Conceptualisation of Psychological Contract: Definitions, Typologies and Measurement

Abstract

Background: Psychological contracts, and particularly the honouring of these contracts – are central to employee behaviour and organisational success. The interest of academics and practitioners in this construct is therefore understandable. However, due to the immense amount of information on the topic, a comprehensive review of the literature is necessary. Aim: The aim of this article is to present a critical review on the conceptualisation of the psychological contract, distilling and operationalising the concept, to ensure that debate and future research are linked to a dominant body of knowledge. Setting: Present literature on psychological contracts is fragmented as no conceptual standardisation exists. Method: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to obtain a large quantum of conceptualisations of the construct and evaluate these for breadth of adoption, consensus, and operationalisation. Results: After reviewing reputable sources published between 1960 and 2020, a standard definition proposed, the most recognised typologies specified, and sound measures identified. It was found that Rousseau’s (1995) definition and typologies (transactional and relational contracts) are still widely used, and that the measuring scale for transactional and relational contracts by Millward and Hopkins (1998) demonstrates good psychometric properties and broadly utilised. Conclusion: Since its inception, several amended definitions, typologies, and measurement of the psychological contract have been presented. Nonetheless, the original conceptualisations still seem to prevail. Managerial implications: Researchers and practitioners are now aware of the most widely adopted definitions, typologies and measuring instruments relating to psychological contract and these should guide them in future discussions and research in the field.

Psychological Contract Breach and Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews

“…Using categorical moderator variables, Topa and Palaci [ 50 ] only confirmed that both the type of employment contract and the occupational category significantly moderate the relationships between psychological contract breach and neglect. Zhao and colleagues [ 48 ] confirmed that the content of the psychological contract breach (relational vs. transactional) significantly moderates the relationships with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and OCB. Topa, Morales, and Depolo [ 22 ] showed that the type of employment contract also moderates the relationships between psychological contract breach and organizational trust.…”

“…A total of 45 potentially relevant systematic reviews were retrieved in full text. The further full-text examination of the retrieved papers allowed us to exclude the following: six duplicates, ten book reviews, one empirical study [ 31 ], one review focused on other work-related topics [ 32 ], one corrigendum article, one review focused on students’ psychological contract [ 33 ], and 17 theoretical reviews [ 6 , 23 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Finally, only 8 systematic reviews and meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria [ 22 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ].…”