision, ‘in
accordance with Trust guidance’. Supervision and development are emphasised
strongly within the protocol and are the first items listed and explained. Reference is
made to items such as team development days and regular supervisions, indicating
what the organisation expects to be able to deliver. Expectations of staff delivery are
mentioned, but there is also the recognition of the reciprocal nature of this: staff
should receive appropriate management support and they should deliver the job to a
‘high standard’. Performance issues should initially be dealt with informally, prior to
progressing but again the emphasis is on this being done in a collaborative manner.
The operational manager is expected to ensure the team has a clear purpose and
function, and this cross-references to the purpose of the team as laid out in the
operational policy, there is an expectation that ‘efficient and effective services’ are
delivered. When describing recruitment arrangements there is the inclusion of the
phrase, ‘inclusive of service user involvement’, again indicating in this protocol some
of the wider service philosophy that is expected to be shared with team members.
Staff protection is also mentioned in reference to documents such as the Lone Worker
policy and there is an expectation voiced through the document that staff protection
will be delivered by the organisation.
3. Integrated Managerial Supervision Policy
Whilst the previous document was drawn up as one of the first integrated documents,
it has since become an appendix to another integrated team document, namely the
Integrated Managerial Supervision policy. The policy itself applies to social workers
and nurses whereas the other health members of the team, such as the physiotherapist,
occupational therapist and speech and language therapist, make reference to the
Operational and professional management protocol. Therefore this document relates
to the psychological contracts of only certain members of the team, but these are the
majority of members. The aim of the policy is to ‘set out a framework of core
principles and minimum standards for managerial supervision’ (p1) and outlines;
The basic principles and key aims of supervision
The arrangements for carrying out supervision
Record keeping
Expectations of supervisors and supervisees in supervision
At the beginning of the document there is a commitment statement: ‘the Health Trust
and the Council are respectively accountable for continuously improving the quality
of their services and safeguarding high standards of care…both emphasize the
importance of supervision and stress continuous professional development.’ (p3).
This statement suggests that the aim of supervision is to develop practitioners and to
deliver high quality care. This emphasis and balance is maintained throughout the
document and is reiterated in statements such as ‘To promote best outcomes for
service users and enhance their care’ and ‘to encourage continuous professional
development’ (p3). These statements are likely to speak directly to the members of the
team. Within the document the individuality of each employee is also recognised and
the implication that the interaction is individually tailored to meet each employee’s
needs is expressed in a variety of statements as demonstrated below.
‘Managerial supervision is a collaborative process’ (p3)
‘The content and duration of supervision may vary according to the job and
needs of individual practitioners’ (p4)
‘Where appropriate, the managerial supervisor should support the supervisee
in raising concerns with management in accordance with the whistle blowing
policy of both the Health Trust and Local Authority’ (p5)
‘An important attribute of supervision is to balance accountability to the
Agency, sensitivity to the supervisee (personal issues etc) and risks to Service
Users.’ (p5)
The suggestion is that the organisation is supportive and potentially nurturing to
individuals and that individual needs and differences should be recognised and
brought into the supervision arena. The above list, whilst not being particularly
explicit about each obligation, does provide the framework for obligations to be
individually interpreted, negotiated and exchanged. Within the supervision policy
there is also another emphasis which could be seen in terms of ‘delivery.’ The policy
clearly communicates throughout that there is an expectation that the employee is
going to deliver services to a high professional standard and that management
supervision is a tool by which this can be facilitated. This ‘tool’ is enshrined in
statements such as, ‘It is task orientated, with a formal, service led agenda. It is a
planned process ensuring tasks are carried out to a satisfactory, safe standard in line
with organizational objectives’ (p3) and ‘Managerial supervision will have a written
supervision contract agreed by both parties, and reviewed on a regular basis. The
contract will include expectations, goals, boundaries, rights and responsibilities,
methods of recording and confidentiality’ (p4). This statement makes specific
reference to contract (supervision) expectations being made explicit. However there
are also elements of protection for the supervisee implicit in statements such as
‘supervision should be seen as a confidential process between the practitioner and
their line manager.’ Conversely another statement within the supervision policy
states, ‘Managerial supervision contact records will be monitored to audit supervision
and supervision records may be used as documentation in disciplinary or legal
proceedings’. Overall there are slightly mixed messages about the status of
supervision and, depending on each individual’s interpretation of the policy,
supervision may or may not be viewed as a suitable vehicle for the negotiation and
refinement of the psychological contract.
