Based on the theoretical framework of newcomer sensemaking this study examines factors associated with changes in newcomers’ psychological contract perceptions during the socialization process. More speci? cally, two mechanisms are addressed that could explain changes in newcomers’ perceptions of the promises they have exchanged with their employer: (1) unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to reality and (2) adaptation of perceived promises as a function of the reciprocity norm.
To test our hypotheses, a four-wave longitudinal study among 333 new hires has been conducted, covering the ? rst year of their employment relationship. Results show that changes in newcomers’ perceptions of the promises they have made to their employer are affected by their perceptions of their own contributions as well as by their perceptions of inducements received from their employer. Changes in newcomers’ perceptions of employer promises are affected by their perceptions of employer inducements received, but the impact of perceived employee contributions is less clear.
The data provide limited support for the idea that the adaptation of perceived promises to perceived inducements and contributions occurs to a stronger extent during the encounter stage than during the acquisition stage of socialization. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction The psychological contract has been viewed as a relevant construct to explain important employee attitudes and behaviors like commitment, turnover, and organizational citizenship behaviors (e. g. , Conway & Briner, 2000; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Turnley & Feldman, 1999, 2000).
Psychological contracts are de?ned as the beliefs individuals hold regarding the terms and conditions of the exchange agreement between themselves and their organizations (Rousseau, 1989). Most prior research has focused on employees’ perceptions of and responses * Correspondence to: Ans de Vos, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Bellevue 6, 9050 Gent, Belgium. E-mail: ans. devos@vlerick. be Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 20 April 2003 538 A. DE VOS ET AL. to psychological contract breach (e. g. , Conway & Briner, 2002; Lester et al. , 2002; Robinson & Morrison, 1995, 2000; Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003).
These ? ndings, which relate to the aftermath of the psychological contract, call for research into its formation (Rousseau, 2001). However, the process of psychological contract formation remains theoretically underdeveloped and has received limited empirical attention, with two exceptions (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Thomas & Anderson, 1998). Both studies found that during the socialization process newcomers came to perceive that their employers owed them more. In addition, Robinson et al. (1994) found that newcomers came to perceive that they owed less to their employers.
These ? ndings support the idea that newcomers change their psychological contract perceptions based on the reality they encounter after entry. However, both studies only focused on changes in the mean level of newcomers’ psychological contract perceptions without investigating the factors associated with these changes over time. The main objective of this study, then, is to gain a better understanding of the process of psychological contract formation by examining the factors associated with changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts during socialization.
Speci? cally, this study advances theory development on psychological contract formation in three ways. First, this is the ? rst study to investigate psychological contract formation as a sensemaking process taking place during organizational socialization (Louis, 1980). Central to the conceptualization of the psychological contract is that it is a perceptual cognition which exists ‘in the eye of the beholder’ (Rousseau, 1989). This makes it especially relevant to study psychological contract formation from a sensemaking perspective.
Starting from the sensemaking framework this study examines how changes in newcomers’ perceived promises are associated with their interpretations of experiences encountered after organizational entry. Based on this sensemaking framework we investigate the role of two principles: (1) unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to perceptions of reality and (2) changes in perceived promises as a function of the reciprocity norm. Second, this study relates the process of psychological contract formation to the socialization process.
The socialization period is generally considered as an important stage in the formation of employees’ psychological contracts (e. g. , Anderson & Thomas, 1996; Nelson et al. , 1991; Rousseau, 1995; Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Thomas & Anderson, 1998). Socialization research has shown that during this period sensemaking plays an important role in the adjustment of the newcomer to the organization, especially during the ? rst months after entry (Morrison, 1993a, 1993b;
Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Therefore the present research examines how sensemaking processes about the psychological contract operate during both socialization stages (encounter and acquisition). Third, this study takes into account newcomers’ perceptions of both parties’ promises and actions (employer and employee).
To date most research has focused exclusively on employer inducements, although reciprocity between employer inducements and employee contributions is considered to be a de? ning element of the psychological contract (Millward & Brewerton, 2000; Rousseau, 1995). Taking into account newcomers’ perceptions of both parties’ promises and actions makes it possible to examine how both are dynamically interrelated over time.
