Employment expectations: examining the effect of psychological contract fulfillment on bridge employees' personal and work attitudes

Abstract

PurposeIn this study the authors examine whether bridge employees tend to hold non-standard jobs, and if so, whether non-standard job choice is deliberate. Moreover, the authors examine whether fulfillment of employment expectations affects the personal and work attitudes of bridge employees.Design/methodology/approachThe authors' research and hypotheses are supported and developed through psychological contract theory. The authors collected data from 195 bridge employees, employed in a variety of jobs, through an online survey. Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multiple regression.FindingsThis study suggests that some bridge employees may engage in non-standard employment deliberately. Moreover, we show that fulfillment of perceived obligation by employers (psychological contract) is associated with personal and work attitudes (life satisfaction, job satisfaction, affective commitment, normative commitment and intentions to stay) of bridge employees.Research limitations/implicationsWhile this study supports psychological contract theory as an important framework for understanding bridge employment, sample size, cross-sectional data and a lack of diversity in the sample limit causality, generalizability and data robustness. Future research should strive to replicate and extend the current findings.Practical implicationsThe present study underlines the importance of designing jobs to meet the expectations of bridge employees. Also, it highlights the preference of bridge employees to engage in non-standard employment.Originality/valueThe authors extend bridge employment research by empirically examining the relationship between unmet employment expectations and the personal and work attitudes of bridge employees.

Losing faith in paid employment: an extension of the psychological contract breach model as a predictor of self-employment

“…In particular, the literature on modern work contexts (e.g. Raeder, 2018;Mazumdar et al, 2022;Gerber et al, 2012) has not been sufficiently developed (Bankins et al, 2020). Most of the literature on PCs has focused on large company environments and standard employment; SMEs and self-employed workers have not been studied.…”

“…Research on breaches remains relevant, as Bankins et al show in their 2020 review of the literature on PCs. They highlight their current relevance given the many changes in the workplace that have affected employer/employee relations, as well as career management (Gerber et al, 2012), forms of employment (Raeder, 2018;Mazumdar et al, 2022;Cappelli and Keller, 2013) and contracting (Millward and Brewerton, 1999;Kinnie and Swart, 2020) Taking this further would be the hypothesis that a PC breach could contribute to the desire to become self-employed (Felio and Ottmann, 2018;Bureau and Corsani, 2014).…”

“…In particular, the literature on modern work contexts (e.g. Raeder, 2018; Mazumdar et al. , 2022; Gerber et al.…”

Evolutionary Game Analysis between Local Government and Enterprises on Bridge Employment from the Perspective of Dynamic Incentive and Punishment

“…The existing literature has studied bridge employment from different perspectives such as sociology [18], gerontology [19], management [20], economics [21], and psychology [22], mainly involving the following topics: (a) Types of bridge employment. Most literature generally divides bridge employment into two categories: career bridge employment and non-career bridge employment (bridge employment in different fields) [17].…”

Sustainable training practices: predicting job satisfaction and employee behavior using machine learning techniques

“…Thus, this research also focuses on employee behaviors toward their organizations that are voluntary in nature (e.g., extra-role activities) yet expected of them when their levels of expectations correspond to the total fulfilment of their psychological contracts (Mazumdar et al, 2022). These extra-role behaviors are referred to as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and are separated into two components: OCB-Organization (directed toward the organization) and OCB-Individual (directed toward individuals) to minimize confusion (Williams & Anderson, 1991).…”