Findings from questionnaires and interviews
Having analysed the three key policy documents, there is evidence that local policies
are influenced by wider government documents, statements can be seen to shape
aspects of the psychological contract in terms of expectations and obligations, and
managers have the potential to negotiate idiosyncratic deals through the supervision
process. It is beyond the scope of this paper to present the full findings from the
questionnaires and interviews, but some of the key themes relevant to the local policy
documents and statements identified above are now discussed. Questionnaire
respondents are identified as R1, R2 etc and interviewees as I1, I2 etc.
The role of managers as agents of the organisation:
Regarding who the psychological contract is with, the majority of team members who
completed a questionnaire stated that their psychological contract was with their line
manager, although other responses included ‘the service manager’, and ‘colleagues’.
In addition, two respondents made the point that not only was it the line manager but
that their line manager represented their organisation.
‘I think it (the pc) is with the organisational level but it is up to individuals
(managers) to ensure that it is implemented’ (R4)
‘primarily my psychological contract is with my direct line manager as this is
who I have physical contact with and who represents the Trust ideals and
views etc’ . (R9)
Three team members felt that the psychological contract was with the organisation
and with people in the organisation. Similarly, two managers (I1 and I4) viewed their
psychological contract as being with individuals at a higher level within the
organisation (potentially their own line managers). I5 and I10 viewed their
psychological contracts as also being with those senior to them but also felt that they
held psychological contracts with those they managed. I2 viewed it as going down
and across the organisation and the remaining participants viewed their psychological
contracts forming with individuals at all levels of the organisation.
The content of the psychological contract
When asked about what was involved in their deals, team members identified the
following: terms and conditions (R10, R11), pay scales (R1, R5, R7), annual leave
(R7, R8), and training opportunities (R11). Other responses included flexibility
around attending appointments, supervision, ablility to negotiate certain aspects of the
job. Respondents placed emphasis on the recognition of individuality and the ability
to give reward and recognition. When asked, what are your expectations from the
organisation, several respondents talked about equality and fairness (R3, R5, R6, R7,
R11). Others referred to elements of support (R1, R2, R4, R9), and another theme was
safety (R1, R4, R8).
Managers identified similar issues. Four (I2, I5, I8, I9) felt that there was an
obligation on the part of the organisation to pay them. Three (I1, I5, I8) felt that the
organisation was obliged to treat them fairly. In addition to being treated fairly I1 felt
that the organisation was obliged to protect them whereas I4 felt that the organisation
was obliged to protect services (rather than individuals). I2 and I5 felt that the
organisation was obliged to assist in their development. I7 and I9 felt that there was
an obligation for the organisation to respect them (I9 particularly felt that this was a
mutual obligation). I10 felt that the organisation’s obligations did not go beyond what
was laid out in the formal contract of employment. A theme that could be termed
‘opportunities’ also emerged, be that for development as individuals (I2, I5) or
support to develop services (I4), the opportunity to influence services (I7) or the
opportunity to have their abilities (and limitations) recognised (I1).
An expectation of many (I1, I2, I4), I9, I10) was that the service /organisation should
provide service direction. This was described as, strategic overview (I1), service
clarity (I4), service direction (I9), service development (I10). I1 and I2 explicitly
mentioned that they expected support from the organisation whereas other managers
indicated this in other ways, such as ‘I expect it to respect me’ (I4). I6 expected to be
treated fairly and listened to. I1, I2 and I6 expected to be provided with training
involving the development of further skills. There were a variety of other expectations
reported such as, ‘I expect it to be honest’ (I4), which linked with I1’s expectation of
‘fair and transparent decision making’. I2 expected flexibility and I1 expected the
organisation to pay them what they were worth.
The negotiation of the psychological contract
The responses given by the team members in the questionnaires indicated that the
process of supervision was the ground where an exchange of obligations took place.