This study also makes a methodological contribution by using a longitudinal research design involving multiple data collection waves. This is the only way in which the factors explaining changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts over time can adequately be captured. The psychological contract is widely assumed to re? ect an exchange process (Millward & Brewerton, 2000; Rousseau, 1995; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). By using four data collection waves it becomes possible to track variations over time and to empirically assess reciprocity between employer inducements and employee contributions.
Also, by using theoretically relevant time spans between data collections it is possible to study hypotheses about the adaptation process during different socialization stages. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003) PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT 539 Theory Psychological contract formation as a sensemaking process The period of organizational entry and socialization is characterized by sensemaking processes through which newcomers come to understand, interpret, and respond to their new environment (Louis, 1980).
Sensemaking refers to cognitive processes that individuals employ in organizational settings to cope with surprise and novelty (Louis, 1980). These sensemaking processes are seen as critical to the development of attitudes and behaviors that enable newcomers to function effectively within their new work environment (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Sensemaking helps newcomers to bring their expectations in line with reality, thereby reducing feelings of unmet expectations or broken promises (Louis, 1980). The sensemaking process is viewed as a cycle of events occurring over time (Louis, 1980).
This cycle begins before entry, when future employees form unconscious and conscious anticipations and assumptions about their future employment relationship. After entry, newcomers experience events that may trigger a process through which prior expectations are changed and predictions about future experiences are revised (Louis, 1980). These retrospective interpretation processes thus involve an active change of expectations and assumptions based on actual experiences (Meyer, Bobocel, & Allen, 1991; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). The updated anticipations and revised assumptions are analogous to changes in cognitive schemas.
A schema is de? ned as a cognitive structure that represents organized knowledge about a person or situation (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Schemas typically affect the perception of incoming information, the retrieval of stored information, and inferences based on that information (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). The description of sensemaking as a process through which newcomers actively form and change their cognitive schemas makes it relevant to apply this to psychological contract formation. The psychological contract is conceived as a cognitive schema that individuals hold about the terms of their employment relationship.
It consists of individuals’ beliefs about what is expected to occur in the organization and what is expected of the individual in return (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). The psychological contract is a perceptual cognition de? ned at the level of the individual. This means that it is the perception of reality, not reality as such, which is the central focus of psychological contract research (Rousseau, 1989, 1995; Schalk & Freese, 1997). What’s important in this conceptualization is that the perceiver is conceived as an active constructor of reality (Robinson, 1996).
This means that employees actively make sense of their psychological contract based upon their experiences within the organization (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). This relates psychological contract formation to newcomer sensemaking. At entry, most newcomers have only limited or incomplete information about the terms of their employment relationship (Rousseau, 2001). This motivates newcomers to actively interpret their initial experiences as a basis for predicting future events and for changing their expectations, thereby making their psychological contract schema more complete.
This in turn should help them to reduce uncertainty and make their experiences in their new work setting more predictable (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). This sensemaking process implies that perceptions of promises are adapted based upon newcomers’ interpretations of their experiences in the work setting (Rousseau, 2001). These experiences relate to the contractual behavior of both parties to the employment relationship, i. e. the inducements provided by the employer and the contributions made by the employee. Patterns of change in newcomers’ perceived promises.
Newcomers’ psychological contracts are comprised of beliefs about the inducements they have been promised by their employer (e. g. , career opportunities, ? nancial rewards, an interesting job content) Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003) 540 A. DE VOS ET AL. Figure 1. The role of unilateral and reciprocal adaptation in explaining changes in newcomers’ psychological contract perceptions and the contributions they have promised to make in return (e. g. , performance, extra-role behavior, ?exibility, loyalty).
To understand the patterns of change in newcomers’ perceived promises it is important to consider both parties’ contributions (see Figure 1). Based on sensemaking theory we expect that the adaptation of perceived promises to the interpretation of experiences can occur both unilaterally and reciprocally. Unilateral adaptation implies that newcomers change their perceptions of promises made by one party (themselves or their employer) based on their interpretation of the contributions made by that party.
