The paper "Psychology at the Workplace" is a perfect example of a management assignment. The management of employees’ welfare in the workplace has emerged as a rising and key component for organisations in the global market. In the management of employee needs, there are two types of contracts, namely the legal and employee psychological contracts respectively. However, while as it is possible for the employees to seek legal redress if the legal contracts are unfulfilled, this is not always the case of the psychological contracts are unfulfilled. Thus, the lack of a clear recourse approach has led to employee increased dissatisfaction, and thus the need to focus and evaluate this concept.
In this context, the need to ensure that the employees are satisfied and their strategic needs and wants to be aligned with the organisational goals form the core pillar in employee workplace psychology management. This analysis offers a critical evaluation of the key fundamental issues involved in employee workplace psychology management through a review of three different questions. The essay evaluates the impacts of employee psychological contracts bleach, the impact of such dissatisfaction on employee attitudes, and how employees should align their psychological contracts when selecting a potential employer. Question 1: Critically discuss the meaning of psychological contract breach and its effects on employees The concept of psychological contracts can be described and explained through a number of definitions and descriptions in the market.
On one hand, a number of scholars have defined it as the informal values and beliefs that define and dictate on an employee-employer relationship. As such, the psychological contracts represent the values and beliefs that both the employees and the employer have upon the start of an employment contract.
On the other hand, other scholars view it as mainly inclined to the employees. In this case, they describe it as the overall employee expectations and ambitions in a new employment contract. As such, this implies that the psychological contracts can be directly linked to employee goals and expectations. Thus, this means that employee psychological contracts contents and extent determine and influenced mainly by the respective employee needs and wants in the market (Conway & Briner, 2005).
Hence, this leads to the assertion that employment contracts are not a uniform phenomenon across an organisation. Instead, they vary from one employee to the next, and from one employee category and culture to the other. This lead to the arguments that in the development of critical and psychological contracts management systems, employee organisations should orient their systems towards the development of personalised and market unique systems rather than the development of standardised practices in the global market. However, an agreement across all the descriptions is that the lack of an employee legal redress in the market has made the bleach of this strategy a major challenge among the employees. A failure to fulfil and meet the overall employee psychological contracts has a wide range of implications.
On one hand, it leads to employee overall dissatisfaction. This aspect can be explained through a detailed analysis of the components and contributing factors of an employee job and workplace satisfaction. In this case, employee satisfaction is described as the state and nature at which the employee needs and the organisational needs are achieved simultaneously. As such, this is achieved through the alignments of the employee needs and the organisational needs, eliminating the risks of employee conflicts of interest.
However, a failure to meet employee psychological contracts expectations raises the conflict of interest in an organisation. On one hand, upon employment, the employees expect a number of issues from the employers such as an opportunity for career development. Although this could not be directly communicated or included in the formal employment contract, it is a key factor in attracting a large employee workforce in the market.
In the event that this is not achieved, it means that the employees feel that although their productivity and performance increases the organisational well-being they feel that their individual interest is not met as there would desire. Thus, this leads to an overall dissatisfaction with the employer.
Bal, P. M., De Cooman, R., & Mol, S. T. (2013). Dynamics of psychological contracts with work engagement and turnover intention: The influence of organizational tenure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 107-122.
Bal, P. M., de Lange, A. H., Zacher, H., & Van der Heijden, B. I. (2013). A lifespan perspective on psychological contracts and their relations with organizational commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(3), 279-292.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford University Press.
Gallani, S., Krishnan, R., Marinich, E. J., & Shields, M. D. (2015). Budgeting, Psychological Contracts, and Budgetary Slack. Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper, (16-017).
McCabe, T. J., & Sambrook, S. (2013). Psychological contracts and commitment amongst nurses and nurse managers: A discourse analysis.International journal of nursing studies, 50(7), 954-967.
McDermott, A. M., Conway, E., Rousseau, D. M., & Flood, P. C. (2013). Promoting effective psychological contracts through leadership: The missing link between HR strategy and performance. Human Resource Management,52(2), 289-310.
Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2014). Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management,40(4), 1098-1122.