Many team members indicated that their obligations were communicated through
their actions. As part of managerial supervision, the manager and the supervisee
discuss the actions, which the supervisee has taken in a variety of work situations so
that these actions can then be considered and discussed. In effect, supervision could
be interpreted as the vehicle for the expression of the actions, which the supervisee
feels obliged to have demonstrated as part of their psychological contract. The
response of the supervisor may then be a reciprocal expression of the obligations of
the organisation in response to this.
Six of the ten managers mentioned supervision as a vehicle through which elements
of the psychological contract were communicated. However the comments made were
in general terms and did not go into the specifics of how these conversations took
place. Only one manager made any specific comments about the supervision process,
‘You tend to talk about things in management support and it goes back to your job
description and in my view that only acts as a rough guide to what the organisation
expects of you. I am also mindful that I know what I think they should be doing but I
am quite open to have a conversation about what they think that they should be doing
and to see if that, if there is an alignment between the two and then adjust that if you
like’.
The role of local policies in communicating the psychological contract
Three questions in the questionnaire and interview schedule related to communication
between the individual and the organisation regarding expectations and obligations.
Nearly all respondents discussed oral communication methods as a way of receiving
communication from and communicating to the organisation.
When asked, how do you communicate what you expect from the organisation, all the
team members either referred to supervision and/or in conversation with their
manager, except R10 who stated, ‘I don’t know that I do.’ In addition to this,
responses included ‘through my behaviour’ (R1), ‘in discussion and supervision with
junior team member’ (R8), and ‘I request if I would like something but do not push
the fact if told it would be difficult’ (R6).
The methods by which respondents communicated their obligations to the
organisation were through actions (R3, R4, R6, R7, R9, R10, R11), discussions with
manager, including supervision (R2, R4) and during annual performance development
processes (R1). One respondent was unsure and another suggested that the
organisation should already know what the employees’ obligations were.
The methods by which the organisation communicated its obligations to the
respondents were through: the formal employment contract (R1, R4), policies (R4,
R8, R10), supervision (R2, R9, R10, R11), appraisal (R1), transparency (R3),
management and information (R5), support (R6), pay (R2, R8), team meetings, emails
(R9, R10, R11), and newsletter (R11).
Nearly all respondents discussed oral communication methods as a way of receiving
communication from and communicating to the organisation. As noted before,
‘organizations and individuals create contracts through communications at critical
junctures ...in the employment relationship (Rousseau and McClean Parks 1993 p29).
One of the ‘critical junctures’ identified was supervision. Within the service
individuals receive supervision with their line manager and these responses would
support the views of Shore and Tetrick (1994) and Tekleab and Taylor (1994, 2003)
that the line manager is often perceived by employees to represent the organisation.
There was a feeling by the majority of respondents that their obligations were
communicated through their actions, statements included ‘by doing’. This was an
interesting response as this is not greatly discussed in the literature and respondents
did not indicate who they thought was observing them ‘doing’ or whether this made a
difference to the ‘doing’.
Rousseau and Greller (1994) simply defined the psychological contract as, ‘the
actions employees believe are expected of them and what response they expect in
return from the employer’ (p386). Perhaps the word ‘actions’ is key in this statement
as the respondents closely linked ‘action’ with communication of obligation. However
the intended recipient of the actions is not indicated.
The communication around expectations and obligations was similar for all
respondents, and this would support Herriot and Pemberton’s (1997) observation that,
‘while the content of psychological contracts is likely to be varied, the process of
contracting may be similar wherever contracts are made’ (p45).
Other vehicles for communication of expectations and obligations between the
individual and the organisation were identified and included annual appraisal, policies
and procedures, information systems, team meetings, emails, letters, newsletters, team
brief.
Discussion
We now discuss the degree of congruence between what is communicated through
government and organisation policy documents and what is acted upon at a local
level, as perceived by team members and managers. This is particularly important as
our participants talked about how expectations and obligations were not only
communicated orally, but also through documents such as the formal employment
contract, policies, management and information, emails, and newsletters. These could
be considered what Rousseau (1995) referred to as administrative contract makers.
