The role of the organisation in managing the psychological contract:

what local policies say to practitioners

Delia Wainwright and Sally Sambrook

Delia Wainwright

Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Wales, UK

Email: delia9@fsmail.net

Phone: 01352 780507

Professor Sally Sambrook

Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Wales, UK

Email: sally.sambrook@bangor.ac.uk

Phone: ++ 44 (0) 1248 382046

The role of the organisation in managing the psychological contract:

what local policies say to practitioners

Delia Wainwright and Sally Sambrook

Abstract

Background

There has been little exploration of the positive benefits of a well managed

psychological contract in a health care setting. Research literature widely suggests

that a well managed psychological contract can have positive benefits for both the

organisation and the employee, including increased levels of commitment, (Guzzo et

1994) organisational citizenship behaviour, (Turnley et al 2003) and decreased staff

turnover.

Aim

This paper addresses the conference theme of innovation, management and leadership

by considering the role of managers in implementing local policies, and their role in

managing the psychological contract. We explore the extent to which managers are

viewed as agents of the organisation and the role the implementation of local policies

has on the construction and development of the psychological contract. We consider

the degree of congruence between what is communicated through government and

organisation policy in comparison to what is acted upon at a local level

Methodology

This paper draws upon a study investigating the psychological contracts of health and

social care employees, examining who is contracting with whom. An ethnographic

approach has been taken and a range of data collection methods employed, including

policy document analysis and qualitative questionnaires.

Findings

Initial findings indicate that not only are managers viewed as being agents of the

organisation and brokers of the psychological contracts but that they have a key role

to play in the interpretation and development of policy at a local level.

Conclusion

By having a better understanding of the role of managers in the development of

psychological contracts and the role they play in the development of local policy,

there exists the opportunity for enhanced practice which meets both individual and

organisational needs.

References

Guzzo, R.A., Noonan, K.A., and Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate Managers and the

Psychological Contract Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 79, No 4, pp 617-626.

Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., and Bloodgood,J.M. (2003) The Impact of

Psychological Contract Fulfilment on the Performance of In-Role and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management 29 (2) 187-206.

The role of the organisation in managing the psychological contract:

what local policies say to practitioners

Introduction

This paper addresses the conference theme of innovation, management and leadership

by considering the role of managers in implementing local policies, and their role in

managing the psychological contract. Our aim is to explore the extent to which

managers are viewed as agents of the organisation and the role the implementation of

local policies has on the construction and development of the psychological contract.

We consider the degree of congruence between what is communicated through

government and organisation policy (espoused) in comparison with what is acted

upon at a local level (in reality).

There has been little exploration of psychological contracts in a health and social care

setting, or through a qualitative lens. This paper goes some way towards presenting an

interpretive view of the interrelationships between the organisation, manager,

employee and the role of policy in the psychological contract. The paper draws upon

a study where Delia is investigating the psychological contracts of health and social

care employees, examining who is contracting with whom. Despite the large body of

literature examining psychological contracts, the context of health and social care has

largely been ignored. Delia is both doctoral researcher and team leader/manager

within this context. Adopting an ethnographic approach, Delia has collected

organisational documents, conducted an open-ended questionnaire survey of team

members and interviewed managers within a community learning disability service.

This paper focuses on a comparative analysis of policy documents and employee

perceptions.

We begin with a brief review of literature on the psychological contract, the role of

managers and documents in shaping the formation of the psychological contract and

the context of professionals and large organisations, such as the National Health

Service (NHS). Next we explain our research study. Then we review three specific

local policy documents and present findings from empirical research with team

members and managers. Finally, we discuss the interpretation and implementation of

local policies, concluding with what policies say to local practitioners about their

psychological contracts.

Literature Review

A large body of literature exists relating to the psychological contract. This is usually

conceptualised as existing between an employer and employee, Argyris (1960),

Levinson et al (1962) and Schein (1965) but little research has explored the role of

organisational policy documents in shaping this relationship. Argyris (1960) first

utilised the term psychological contract, and defined it in terms of an implicit

relationship between the employees and their ‘foreman.’ He believed that the

psychological contract between the parties allowed for the expression and

gratification of each others’ needs. Levinson et al (1962) defined psychological

contracts as, ‘a series of mutual expectations of which the parties to the relationship

may not themselves be dimly aware but which nonetheless govern the relationship to

each other’ (p21). There are reciprocal elements to the relationship which will

continue as long as the parties continue to meet each other’s need and there is an

assumption of reciprocity. Schein (1965 in Anderson and Schalk 1998 p2) then

defined the term as, ‘the unwritten set of expectations operating at all times between

every member of an organisation and the various managers and others in that

organisation... Each employee has expectations about such things as salary or pay

rate, working hours, benefits and privileges that go with a job…the organisation also

has more implicit, subtle expectations that the employee will enhance the image of the

organisation, will be loyal, will keep organisational secrets and will do his or her

best.’ Here, there is reference to the potential parties involved, including employees,

managers and the organisation, but again no mention of the role of organisational

policy. Schein believed that the psychological contract has two levels: individual and

organisational (Anderson and Schalk 1998). Schein introduced the idea that various

managers exist within an organisation and the diversity of relationships within an

organisation could not simply be defined by labelling individuals as either the

‘employee’ or the employer’.