Reciprocal adaptation means that newcomers change their perceptions of promises made by one party based on their interpretation of the contributions made by the other party. For example, newcomers could change their perceptions of employer promises about career opportunities (1) as a function of their evaluation of the career development opportunities their employer actually offers or (2) as a function of their evaluation of the contributions they make to their employer.
The former principle refers to the unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to evaluations of reality, while the latter re?ects changes in perceived promises as a function of the reciprocity norm. Both principles are complementary in the sense that they both explain why newcomers change their psychological contract perceptions as a consequence of their interpretations of their experiences within the work setting. This means that, in order to fully understand psychological contract formation as a sensemaking process, we have to focus on newcomers’ perceptions of promises made by both parties (employer and employee) and on their evaluations of the contributions made by both parties.
Unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to interpretations of experiences Unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to interpretations of experiences implies that newcomers change their perceptions of promises conveyed by one party (themselves or their employer) as a consequence of their interpretations of that party’s actions. These actions are an important source of feedback to the newcomer about his or her anticipations because they are a source of feedback about whether original perceptions of promises in fact need revision (Rousseau, 2001).
First, organizational actions inform newcomers about the commitments the organization is willing to make. For example, the amount of training a newcomer receives can inform him or her about the extent to which the organization makes commitments relating to learning and development. Newcomers who expect to receive a lot of training might increase their initial level of perceived employer promises about learning and development after entry. Inversely, newcomers who expect to receive insuf? cient training might Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J.
Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003) PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT 541 decrease their initial level of perceived promises. Sensemaking of employer promises thus implies that, depending on their interpretations of organizational actions after entry, newcomers change the level of their initial perceptions of promises conveyed by their employer. Hypothesis 1: The greater the perception of employer inducements received, the greater the employer promises are perceived to be over time. The same reasoning holds for promises about employee contributions.
Newcomers entering an organization take on a set of tasks and must learn how to perform these tasks. They must also learn the level of commitment they have to show to their employer in different areas like performance level, ? exibility, loyalty, or ethical behavior. These commitments may be different from what they initially believed to have promised their employer, i. e. , the promises re? ected in their initial psychological contract schema.
For example, newcomers can initially believe to have promised a high level of ?exibility in working hours. After entry they might experience that they are actually showing a rather low level of ? exibility. Based upon this self-evaluation they could decrease the level of perceived promises about ? exibility. Thus, perceived employee promises are adapted to newcomers’ interpretations of their actual contributions within the work environment. Hypothesis 2: The greater the perception of employee contributions made, the greater the employee promises are perceived to be over time.
Reciprocal adaptation of perceived promises to interpretations of experiences Adaptation of perceived employer and employee promises can also occur reciprocally, based upon the newcomer’s interpretation of the other party’s actions in the work setting. For example, organizational actions not only inform newcomers about the promises the organization is willing to make (thereby affecting changes in perceived employer promises) but also about the promises the newcomer should make in return (thereby affecting changes in perceived employee promises).
The latter relates sensemaking to the conceptualization of psychological contract formation as an exchange process unfolding between employer and employee. Psychological contract theory is based upon exchange theory. It expands the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) to include employees’ beliefs about the reciprocal employer and employee obligations being part of their employment deal (Rousseau, 1995). Basic to the norm of reciprocity is that one party’s receipt of a bene? t obligates him or her to return a payment.
Continued receipt and payment over time is likely to create an increasing number and diversity of obligations between the parties to the exchange relationship (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961). The reason for this escalation is that individuals strive to create imbalance in their exchange relationships to avoid becoming indebted to the other party (Blau, 1964). Previous longitudinal research has provided evidence for the role of the reciprocity norm in explaining psychological contract outcomes like organizational citizenship behavior, performance, and intentions to stay (e. g. Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995).
While these studies directly focused on outcome variables, our study illuminates intervening processes by focusing on the relationship between newcomers’ interpretations of their experiences and changes in perceived promises. We expect that, in order to retain balance, newcomers will change their perceptions of what they have promised their employer (e. g. , about loyalty or performance) as a function of their evaluations of the inducements received from their employer. This means that a greater perception of employer inducements will be related to a greater perception of employee promises over time.