Having reviewed the three specific local policy documents, we provide evidence of
the extent to which government policy documents in the wider political context
influence local policies. This was evident in the Operational Policy for the Integrated
Team, with the inclusion of several specific statements from WAG (2005) and WAG
(2007). These statements identify what the Welsh Assembly Government considers
the obligations and expectations of learning disability services. Although few
statements make specific mention of human resources, there are references to high
quality ‘skilled staff who provide services that work every time, but are still personal
to the individual.’ (p4) and ‘services that are accessible, fast, safe and effective,
simple to understand, easy to use and responsive to changing need’ (p4). These
statements can be interpreted by both managers and employees to help shape their
perceptions of their psychological contracts. When asked what was expected of them
team members identified the qualities of working hard, being committed, showing
innovation, being proactive, using problem solving skills, having high standards of
professionalism, being continuously developed and following policies. By displaying
these qualities it would be reasonable to suggest that these are the building blocks for
achieving the outcomes suggested in the operational policy.
Considering the second document, the Operational and Professional Management
protocol, this can be viewed as a vehicle for the delivery of the psychological contract
deal. The purpose of this protocol is to ‘to clarify operational and professional
management responsibilities, so as to enable smooth and effective team working.’
Reflecting on whether this document mirrors what participants said were elements of
their psychological contracts, there are considerable areas of agreement between what
team members stated should be included in the deal and what is identified as being
offered by the organisation in this document. The organisation identifies certain
elements that are offered: supervision and development are emphasised strongly
within the protocol and are the first items listed and explained. There is also a
statement that staff should receive appropriate management support and they should
deliver the job to a ‘high standard’. Staff protection is also mentioned in reference to
documents such as the lone worker policy and there is an expectation voiced through
the document that staff protection will be delivered by the organisation. These
elements are identified by team members as being important, particularly supervision,
support and safety.
Identifying the need to define operational and professional management is supported
in the literature, recognising that certain employee groups have specific needs and
develop specific psychological contracts (e.g. Guzzo, Noonan and Elron 1994,
Thomas and Anderson 1998). Bunderson (2001) suggests that professionals take
account of both their professional and administrative roles and perceived role
obligations and makes clear distinctions between the professional and administrative
dimensions of their contract. George (2009) further suggests that professionals have
to decide ‘whether to develop a psychological contract with the employing
organization, with the profession or with both’ (p48).
The third document, the Integrated Managerial Supervision policy, also has the
potential to shape the psychological contract. Statements such as ‘To promote best
outcomes for service users and enhance their care’ and ‘to encourage continuous
professional development’ (p3) are likely to speak directly to the members of the
team, who indicated the importance of the service user. McLean and Andrew (2000)
found that social workers gained satisfaction from helping people, and both
O’Donohue and Nelson (2007) and Guest and Conway (2004) recognised that public
sector employees are most interested in outcomes for service users. Therefore the
document ‘speaks’ of the same interest and obligations to the service users that are
likely to be experienced by the team members. When asked about the most satisfying
elements of their professional role, every respondent made reference to working with
the service users and most specifically referred to the satisfaction gained in improving
or making a difference in a service user’s life. This supports Coyle-Shapiro and
Kessler’s (2003) findings that public service employees reciprocate the treatment they
receive from their employers and if public service employers can fulfil their
obligations to staff this can have positive consequences for the quality of service
provision.
Rousseau and McClean Parks (1993) noted contracts could be created through
communications at critical junctures in the employment relationship. One of the
‘critical junctures’ identified was supervision. Within the service, individuals receive
supervision with their line manager on a monthly basis. This is an opportunity for the
manager, as the agent of the organisation, to discuss local policies. Team members
indicated that the process of supervision was the ground where an exchange of
obligations took place. Many indicated that their obligations were communicated
through their actions, and the manager and the supervisee discuss actions as part of
managerial supervision.
