Making sense of psychological contract breach

Abstract

Purpose -A small number of psychological contract studies have explored the cognitive processes that influence employees' evaluation and reactions to perceived contract breach. The aim of this paper is to extend this reseaerch with a qualitative study on breach using a sense making perspective. Design/methodology/approach -In total, 15 interviews employing critical incident technique to examine employee sense making processes were carried out. Findings -The findings highlight the variety of ways employees perceive contract breach and the processual nature of the experience. Emotions and actions were intertwined in the process of attributing responsibility and finding an explanation for the breach. Research limitations/implications -Contract breach is not necessarily a discrete event and reciprocity is integral to the sense making process. The findings provide a basis for future research that could explore the role of time, contextual factors and various employer representatives as sense-givers in psychological contract evaluations. Practical implications -Employer representatives can aid employees to make sense of critical events that occur in organizations to minimize the effects of breach. Originality/value -The paper provides an under-researched sense making-perspective on psychological contract breach. Through a qualitative inquiry, the complex nature of the employees' experience of and reaction to breach, is highlighted.

Workplace emotion through a psychological contract lens

“…In an attempt to maintain emotional consistency, in line with expectation, contract type was used as a cue to assign attributions to promise experiences. This finding extends current understanding of attributions and emotions in extant literature (e.g., Parzefall and Coyle-Shapiro, 2011). Those with relational contract perceptions used social accounts in the process of attributing blame away from the organisation, instead directing the blame towards themselves or to factors outside the control of the organisation.…”

“…For example, how one reacts emotionally to events within the organisational relationship have been linked to the meanings and attributions ascribed to the experience (Lester et al, 2007;Parzefall and Coyle-Shapiro, 2011). As previously discussed, Lester et al identify social accounts as a way in which employees can explain away any perceived negativity in organisational decisions in an attempt to maintain a more positive perception of their organisational relationship.…”

“…Informative research utilising qualitative methods has been minimal (e.g., Parzefall and Coyle-Shapiro, 2011;Vantilborgh et al, 2012), while prominent psychological contract researchers call for more descriptive, qualitative methods to be applied (Coyle-Shapiro and Shore, 2007;Rousseau, 2011). To address the aims of the study a qualitative approach was taken, using semi-structured interviews and applying a sensemaking perspective to the employees understanding of emotion.…”

“…Building on extant literature (e.g., Conway and Briner, 2002;Parzefall and Coyle-Shapiro, 2011) by extending the contexts within which emotion is investigated (to include over-fulfilment and emotion regulation). Thus, the aims of the study were to:…”

How societal culture influences friction in the employee–organization relationship

“…Phrased differently, breach is about fulfillment of employee expectations, while friction is about (mis)alignment of expectations between the employee and the organization. In terms of temporality, we believe that friction may precede, but not necessarily result in, relational breach (Parzefall & Coyle-Shapiro, 2011); however, in this paper we do not attempt to determine the point at which mounting levels of friction result in breach.…”