Later, Kotter (1973 p92) defined the psychological contract as, ‘an implicit contract

between an individual and [his] organisation which specifies what each expects to

give and receive from each other in their relationship’. This suggests the idiosyncratic

nature of psychological contracts. Conway and Briner (2005) argue that one of the

main explanations for the idiosyncratic nature is individual personality. Kotter (1973)

viewed the psychological contract as changing over time as the company’s and the

individuals’ expectations change. Rousseau and McClean Parks (1993 p29) state that

‘organizations and individuals create contracts through communications at critical

junctures …in the employment relationship.’ Ho, Weinghart and Rousseau (2004)

noted how individuals react differently to changes to their psychological contract.

Rousseau’s work (1989) shifted the emphasis away from expectations towards the

promissory nature of the psychological contract, and away from it being based on

individuals’ needs towards a concept based on individual perceptions of observable

behaviour. Rousseau also clearly emphasised the employee perspective, arguing

against organisations being anthropomorphised and holding their own contracts

(although accepting that individuals as representatives of the organisation hold

contracts). This orientation ignores the potential influence of policy documents in

shaping individuals’ perceptions of the evolving psychological contract.

There is a wide and growing body of evidence around the outcomes associated with

the psychological contract. Research suggests that a well managed psychological

contract can have positive benefits for both the organisation and the employee,

including increased levels of commitment (Guzzo, Noonan and Elron 1994),

organisational citizenship behaviour (Turnley, Bolino, Lester and Bloodgood 2003)

and staff retention (Rousseau, Ho and Greenberg 2006). A psychological contract

which meets the needs of the employee can lead to increased levels of commitment

and motivation and there is a decreased likelihood that the employee will seek to

leave the organisation. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) carried out a meta-analysis of

the literature particularly in the area of perceived organisational support (closely

related to the psychological contract) and found that it was strongly associated with

affective commitment, performance and lessened withdrawal behaviour. Coyle-

Shapiro and Kessler (2003) demonstrated that public service employees reciprocate

the treatment they receive from their employers and if public service employers can

fulfil their obligations to staff this can have positive consequences for the quality of

service provision.

It is argued that the psychological contract is shaped and held by people. Levinson

(1965) recognised that, ‘the actions of individual people in an organisation are viewed

by them, by the objects of the action, and by observers as actions of the organisation’

(p378). He also observed that many employees in their relationship with other people

act as agents of the organisation. Rousseau (1995) distinguishes between different

types of human contract makers, either as principles or agents. She describes

principles as individuals or organisations making contracts for themselves whereas

agents are described as individuals acting for another….(party) However, Rousseau

(1995) also referred to administrative contract makers – organisational mission and

strategy, HR policy documents and job adverts, for example. Although little research

has explored their impact on practice, these documents may communicate messages

regarding expectations and obligations and thus shape the psychological contact.

Shore and Tetrick (1994) believe that the employee is likely to view their manager as

the chief agent responsible for establishing and then maintaining the psychological

contract. Tekleab and Taylor (2003) point out that, ‘messages from top management

often refer to employees in general, but they do not state each respective employee’s

obligations and inducements’ (p586). They took the position in their research that the

immediate line manager represented the organisation when looking at perceived

obligations and reactions to perceived obligations.

Herriot, Manning and Kidd (1997) observe that different agents of the organisation

may be sending different messages regarding the content of the psychological contract

and Rousseau and Greller (1994) note that people do not necessarily differentiate

between a manager making commitments on behalf of the organisation and a manager

making those commitments personally. They also highlight that when managers speak

on behalf of organisations they may say more than the organisation expects them to

say. However this draws attention to the anthropomorphing of the organisation; an

organisation cannot want something in its own right so in effect it is actually likely to

be the wishes of another employee within the organisation that are or are not being

communicated, particularly in the case of large organisations where principal contract

makers are less apparent at most levels

Guest and Conway (2002) note that in large organisations the issue of who is the

employer may be more problematic than in smaller organisations. In the case of large

local authorities and the NHS there is an array of alternative options for whom the

employee may think is their employer and whilst as discussed above the line manager

may be the individual others identify with as the ‘nebulous other’ this may not be the

case. The matter is further complicated as managers differ in many ways within the

same organisational environment and when carrying out similar roles (Liden,

Sparrowe and Wayne 1997).

Given the health and social context of this study, there is recognition that certain

employee groups have specific needs and, as a result of this, develop specific

psychological contracts (e.g. Guzzo, Noonan and Elron 1994, Thomas and Anderson

1998). Also, the needs of professionals are distinct from other groups and

consideration needs to be given to this. Bunderson (2001) suggests that contract

formation for professionals takes account of both their professional and administrative

roles and perceived role obligations and makes clear distinctions between the

professional and administrative dimensions of the contract. Bunderson (2001) further

suggests that professionals also interact with their organisations on two different

levels, both as professionals and as employees. Employment in the public sector, and

especially within health and social care related professions, has tended to attract

individuals with a strong occupational or professional commitment (Bartlett 2007

p126).

Reviewing the literature, there is an opportunity to explore who is contracting with

whom, to investigate who and what shapes individual contracts within a health and

social care context, and how policy might influence practice.