Hypothesis 3: The greater the perception of employer inducements received, the greater the employee promises are perceived to be over time. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003) 542 A. DE VOS ET AL. Until now the reciprocity norm has mainly been studied in one direction, i. e. , in explaining changes in employee outcomes as a function of employer inducements. To fully assess reciprocity in psychological contract formation it is necessary to investigate the bidirectional in? uence between newcomer and organization (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000).
Employees, in making contributions, are conferring a bene? t to their employer. Following exchange theory, this creates an obligation for the employer to reciprocate (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). Thus, in order to restore balance, newcomers with a greater perception of their own contributions will increase their perceptions of what their employer has promised them (e. g. , in terms of career opportunities or ? nancial rewards). Hypothesis 4: The greater the perception of employee contributions made, the greater the employer promises are perceived to be over time.
Psychological contract formation during different socialization stages The need for sensemaking will be greatest when uncertainty is high (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). Schemas are most likely to change when people are motivated to make the cognitive effort change requires. Socialization research suggests that it is mainly during the encounter stage of socialization, i. e. , the ? rst months after entry, that newcomers actively test their anticipations against the reality of their new work experiences.
During this period, differences between anticipations and experiences become apparent and contribute to a ‘reality shock’ (Louis, 1980; Schein, 1978). Coping with such differences through active sensemaking and adaptation of expectations is central during this period (Morrison, 1993a, 1993b). Relating this to psychological contract formation means that this is the period during which perceived promises are most likely to change as a consequence of newcomers’ interpretations of their experiences.
The individual’s adjustment to the organization further occurs during the sixth to twelfth month after entry, i.e. , the acquisition stage of socialization (Louis, 1980; Schein, 1978). During this period newcomers become better acquainted with their new employment setting. As a more stable cognitive schema about the employment relationship develops, uncertainty about the new employment relationship is reduced and active sensemaking processes decrease (Anderson & Thomas, 1996; Louis, 1980; Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Schein, 1978). Therefore we expect that during this period newcomers’ experiences will become less likely to affect changes in their perceived promises.
Hypothesis 5: The relationship between newcomers’ interpretations of experiences and changes in perceived employer and employee promises will be stronger during the encounter stage than during the acquisition stage of socialization. Organizational Context Sample The sample consisted of full-time employees with a permanent employment contract, working for six large, privately owned ? rms in Belgium. These ? rms represent four industries (telecommunication, electronics, consulting, and ? nancial services) and they are all part of international groups.
All ? rms consisted of several business units spread over the country. This means that there was both Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003) PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT 543 between- and within-? rm variability in location and speci? c activity of respondents. The fact that these were all large organizations may have affected the type of promises made to newcomers, the socialization activities employed, and the more general HR practices put in place in order to realize these promises.
It may also have played a role in determining newcomers’ expectations towards their employment relationship. All respondents had a high school or college degree. They were all hired for clerical or white-collar jobs: 28 per cent were hired for a job as consultant, 22 per cent for an ICT job, 17 per cent for a job in logistics and production, and 16 per cent for a job in sales and marketing. Time frame When T1 and T2 data were collected (fall 2000 and winter 2001), the economic conditions in Belgium were very favorable.
At that time, a major concern for employers was their ability to attract quali?ed job candidates in a very tight labor market. This was especially the case for the industries and professional groups involved in our study. Consequently, the companies involved in our study were promising attractive inducements to their future employees. However, during the study period (T3 and T4 data collections) the economic situation had changed, which made it dif? cult for these organizations to deliver all of the inducements promised. At the same time these employers probably increased their expectations towards employees’ contributions (e. g. , their ? exibility or productivity).
These economic changes might have affected the changes in mean level of respondents’ perceived promises and experiences. Method Sample and procedure The respondent population for this study consisted of 975 newcomers from six large private ? rms in Belgium. These ? rms represent four industries (telecommunication, electronics, consulting, and ? nancial services). In each of these organizations, all newcomers who had been hired with a permanent employment contract were contacted and invited to participate in the study. In four of the ? rms employees were informed about the study during the orientation training.