The questionnaire responses indicate supervision provides the grounds for the explicit
communication of elements of the psychological contract. However, Rousseau (1995)
demonstrates that there are potential difficulties with making an implicit contract
explicit as this can lead to a shift in the way that the psychological contract is
perceived and negotiated. Roehling and Boswell (2004) have attempted to make a
distinction between contract types by suggesting that, ‘legal contracts require
intentions and/or conduct that meets a standard of objectivity...and are enforceable in
court, psychological contracts involve highly subjective beliefs that may, or may not
be enforceable’ (p213). This fundamentally highlights the difference between a
psychological contract and a legal contract. The debate becomes more complex when
considering the extent to which the psychological contract should be made explicit, if
it becomes very explicit there is the potential for it to be more formal and as such
could form the basis of a legal contract as elements within it may have formally
become ‘custom and practice.’ Regarding the element of negotiation, Herriot and
Pemberton (1997) suggest that negotiating skills may be viewed as a form of personal
power and may enable a better deal to be created. There is also the possibility that the
more powerful person in the process could choose not to negotiate and instead impose
a deal. In order for a deal to exist, a process of negotiation and compromise needs to
have taken place. Negotiating the deal is a component in the creation of i-deals
(Sturges et al 2005) and can be seen as an ongoing process (Herriot and Pemberton
1997). Within the supervision relationship there is potentially a mismatch of power as
it is likely that the manager will be in a more powerful position than the supervisee in
this situation. Power did not emerge in the interviews or questionnaires as a theme,
although all appeared uncomfortable negotiating idiosyncratic advantages.
Conclusions
We have presented an ethnographic case study exploring the influence of government
policy on local policy, and the impact of local policy on the interpretation and
negotiation of the psychological contract in the health and social care context. Our
case study, of an integrated community learning disability team, provides evidence of
how policy speaks to practitioners, particularly nurses and social workers, and their
managers. Our participants talked about how expectations and obligations were not
only communicated orally, but also through documents such as the formal
employment contract, policies, management and information, emails, and newsletters
We have identified statements in government and organisational policies which have
potential to shape specific aspects of the psychological contract. However, these are
interpreted locally by managers and employees, and negotiated through various
means, particularly through managerial supervision. A key aspect includes the
specific needs of professionals and the distinction between professional and
administrative aspects of their contracts. Finally, we suggest that exploring local
policy documents has largely been ignored in the health and social context but can
provide valuable insight into the construction and negotiation of psychological
contracts. Documents have been underutilised by qualitative researchers (Silverman
2001, Prior 2003), mainly because of the removal of face-to-face contact which has
recently been emphasised in ethnographic studies (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007
p121). However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that documents provide a rich
source of contextually relevant information and Miller and Alvarado (2005) argue that
incorporating documents can advance qualitative nursing research.
We have demonstrated that policy documents can shed light on the construction,
negotiation and maintenance of psychological contracts, where policy can indeed
speak to practice. By having a better understanding of the role of managers in the
development of psychological contracts and the role they play in the development of
local policy, there exists the opportunity for enhanced practice which meets both
individual and organisational needs. Our key findings suggest that health and social
care workers construct their contracts with line managers, as agents of the
organisation, but also with clients and colleagues, which has not been noted in
previous studies and needs to be considered by policy makers and managers. They
also blur the contents of the formal and psychological contract, shaping their
perceptions of expectations and obligations, which have implications for policy
makers (including HR policy) and managers. Our findings also demonstrate that
health and social care workers grapple with the complex tension between addressing
professional and organisational expectations and obligations. Finally, they are aware
of the notion of individual, idiosyncratic psychological contracts but feel
uncomfortable negotiating these. We suggest further research is needed to explore
these emerging themes, and particularly the role of policy in shaping employee
expectations and obligations, the role of managers in understanding these complex
and possibly competing professional and organisational expectations and obligations,
and the construction of contracts beyond line managers, to include clients and
colleagues across the organisational hierarchy, thus extending the notion of
contracting parties.
References
Argyris, C. (1960) Understanding organizational Behaviour. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Anderson, N., and Schalk, R. (1998) The psychological contract in retrospect and
prospect. Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 19, pp 637-647.
Bartlett, K.R. (2007) HRD and organizational commitment in health and social care
organisations, chapter 5 in S Sambrook and J Stewart (eds) (2007) Human Resource
Development in the Public Sector: the case of health and social care, Routledge,
London, pp 112-133..
Bunderson, J.S. (2001) How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of
professional employees: doctors’ responses to perceived breaches. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol 22, pp 717-741.
Conway, N., and Briner, R.B. (2005) Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., and Kessler, I. (2003) The Employment Relationship in the U.K.
Public Sector: A Psychological Contract Perspective. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol 13, No 2, pp 213-230.
Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Jackson PR (2008) Management Research (3rd
Ed)
London: Sage Publications
George, C. (2009) The Psychological Contract. England, Open University Press.
Guest, D., and Conway, N. (2002) Communicating the psychological contract: an
employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal Vol 12, No 2, pp 22-
38.