Methodology

Context

This paper draws upon an ethnographic case study investigating the psychological

contracts of health and social care employees, examining who is contracting with

whom. The study was conducted in an integrated Community Learning Disability

Team, including nurses, therapists and social workers, where Delia is a team

manager. The team brings together employees from an NHS Trust and a Local

Authority Social Services department in Wales. It could be argued that these two

organisations have distinct cultures and policies, which have shaped employee

perceptions of their psychological contract. With the move towards integration, new

local policies have been developed, and it might be expected that employees’ original

psychological contracts will be different and may have changed in response to the

new structure. This paper focuses on three policy documents developed to support the

integrated team and their potential influence on perceptions of the psychological

contract.

Data collection

As Delia was both a team manager and researcher, we were careful to ensure data

collection was rigorous and free from any potential coercion. Ethical approval was

obtained from the Local Research Ethics Committee (LREC) and the NHS Trust’s

Internal Review Panel (IRP). A range of data collection methods were employed,

including policy document analysis, qualitative questionnaires and semi-structured

interviews.

Various government policies (Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) 2005, 2007)

regulate practice, and shape local policy. It has been argued that documents are

sources of data that have been underutilised by qualitative researchers (Silverman

2001, Prior 2003). The reason for this is that they place the researcher at a point

removed from the research participants, there is the removal of the face-to-face

contact which has recently been emphasised in ethnographic studies (Hammersley and

Atkinson 2007 p121). However, this is not to argue that they are not an important

data source. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that documents are, ‘a rich source of

information, contextually relevant and grounded in the contexts they represent’

(p277). Miller and Alvarado (2005) argue that whilst qualitative nurse researchers

have underused this data source, ‘efforts to incorporate documents can be expected to

significantly advance qualitative nursing research’ (p353). The specific local policy

documents examined were: (1) the Operational Policy for the Integrated Team, (2) the

Operational and Professional Management Protocol, and (3) the Integrated

Managerial Supervision policy.

To elicit their views on the psychological contract, anonymous open-ended

questionnaires were distributed to the health and social care team members (n=12)

and interviews were conducted with managers (n=10) within the wider Learning

Disability Health and Social Care setting. The questionnaire and interview schedule

focused on: who the contract is with; having a similar or different (idiosyncratic) deal

to others doing a similar job; personality and equity sensitivity; expectations and

obligations, and how these are communicated; and professional and

organisational/managerial roles. The questionnaire and interview transcripts were

analysed using framework analysis (Easterby-Smith et al 2008).

Findings

Our key question was who was contracting with whom, and how was the

psychological contract shaped. First we analyse local policy documents, which

provide the broad government and organisational context and possibly communicate

messages regarding expectations and obligations in the psychological contract. Next

we present findings from the questionnaires and interviews. Then we compare

statements from policy documents with employee and managerial perceptions. Initial

findings indicate that not only are managers viewed as being agents of the

organisation and brokers of the psychological contracts but that they have a key role

in the interpretation and development of policy at a local level.

Policy documents

1. Operational Policy for the Integrated Team

One of the key documents that have the opportunity to communicate to team

members’ elements of the psychological contract is the operational policy for the

integrated team. This document includes introduction and background, service values

and principles, role and function, service information, access to the integrated team,

generic mainstream healthcare services, carers’ assessment, care co-ordination,

information and record keeping systems, quality assurance, performance indicators

and operational management issues. The document initially provides an explanation

of what integration is and why it is taking place, the emphasis being on the

development of services to meet user need. There is a section on service values and

principles taken from WAG 2005 and 2007 documents:

‘All people with a learning disability are full citizens, equal in status and value to

other citizens of the same age. They have the same right to

live healthy, productive lives with appropriate and responsive treatment and

support to develop their maximum potential

be individuals and decide everyday issues and life-defining matters for

themselves joining in all decision-making which affects their lives, with

appropriate and responsive advice and support where necessary

live their lives within the community, maintaining the social and family ties

and connections which are important to them

have the support of the communities of which they are part and access to

general and specialist services that are responsive to their individual needs,

circumstances and preferences.’

Contemporary statement on Policy and practice for Adults with a learning

disability: Welsh Assembly Government 2007 (this updates the All Wales Strategy)

‘The Welsh Assembly Government has a specific commitment that health and

social services will promote;

the provision of services and support for people at home, or as close to

home as is safely possible

a focus on helping everyone achieve the highest level of independence and

personal potential

services that are accessible, fast, safe and effective, simple to understand,

easy to use and responsive to changing needs

care environments that are safe, offer proper protection to children and

vulnerable adults, and respect people’s dignity

skilled staff who provide services that work every time, but are still

personal to the individual.’

Designed for Life; Creating World Class Health and Social Care for Wales in the

21st Century, Welsh Assembly Government 2005.

Within these statements it can be seen what the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG)

views to be the obligations of learning disability services and what it expects will be

delivered. By adopting these statements within the operational policy the team locally

is showing connection to wider policy rather than necessarily to the local

organisation. The statements themselves demonstrate the context within which the

document has been produced and shows links to the wider political arena. Whilst

many of these statements do not make particular reference to human resources, there

are implications that they will be of high quality, enshrined in the phrase that health

and social services will have, ‘skilled staff who provide services that work every time,

but are still personal to the individual.’ (p4) and ‘services that are accessible, fast, safe

and effective, simple to understand, easy to use and responsive to changing need’

(p4).

