Employees are the back bone of every industries & recruitment & selection of employees of every categories call for scrutiny before employment . While joining the organisation ,every employees have hope & aspiration as there recruitment remains a hopeful path for the family .

With this before selecting a candidate for the employment in the organisation we have to carefully examine his bio data it is not merely the academic qualification with his experience ,but we have to observe his contribution in the line with experience in the sense that whether the candidate is career oriented .Besides we have also to view regarding his steadiness with his earlier employment or his record reflects frequent changes in his employment .

While selecting the employees in the line with his said bio data it becomes the duty of the personnel /HRD that the candidate must receive a comfortably entry in the organisation .Besides he should be introduced to his colleagues in his department & at the same time he should also be introduced to the supervisory personnel .

Another view for the new entry is that he should be equipped for the organisation in the line with TWI that is TRAINING WITHIN INDUSTRY .

This will help to establish a co-operative association between employer & Employees .

This is my personal opinion 

With respect to Rohit, your response is more relevant to employer / employee fit than psychological contract breach.  That fit is certainly important, but setting out expectations at the beginning of the employee - employer relationship then monitoring and managing the fit between expectations and reality is key to psychological contract maintenance. As for how to improve psychological contract - that depends on what factors are compromising that contract.

The growth in contract jobs projects the shifting the risk from the employing organization to the individual. In other words, contract workers can be portrayed as marginal and disadvantaged.

The psychological contract is a set of unwritten reciprocal expectations between an individual employee and the organization with the perceptions of both parties to the employment relationship, organization and individual, of the obligations implied in the relationship.

http://www.uv.es/~psycon/documentacion/IJMR_002.pdf

The psychological contract has been defined by Schein (1978) as ‘a set of unwritten reciprocal expectations between an individual employee and the organization’ and by Herriot and Pemberton (1995) as ‘the perceptions of both parties to the employment relationship, organization and individual, of the obligations implied in the relationship’.

Thus, psychological contract is more of perception than reality. The first issue that you will face in your study is 'how to measure psychological contract.'

Employment is a contract between employer and employee.While employment is a physical contract, Psychological contract exists in the mind. Psychological contract is established through a sense of belonging and loyalty  to the organization, which leads to commitment. In psychological contract, employees view fulfillment of their personal aspirations through achievement of organizational goals. In an organizational structure, positional authority may extract compliance but not commitment. Progressive leadership which inspires, empowers, motivates and recognizes human potential can only receive employee commitment, which arises out of Psychological contract.

If I would look for improvements of employees' psychological contract, I would take into account the relational models theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992). The relational models theory proposes the notion of four elementary models of relationships: communal sharing, equality matching, authority ranking, and market pricing.

Oversimplified:

Communal sharing (CS) is concerned with "family"-like relationships, where parties share common values, have no count for work done or effort taken, decide together, share the property. The work is done by the party which has the possibility to do it, since it is a common responsibility.

Equality matching (EM) is based in the "fairness" and "friendship"-like relationships. In this case the participants of the relationship do something in favor and expect an equal answer, reciprocity. Property is not common, but one can take something when being ready to give something in exchange. The work is distributed according to competences and one party is owing a fair equivalent (work, favor) to the partner.

Authority ranking (AR) is a hierarchical type of relationships. One is in charge and the other has to obey. The leader enjoys better treatment (e.g. access to resources) and can even demand certain property. But he or she is also responsible for subordinates or followers.

Market pricing (MP) is the model where a clear differentiation of who owns what and who does what persists. If in the event of EM I do something for you and you do something for me, in the MP-model I account for how much time and how much money I spent in the activity and you have to pay me or do a job which is exactly fitting the amount of work done by me.

Usually, we stick to one of the model for a certain relationship, but we can switch between models in new conditions. For example, one can use CS model at home and switch to MP or AR model in the firm. Moreover, corporate culture influences which model we prefer. In hierarchical, centralized organizations AR might be a dominant model. Or MP can be the basic model in firms. There are firms which rely on friendly relationships or even on family-like ones.

The psychological contract receives, therefore, an interesting meaning: which relational model is it reflecting? Do we offer our employees family-like relationships? They might be concerned with other emotional and burn-out issues than those of authoritarian style. What do employees prefer? I know people who think that AR is the only applicable model to work in firms. Do the psychological contracts reflect it? What if they are based on the EM-model? What if there are people who tend to different models?

There is research showing that inconsistency of models causes conflicts. Imagine that you decide to pay your children for grades. Don't be surprised when the children send you an invoice for washing dishes! Or in a firm: what if a manager (in your case the leader) asks for fair action and then, as leader, gives you an order or a prescription which is fair to him (he is in charge, AR), but not fair for you (you rely on EM model)?

I think the relational models theory is a good approach to the topic you mentioned!

Feel free to ask me if I can further help!

Best,

Eugene

having been CEO of a company and earlier the HR head, I have observed that In an organizational positional authority may extract compliance but not commitment. However, if the employee feels committed to the organization, a psychological contract is established through a sense of belonging and loyalty  to the organization. Though there is no legal sanctity of a psychological contract, socially it exists and leads to commitment of the employee to the organization. Psychological contract, thus, leads employees' fulfillment of their personal aspirations while achieving organizational goals.