Guest, D., and Conway, N. (2004) Employee Well Being and the Psychological
Contract CIPD Research report. London, CIPD.
Guzzo, R.A., Noonan, K.A., and Elron, E. (1994) Expatriate Managers and the
Psychological Contract Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 79, No 4, pp 617-626.
Hammersley, M and Atkinson, P (2007) Ethnography (3rd
ed) London, Routledge
Herriot, P., Manning, W.E.G., and Kidd, J.M. (1997) The Content of the
Psychological Contract. British Journal of Management, Vol 8, pp151-162.
Herriot P and Pemberton, C (1997) Facilitating New Deals, Human Resource
Management, 7, pp 45-56
Ho, V.T., Weingart, L.R., and Rousseau, D. (2004) Responses to broken promises:
Does personality matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 65, pp 276-293.
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1987) A New Perspective on Equity
Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct. Academy of Management Review, Vol 12,
No 2, pp 222-234.
Kotter, J.P. (1973) The Psychological Contract: Managing the Joining-Up Process.
California Management Review Spring 1973, No 3, pp 91-99.
Levinson, H. (1965) Reciprocation: The Relationship between Man and Organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, pp 370-390.
Levinson, H., Price, C.R., Munden, K.J., Mandl, H.J., & Solley,
C.M. (1962) Men, management and mental health Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press,
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., and Wayne, S.J. (1997) Leader-member exchange
theory: The past and potential for the future, in Ferris, G.R. (ed) Research in
personnel and resource management, Greenwich.CT
: JAI Press pp 47-119.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry London, Sage Publications.
Mclean, J., and Andrew, T. (2000) Commitment, Satisfaction, Stress and Control
Among Social Services Managers and Social Workers in the UK. Administration in
Social Work 23 (3/4) pp 93-117.
Miller, F.A., and Alvarado, K. (2005) Incorporating Documents into Qualitative
Nursing Research Journal of Nursing Scholarship fourth Quarter 2005.
O’Donohue, W., and Nelson, L. (2007) Let’s be professional about this: ideology and
the psychological contracts of registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 15,
pp 547-555.
Organ, D.W. (1988) Organizational Citizenship behaviour Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books
Prior, L. (2008) Repositioning Documents in Social Research Sociology, Vol 42, No
5, pp 821-836.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002) Perceived Organizational Support: A Review
of the Literature Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 87, No 4, pp 698-714.
Roehling, M.V., and Boswell, W.R. (2004) ‘Good Cause Beliefs’ in an ‘At-Will
World’? A Focused Investigation of Psychological Versus Legal Contracts. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal Vol 16, No 4, pp 211-231.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989) Psychological and implied contracts in organizations.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal Vol 2, pp 121-139.
Rousseau, D (1995) Psychological Contracts in Organisations: Understanding
Written and Unwritten Agreements, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Rousseau, D., and Greller, M. (1994) Human Resource Practices: Administrative
Contract Makers. Human Resource Management Vol 33, pp 385-401.
Rousseau, D., Ho, V., and Greenberg, J. (2006) I-Deals: Idiosyncratic Terms In
Employment Relationships. Academy of Management Review Vol 31, 4, pp 977-994.
Rousseau D and McLean Parks , J. (1993) The Contracts of Individuals and
Organizations Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 15 pp 1-43.
Schein, E.H. (1965) Organizational Psychology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
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.(eds)
Trends in Organizational Behavior New York, Wiley, pp 91-103.
Silverman , D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk,
Text and Interaction. (2nd
ed), London, Sage Publications.
Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., and Liefooghe, A. (2005) Managing the career
deal: The psychological contract as a framework for understanding career
management, organizational commitment and work behaviour. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 26, pp 821-838.
Tekleab, A.G., and Taylor, M.S. (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 Behaviour 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 745-767.
Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., and Bloodgood, J.M. (2003) The Impact
of Psychological Contract Fulfilment on the Performance of In-Role and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management 29 (2) pp 187-206.
WAG (2005) Designed for Life; Creating World Class Health and Social Care for
Wales in the 21st Century, Welsh Assembly Government
WAG (2007) Contemporary statement on Policy and practice for Adults with a
learning disability, Welsh Assembly Government