2. Operational and professional management protocol

The purpose of the operational and professional management protocol is purported to

be, ‘to clarify operational and professional management responsibilities, so as to

enable smooth and effective team working.’ The specific aims of the protocol are:

‘To ensure role clarity, promote fairness, consistency and continuity for all

CLDT members, to aid the delivery of effective, efficient and person centred

services, to enhance team working, to avoid smaller disciplines becoming

distanced and dislocated from their professional support networks.’ (p1)

This is followed by sections that show which manager takes lead responsibility for

different areas. The areas are: operational management supervision, clinical

supervision, professional practice and development, individual management support,

leadership and delivery of integrated services, study leave, annual leave, sickness,

mandatory training, recruitment, accommodation and facilities, complaints, health and

safety. The protocol then has a section for signing by both the team manager and the

professional manager. Within each specified area there are a few lines of explanation

relating to the item. The protocol does communicate a variety of expectations through

a range of statements in the different sections. The operational professional

management protocol reflects wider organisational policy as some statements embody

reference to other documents, for example, regarding appraisal and supervision, ‘in

accordance with Trust guidance’. Supervision and development are emphasised

strongly within the protocol and are the first items listed and explained. Reference is

made to items such as team development days and regular supervisions, indicating

what the organisation expects to be able to deliver. Expectations of staff delivery are

mentioned, but there is also the recognition of the reciprocal nature of this: staff

should receive appropriate management support and they should deliver the job to a

‘high standard’. Performance issues should initially be dealt with informally, prior to

progressing but again the emphasis is on this being done in a collaborative manner.

The operational manager is expected to ensure the team has a clear purpose and

function, and this cross-references to the purpose of the team as laid out in the

operational policy, there is an expectation that ‘efficient and effective services’ are

delivered. When describing recruitment arrangements there is the inclusion of the

phrase, ‘inclusive of service user involvement’, again indicating in this protocol some

of the wider service philosophy that is expected to be shared with team members.

Staff protection is also mentioned in reference to documents such as the Lone Worker

policy and there is an expectation voiced through the document that staff protection

will be delivered by the organisation.

3. Integrated Managerial Supervision Policy

Whilst the previous document was drawn up as one of the first integrated documents,

it has since become an appendix to another integrated team document, namely the

Integrated Managerial Supervision policy. The policy itself applies to social workers

and nurses whereas the other health members of the team, such as the physiotherapist,

occupational therapist and speech and language therapist, make reference to the

Operational and professional management protocol. Therefore this document relates

to the psychological contracts of only certain members of the team, but these are the

majority of members. The aim of the policy is to ‘set out a framework of core

principles and minimum standards for managerial supervision’ (p1) and outlines;

The basic principles and key aims of supervision

The arrangements for carrying out supervision

Record keeping

Expectations of supervisors and supervisees in supervision

At the beginning of the document there is a commitment statement: ‘the Health Trust

and the Council are respectively accountable for continuously improving the quality

of their services and safeguarding high standards of care…both emphasize the

importance of supervision and stress continuous professional development.’ (p3).

This statement suggests that the aim of supervision is to develop practitioners and to

deliver high quality care. This emphasis and balance is maintained throughout the

document and is reiterated in statements such as ‘To promote best outcomes for

service users and enhance their care’ and ‘to encourage continuous professional

development’ (p3). These statements are likely to speak directly to the members of the

team. Within the document the individuality of each employee is also recognised and

the implication that the interaction is individually tailored to meet each employee’s

needs is expressed in a variety of statements as demonstrated below.

‘Managerial supervision is a collaborative process’ (p3)

‘The content and duration of supervision may vary according to the job and

needs of individual practitioners’ (p4)

‘Where appropriate, the managerial supervisor should support the supervisee

in raising concerns with management in accordance with the whistle blowing

policy of both the Health Trust and Local Authority’ (p5)

‘An important attribute of supervision is to balance accountability to the

Agency, sensitivity to the supervisee (personal issues etc) and risks to Service

Users.’ (p5)

The suggestion is that the organisation is supportive and potentially nurturing to

individuals and that individual needs and differences should be recognised and

brought into the supervision arena. The above list, whilst not being particularly

explicit about each obligation, does provide the framework for obligations to be

individually interpreted, negotiated and exchanged. Within the supervision policy

there is also another emphasis which could be seen in terms of ‘delivery.’ The policy

clearly communicates throughout that there is an expectation that the employee is

going to deliver services to a high professional standard and that management

supervision is a tool by which this can be facilitated. This ‘tool’ is enshrined in

statements such as, ‘It is task orientated, with a formal, service led agenda. It is a

planned process ensuring tasks are carried out to a satisfactory, safe standard in line

with organizational objectives’ (p3) and ‘Managerial supervision will have a written

supervision contract agreed by both parties, and reviewed on a regular basis. The

contract will include expectations, goals, boundaries, rights and responsibilities,

methods of recording and confidentiality’ (p4). This statement makes specific

reference to contract (supervision) expectations being made explicit. However there

are also elements of protection for the supervisee implicit in statements such as

‘supervision should be seen as a confidential process between the practitioner and

their line manager.’ Conversely another statement within the supervision policy

states, ‘Managerial supervision contact records will be monitored to audit supervision

and supervision records may be used as documentation in disciplinary or legal

proceedings’. Overall there are slightly mixed messages about the status of

supervision and, depending on each individual’s interpretation of the policy,

supervision may or may not be viewed as a suitable vehicle for the negotiation and

refinement of the psychological contract.

