i was researching the relationship between psychological contract breach and work engagement, is there a research gap of previous studies that discuss the issue. please recommend to me a few articles that discuss these issues?
Engaging Staff in the Workplace, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254582894_Engaging_Staff_in_the_Workplace, makes the point that engagement is something everyone can offer but that it cannot be forced by terms of reference (if the latter make mention of engagement at all); hence, early interest in psychological contracts. The four dimensions of engagement that cannot be captured by terms of reference but would suffer from breaches in psychological contracts are: (i) cognitive (or intellectual)—thinking hard about one’s profession and how one might perform it better; (ii) emotional (or affective)—feeling good about doing a good job; (iii) social—taking opportunities to discuss work-related improvements with others; and, even if literature rarely mentions it, (iv) physical—mustering the stamina to “go the extra mile”. And so yes, the relationship between psychological contracts (and their breach) and work engagement is intuitively close and the subject would undoubtedly benefit from more research.
Article Engaging Staff in the Workplace
Dear
I recommend you to review a limitation section in any paper about psychological contract. In addition you can take in consideration moderated and mediated variables between psychological contract breach and work engagement.
Consider looking into the research examining the Boeing - McDonald-Douglas merger in the mid to late 90's.
There is something that I have been working on that I have presented, but not yet published. It has to do with the connection between the psychological contract and COMMUNICATION between employees and managers, and how that communication either reinforces the trust that lies at the heart of the psych contract, or created psychological contract breach over time.
"Research on organizational exit is often framed via the concept of the psychological contract, “one form of social exchange that develops between employers and employees” (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003, p. 628). Accordingly, employment is based upon the material and emotional expectations of benefits employers and employees reasonably have of each other (Conway & Briner, 2005). The three aspects of the psychological contract include: 1) exchange aspects, 2) career aspects, and 3) relational aspects (Maguire, 2002). The exchange aspect includes the basics of employment: employees provide time and fulfill the duties and responsibilities of their position in return for appropriate levels of rewards such as pay, benefits, et al (Rousseau, 1989). The career aspect includes employee commitment in return for upward organizational mobility and/or training, development, and education to increase employability. The relational aspect is based upon managerial competency and understanding, support to perform labor, participation in decision-making, and a sense of organizational belonging (Maguire, 2002).
Trust lies at the heart of the psychological contract and the employee-organizational relationship, influencing how each party behaves toward the other (Guest & Conway, 2002; Robinson, 1996). While a modicum of trust is given to the organization at the beginning of an employee’s tenure, trust is also developed over time as the employer fulfills various obligations (de Vos, Buyens & Schalk, 2003). If obligations continue to be fulfilled, employees hold more confidence and invest more in the relationship with employers (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009). Trust is a multi-dimensional process by which employees evaluate relationships with peers, superiors, and the organization as a whole (Galford & Drapeau, 2003). The importance of trust helps employees recognize psychological contract breach and how to respond to that breach (Lambert, Edwards & Cable, 2003).
From communication perspective, the psychological contract is co-constructed communicatively between the organization – including one’s supervisor who acts as the organization’s proxy – and the employee (Bambacas & Patrickson, 2008). This relationship is constituted over time through the development of trust, truthfulness, transparency, and kept promises (Lester, Kickul & Bergman, 2007). Promises are particularly important in building trust in relationships, as the keeping promises and breaking of them are important factors in the maintenance of or breakdown of trust in organizational relationships. In organizations, broken promises specifically impact the psychological contract. Most research on the psychological contract, however, minimizes communication – considering it another variable among many – rather than the means by which the contract is created, or broken, over time."
thank you so much for your answer. that was really useful for my reseach.
I would like to advise some of my contributions on the subject: - "The role of the" good soldier "in overcoming the first great economic crisis of the 21st century: The Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors" ( "El Protagonismo del" buen soldado "en la superación de la primera gran crisis económica del siglo XXI: El contrato psicológico y los comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional") - which you can find among my contributions as "Articles" here in "RG" and in the same way, a Doctoral Thesis on the subject, directed by me; In both contributions -in addition- there is a lot of bibliography on the subject