Findings from questionnaires and interviews

Having analysed the three key policy documents, there is evidence that local policies

are influenced by wider government documents, statements can be seen to shape

aspects of the psychological contract in terms of expectations and obligations, and

managers have the potential to negotiate idiosyncratic deals through the supervision

process. It is beyond the scope of this paper to present the full findings from the

questionnaires and interviews, but some of the key themes relevant to the local policy

documents and statements identified above are now discussed. Questionnaire

respondents are identified as R1, R2 etc and interviewees as I1, I2 etc.

The role of managers as agents of the organisation:

Regarding who the psychological contract is with, the majority of team members who

completed a questionnaire stated that their psychological contract was with their line

manager, although other responses included ‘the service manager’, and ‘colleagues’.

In addition, two respondents made the point that not only was it the line manager but

that their line manager represented their organisation.

‘I think it (the pc) is with the organisational level but it is up to individuals

(managers) to ensure that it is implemented’ (R4)

‘primarily my psychological contract is with my direct line manager as this is

who I have physical contact with and who represents the Trust ideals and

views etc’ . (R9)

Three team members felt that the psychological contract was with the organisation

and with people in the organisation. Similarly, two managers (I1 and I4) viewed their

psychological contract as being with individuals at a higher level within the

organisation (potentially their own line managers). I5 and I10 viewed their

psychological contracts as also being with those senior to them but also felt that they

held psychological contracts with those they managed. I2 viewed it as going down

and across the organisation and the remaining participants viewed their psychological

contracts forming with individuals at all levels of the organisation.

The content of the psychological contract

When asked about what was involved in their deals, team members identified the

following: terms and conditions (R10, R11), pay scales (R1, R5, R7), annual leave

(R7, R8), and training opportunities (R11). Other responses included flexibility

around attending appointments, supervision, ablility to negotiate certain aspects of the

job. Respondents placed emphasis on the recognition of individuality and the ability

to give reward and recognition. When asked, what are your expectations from the

organisation, several respondents talked about equality and fairness (R3, R5, R6, R7,

R11). Others referred to elements of support (R1, R2, R4, R9), and another theme was

safety (R1, R4, R8).

Managers identified similar issues. Four (I2, I5, I8, I9) felt that there was an

obligation on the part of the organisation to pay them. Three (I1, I5, I8) felt that the

organisation was obliged to treat them fairly. In addition to being treated fairly I1 felt

that the organisation was obliged to protect them whereas I4 felt that the organisation

was obliged to protect services (rather than individuals). I2 and I5 felt that the

organisation was obliged to assist in their development. I7 and I9 felt that there was

an obligation for the organisation to respect them (I9 particularly felt that this was a

mutual obligation). I10 felt that the organisation’s obligations did not go beyond what

was laid out in the formal contract of employment. A theme that could be termed

‘opportunities’ also emerged, be that for development as individuals (I2, I5) or

support to develop services (I4), the opportunity to influence services (I7) or the

opportunity to have their abilities (and limitations) recognised (I1).

An expectation of many (I1, I2, I4), I9, I10) was that the service /organisation should

provide service direction. This was described as, strategic overview (I1), service

clarity (I4), service direction (I9), service development (I10). I1 and I2 explicitly

mentioned that they expected support from the organisation whereas other managers

indicated this in other ways, such as ‘I expect it to respect me’ (I4). I6 expected to be

treated fairly and listened to. I1, I2 and I6 expected to be provided with training

involving the development of further skills. There were a variety of other expectations

reported such as, ‘I expect it to be honest’ (I4), which linked with I1’s expectation of

‘fair and transparent decision making’. I2 expected flexibility and I1 expected the

organisation to pay them what they were worth.

The negotiation of the psychological contract

The responses given by the team members in the questionnaires indicated that the

process of supervision was the ground where an exchange of obligations took place.

Many team members indicated that their obligations were communicated through

their actions. As part of managerial supervision, the manager and the supervisee

discuss the actions, which the supervisee has taken in a variety of work situations so

that these actions can then be considered and discussed. In effect, supervision could

be interpreted as the vehicle for the expression of the actions, which the supervisee

feels obliged to have demonstrated as part of their psychological contract. The

response of the supervisor may then be a reciprocal expression of the obligations of

the organisation in response to this.

Six of the ten managers mentioned supervision as a vehicle through which elements

of the psychological contract were communicated. However the comments made were

in general terms and did not go into the specifics of how these conversations took

place. Only one manager made any specific comments about the supervision process,

‘You tend to talk about things in management support and it goes back to your job

description and in my view that only acts as a rough guide to what the organisation

expects of you. I am also mindful that I know what I think they should be doing but I

am quite open to have a conversation about what they think that they should be doing

and to see if that, if there is an alignment between the two and then adjust that if you

like’.

The role of local policies in communicating the psychological contract

Three questions in the questionnaire and interview schedule related to communication

between the individual and the organisation regarding expectations and obligations.

Nearly all respondents discussed oral communication methods as a way of receiving

communication from and communicating to the organisation.

When asked, how do you communicate what you expect from the organisation, all the

team members either referred to supervision and/or in conversation with their

manager, except R10 who stated, ‘I don’t know that I do.’ In addition to this,

responses included ‘through my behaviour’ (R1), ‘in discussion and supervision with

junior team member’ (R8), and ‘I request if I would like something but do not push

the fact if told it would be difficult’ (R6).

The methods by which respondents communicated their obligations to the

organisation were through actions (R3, R4, R6, R7, R9, R10, R11), discussions with

manager, including supervision (R2, R4) and during annual performance development

processes (R1). One respondent was unsure and another suggested that the

organisation should already know what the employees’ obligations were.

The methods by which the organisation communicated its obligations to the

respondents were through: the formal employment contract (R1, R4), policies (R4,

R8, R10), supervision (R2, R9, R10, R11), appraisal (R1), transparency (R3),

management and information (R5), support (R6), pay (R2, R8), team meetings, emails

(R9, R10, R11), and newsletter (R11).

Nearly all respondents discussed oral communication methods as a way of receiving

communication from and communicating to the organisation. As noted before,

‘organizations and individuals create contracts through communications at critical

junctures ...in the employment relationship (Rousseau and McClean Parks 1993 p29).

One of the ‘critical junctures’ identified was supervision. Within the service

individuals receive supervision with their line manager and these responses would

support the views of Shore and Tetrick (1994) and Tekleab and Taylor (1994, 2003)

that the line manager is often perceived by employees to represent the organisation.

There was a feeling by the majority of respondents that their obligations were

communicated through their actions, statements included ‘by doing’. This was an

interesting response as this is not greatly discussed in the literature and respondents

did not indicate who they thought was observing them ‘doing’ or whether this made a

difference to the ‘doing’.

Rousseau and Greller (1994) simply defined the psychological contract as, ‘the

actions employees believe are expected of them and what response they expect in

return from the employer’ (p386). Perhaps the word ‘actions’ is key in this statement

as the respondents closely linked ‘action’ with communication of obligation. However

the intended recipient of the actions is not indicated.

The communication around expectations and obligations was similar for all

respondents, and this would support Herriot and Pemberton’s (1997) observation that,

‘while the content of psychological contracts is likely to be varied, the process of

contracting may be similar wherever contracts are made’ (p45).

Other vehicles for communication of expectations and obligations between the

individual and the organisation were identified and included annual appraisal, policies

and procedures, information systems, team meetings, emails, letters, newsletters, team

brief.

Discussion

We now discuss the degree of congruence between what is communicated through

government and organisation policy documents and what is acted upon at a local

level, as perceived by team members and managers. This is particularly important as

our participants talked about how expectations and obligations were not only

communicated orally, but also through documents such as the formal employment

contract, policies, management and information, emails, and newsletters. These could

be considered what Rousseau (1995) referred to as administrative contract makers.

Having reviewed the three specific local policy documents, we provide evidence of

the extent to which government policy documents in the wider political context

influence local policies. This was evident in the Operational Policy for the Integrated

Team, with the inclusion of several specific statements from WAG (2005) and WAG

(2007). These statements identify what the Welsh Assembly Government considers

the obligations and expectations of learning disability services. Although few

statements make specific mention of human resources, there are references to high

quality ‘skilled staff who provide services that work every time, but are still personal

to the individual.’ (p4) and ‘services that are accessible, fast, safe and effective,

simple to understand, easy to use and responsive to changing need’ (p4). These

statements can be interpreted by both managers and employees to help shape their

perceptions of their psychological contracts. When asked what was expected of them

team members identified the qualities of working hard, being committed, showing

innovation, being proactive, using problem solving skills, having high standards of

professionalism, being continuously developed and following policies. By displaying

these qualities it would be reasonable to suggest that these are the building blocks for

achieving the outcomes suggested in the operational policy.

Considering the second document, the Operational and Professional Management

protocol, this can be viewed as a vehicle for the delivery of the psychological contract

deal. The purpose of this protocol is to ‘to clarify operational and professional

management responsibilities, so as to enable smooth and effective team working.’

Reflecting on whether this document mirrors what participants said were elements of

their psychological contracts, there are considerable areas of agreement between what

team members stated should be included in the deal and what is identified as being

offered by the organisation in this document. The organisation identifies certain

elements that are offered: supervision and development are emphasised strongly

within the protocol and are the first items listed and explained. There is also a

statement that staff should receive appropriate management support and they should

deliver the job to a ‘high standard’. Staff protection is also mentioned in reference to

documents such as the lone worker policy and there is an expectation voiced through

the document that staff protection will be delivered by the organisation. These

elements are identified by team members as being important, particularly supervision,

support and safety.

Identifying the need to define operational and professional management is supported

in the literature, recognising that certain employee groups have specific needs and

develop specific psychological contracts (e.g. Guzzo, Noonan and Elron 1994,

Thomas and Anderson 1998). Bunderson (2001) suggests that professionals take

account of both their professional and administrative roles and perceived role

obligations and makes clear distinctions between the professional and administrative

dimensions of their contract. George (2009) further suggests that professionals have

to decide ‘whether to develop a psychological contract with the employing

organization, with the profession or with both’ (p48).

The third document, the Integrated Managerial Supervision policy, also has the

potential to shape the psychological contract. Statements such as ‘To promote best

outcomes for service users and enhance their care’ and ‘to encourage continuous

professional development’ (p3) are likely to speak directly to the members of the

team, who indicated the importance of the service user. McLean and Andrew (2000)

found that social workers gained satisfaction from helping people, and both

O’Donohue and Nelson (2007) and Guest and Conway (2004) recognised that public

sector employees are most interested in outcomes for service users. Therefore the

document ‘speaks’ of the same interest and obligations to the service users that are

likely to be experienced by the team members. When asked about the most satisfying

elements of their professional role, every respondent made reference to working with

the service users and most specifically referred to the satisfaction gained in improving

or making a difference in a service user’s life. This supports Coyle-Shapiro and

Kessler’s (2003) findings that public service employees reciprocate the treatment they

receive from their employers and if public service employers can fulfil their

obligations to staff this can have positive consequences for the quality of service

provision.

Rousseau and McClean Parks (1993) noted contracts could be created through

communications at critical junctures in the employment relationship. One of the

‘critical junctures’ identified was supervision. Within the service, individuals receive

supervision with their line manager on a monthly basis. This is an opportunity for the

manager, as the agent of the organisation, to discuss local policies. Team members

indicated that the process of supervision was the ground where an exchange of

obligations took place. Many indicated that their obligations were communicated

through their actions, and the manager and the supervisee discuss actions as part of

managerial supervision.

The questionnaire responses indicate supervision provides the grounds for the explicit

communication of elements of the psychological contract. However, Rousseau (1995)

demonstrates that there are potential difficulties with making an implicit contract

explicit as this can lead to a shift in the way that the psychological contract is

perceived and negotiated. Roehling and Boswell (2004) have attempted to make a

distinction between contract types by suggesting that, ‘legal contracts require

intentions and/or conduct that meets a standard of objectivity...and are enforceable in

court, psychological contracts involve highly subjective beliefs that may, or may not

be enforceable’ (p213). This fundamentally highlights the difference between a

psychological contract and a legal contract. The debate becomes more complex when

considering the extent to which the psychological contract should be made explicit, if

it becomes very explicit there is the potential for it to be more formal and as such

could form the basis of a legal contract as elements within it may have formally

become ‘custom and practice.’ Regarding the element of negotiation, Herriot and

Pemberton (1997) suggest that negotiating skills may be viewed as a form of personal

power and may enable a better deal to be created. There is also the possibility that the

more powerful person in the process could choose not to negotiate and instead impose

a deal. In order for a deal to exist, a process of negotiation and compromise needs to

have taken place. Negotiating the deal is a component in the creation of i-deals

(Sturges et al 2005) and can be seen as an ongoing process (Herriot and Pemberton

1997). Within the supervision relationship there is potentially a mismatch of power as

it is likely that the manager will be in a more powerful position than the supervisee in

this situation. Power did not emerge in the interviews or questionnaires as a theme,

although all appeared uncomfortable negotiating idiosyncratic advantages.

Conclusions

We have presented an ethnographic case study exploring the influence of government

policy on local policy, and the impact of local policy on the interpretation and

negotiation of the psychological contract in the health and social care context. Our

case study, of an integrated community learning disability team, provides evidence of

how policy speaks to practitioners, particularly nurses and social workers, and their

managers. Our participants talked about how expectations and obligations were not

only communicated orally, but also through documents such as the formal

employment contract, policies, management and information, emails, and newsletters

We have identified statements in government and organisational policies which have

potential to shape specific aspects of the psychological contract. However, these are

interpreted locally by managers and employees, and negotiated through various

means, particularly through managerial supervision. A key aspect includes the

specific needs of professionals and the distinction between professional and

administrative aspects of their contracts. Finally, we suggest that exploring local

policy documents has largely been ignored in the health and social context but can

provide valuable insight into the construction and negotiation of psychological

contracts. Documents have been underutilised by qualitative researchers (Silverman

2001, Prior 2003), mainly because of the removal of face-to-face contact which has

recently been emphasised in ethnographic studies (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007

p121). However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that documents provide a rich

source of contextually relevant information and Miller and Alvarado (2005) argue that

incorporating documents can advance qualitative nursing research.

We have demonstrated that policy documents can shed light on the construction,

negotiation and maintenance of psychological contracts, where policy can indeed

speak to practice. By having a better understanding of the role of managers in the

development of psychological contracts and the role they play in the development of

local policy, there exists the opportunity for enhanced practice which meets both

individual and organisational needs. Our key findings suggest that health and social

care workers construct their contracts with line managers, as agents of the

organisation, but also with clients and colleagues, which has not been noted in

previous studies and needs to be considered by policy makers and managers. They

also blur the contents of the formal and psychological contract, shaping their

perceptions of expectations and obligations, which have implications for policy

makers (including HR policy) and managers. Our findings also demonstrate that

health and social care workers grapple with the complex tension between addressing

professional and organisational expectations and obligations. Finally, they are aware

of the notion of individual, idiosyncratic psychological contracts but feel

uncomfortable negotiating these. We suggest further research is needed to explore

these emerging themes, and particularly the role of policy in shaping employee

expectations and obligations, the role of managers in understanding these complex

and possibly competing professional and organisational expectations and obligations,

and the construction of contracts beyond line managers, to include clients and

colleagues across the organisational hierarchy, thus extending the notion of

contracting parties.

References

Argyris, C. (1960) Understanding organizational Behaviour. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Anderson, N., and Schalk, R. (1998) The psychological contract in retrospect and

prospect. Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 19, pp 637-647.

Bartlett, K.R. (2007) HRD and organizational commitment in health and social care

organisations, chapter 5 in S Sambrook and J Stewart (eds) (2007) Human Resource

Development in the Public Sector: the case of health and social care, Routledge,

London, pp 112-133..

Bunderson, J.S. (2001) How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of

professional employees: doctors’ responses to perceived breaches. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Vol 22, pp 717-741.

Conway, N., and Briner, R.B. (2005) Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work

Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Coyle-Shapiro, J., and Kessler, I. (2003) The Employment Relationship in the U.K.

Public Sector: A Psychological Contract Perspective. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, Vol 13, No 2, pp 213-230.

Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Jackson PR (2008) Management Research (3rd

Ed)

London: Sage Publications

George, C. (2009) The Psychological Contract. England, Open University Press.

Guest, D., and Conway, N. (2002) Communicating the psychological contract: an

employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal Vol 12, No 2, pp 22-

38.

Guest, D., and Conway, N. (2004) Employee Well Being and the Psychological

Contract CIPD Research report. London, CIPD.

Guzzo, R.A., Noonan, K.A., and Elron, E. (1994) Expatriate Managers and the

Psychological Contract Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 79, No 4, pp 617-626.

Hammersley, M and Atkinson, P (2007) Ethnography (3rd

ed) London, Routledge

Herriot, P., Manning, W.E.G., and Kidd, J.M. (1997) The Content of the

Psychological Contract. British Journal of Management, Vol 8, pp151-162.

Herriot P and Pemberton, C (1997) Facilitating New Deals, Human Resource

Management, 7, pp 45-56

Ho, V.T., Weingart, L.R., and Rousseau, D. (2004) Responses to broken promises:

Does personality matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 65, pp 276-293.

Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1987) A New Perspective on Equity

Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct. Academy of Management Review, Vol 12,

No 2, pp 222-234.

Kotter, J.P. (1973) The Psychological Contract: Managing the Joining-Up Process.

California Management Review Spring 1973, No 3, pp 91-99.

Levinson, H. (1965) Reciprocation: The Relationship between Man and Organization.

Administrative Science Quarterly, pp 370-390.

Levinson, H., Price, C.R., Munden, K.J., Mandl, H.J., & Solley,

C.M. (1962) Men, management and mental health Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press,

Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., and Wayne, S.J. (1997) Leader-member exchange

theory: The past and potential for the future, in Ferris, G.R. (ed) Research in

personnel and resource management, Greenwich.CT

: JAI Press pp 47-119.

Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry London, Sage Publications.

Mclean, J., and Andrew, T. (2000) Commitment, Satisfaction, Stress and Control

Among Social Services Managers and Social Workers in the UK. Administration in

Social Work 23 (3/4) pp 93-117.

Miller, F.A., and Alvarado, K. (2005) Incorporating Documents into Qualitative

Nursing Research Journal of Nursing Scholarship fourth Quarter 2005.

O’Donohue, W., and Nelson, L. (2007) Let’s be professional about this: ideology and

the psychological contracts of registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 15,

pp 547-555.

Organ, D.W. (1988) Organizational Citizenship behaviour Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books

Prior, L. (2008) Repositioning Documents in Social Research Sociology, Vol 42, No

5, pp 821-836.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002) Perceived Organizational Support: A Review

of the Literature Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 87, No 4, pp 698-714.

Roehling, M.V., and Boswell, W.R. (2004) ‘Good Cause Beliefs’ in an ‘At-Will

World’? A Focused Investigation of Psychological Versus Legal Contracts. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal Vol 16, No 4, pp 211-231.

Rousseau, D.M. (1989) Psychological and implied contracts in organizations.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal Vol 2, pp 121-139.

Rousseau, D (1995) Psychological Contracts in Organisations: Understanding

Written and Unwritten Agreements, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Rousseau, D., and Greller, M. (1994) Human Resource Practices: Administrative

Contract Makers. Human Resource Management Vol 33, pp 385-401.

Rousseau, D., Ho, V., and Greenberg, J. (2006) I-Deals: Idiosyncratic Terms In

Employment Relationships. Academy of Management Review Vol 31, 4, pp 977-994.

Rousseau D and McLean Parks , J. (1993) The Contracts of Individuals and

Organizations Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 15 pp 1-43.

Schein, E.H. (1965) Organizational Psychology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Shore, L.M., and Tetrick, L.E. (1994) The Psychological Contract as an Explanatory

Framework in the Employment Relationship,in Cooper, C.L., and Rousseau, D.(eds)

Trends in Organizational Behavior New York, Wiley, pp 91-103.

Silverman , D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk,

Text and Interaction. (2nd

ed), London, Sage Publications.

Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., and Liefooghe, A. (2005) Managing the career

deal: The psychological contract as a framework for understanding career

management, organizational commitment and work behaviour. Journal of

Organizational Behavior 26, pp 821-838.

Tekleab, A.G., and Taylor, M.S. (2003) Aren’t there two parties in an employment

relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agreement on

contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 24, pp 585-

608.

Thomas, H.D.C., and Anderson, N. (1998) Changes in Newcomers’ Psychological

Contracts during Organizational Socialization: A Study of recruits Entering the

British Army. Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 19, pp 745-767.

Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., and Bloodgood, J.M. (2003) The Impact

of Psychological Contract Fulfilment on the Performance of In-Role and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management 29 (2) pp 187-206.

WAG (2005) Designed for Life; Creating World Class Health and Social Care for

Wales in the 21st Century, Welsh Assembly Government

WAG (2007) Contemporary statement on Policy and practice for Adults with a

learning disability, Welsh Assembly Government