In the other two ? rms, which had no formal orientation training for newcomers, they were informed by the recruitment specialist when signing their contract. Participation in the study was voluntary. Con? dentiality of responses was formally guaranteed by the researchers and by the organization. Written surveys were used to collect data at four points in time: 2 weeks after entry (T1) and then 3 months (T2), 6 months (T3), and 12 months (T4) after entry. These intervals were based on socialization literature research suggesting that 3, 6, and 12 months are meaningful intervals in the socialization process (Bauer et al., 1998; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b).
All questionnaires were sent by mail to potential respondents, together with a letter providing clari? cations about the research and a pre-stamped return envelope addressed to the researchers. 720 newcomers ? lled out the ? rst questionnaire, representing a 74 per cent response rate. The ? nal sample consisted of 333 participants. These represent 34 per cent of the originally contacted sample and 46 per cent of the respondents at T1. Mean age of respondents was 26. 96 years (SD ? 5. 77) and 35 per cent were female. For 40. 2 per cent of the respondents, this was their ? rst job.
Comparison of newcomers who participated in the full study with those who stopped their participation on demographic characteristics and study variables did not show signi? cant differences as a function of subject dropout. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003) 544 A. DE VOS ET AL. Measures Perceived promises were assessed at T1, T3, and T4. Perceived inducements and contributions were assessed at T2, T3, and T4. Commensurate measures were used for assessing perceived promises and perceived inducements and contributions.
For employer inducements 19 items were used, tapping ?ve content dimensions of the psychological contract (career development, job content, social atmosphere, ? nancial rewards, work-life balance). For employee contributions, 19 items focusing on ? ve content dimensions were selected (in- and extra-role behavior, ? exibility, ethical behavior, loyalty, employability). These items and the content dimensions to which they refer were selected based upon previous work by Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler (1998, 2000), Freese and Schalk (1996), Guest and Conway (1997, 1998), Herriot et al. (1997), and Rousseau (1990, 1998). The items used to measure each content dimension are presented in the Appendix.
Perceived employer promises were assessed at T1 by asking respondents to indicate the extent to which their employer had made promises to them—implicitly or explicitly—about each of the 19 inducements listed. At T3 and T4 the instruction was slightly changed in order to assess respondents’ perceptions of employer promises at that point in time: ‘Now that you have several months of experience in your new job, please indicate to which extent, based upon the knowledge you have now, you currently believe that the items listed are promises your employer has made to you.
’ Answers were given on a ? ve-point scale ranging from ‘not promised at all’ to ‘promised to a very great extent’. Perceived employee promises were assessed using the same ? ve-point response scale. At T1 respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they had made promises to their employer—implicitly or explicitly—about each of the 19 contributions listed. At T3 and T4 the instruction was changed in the same way as for perceived employer promises, in order to measure respondents’ perceptions of employee promises at the time of the data collection.
Perceived employer inducements: at each time point respondents’ perceptions of the inducements they received from their employer were assessed by asking them to indicate the extent to which they believed their employer actually offered them each of the 19 inducements listed. A ? ve-point response scale was used, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘to a very great extent’. Perceived employee contributions were assessed using the same ? ve-point response scales. At each time point respondents indicated the extent to which they believed they actually offered each of the 19 employee contributions to their employer. Results.
Table 1 reports the correlations between the psychological contract measures together with the alpha coef? cients for the scales. All scales showed suf? cient to high reliabilities at each time point, with only a few exceptions. At T1 Cronbach’s alpha of the scales measuring perceived employer promises about ? nancial rewards and work-life balance were lower than 0. 70 (0. 63 and 0. 66 respectively). This was also the case for perceived employee promises about ? exibility (0. 63). At T2 the alpha for perceived employee contributions relating to ethical behavior was 0. 66. All other alphas were higher than 0. 70.
Because these scales had not been used previously, it was important to demonstrate their construct validity. This was done through four sets of con? rmatory factor analyses on T3 data, conducted with AMOS 4. 1 (Arbucle, 1999). We assessed the validity of the ? ve-dimensional model for perceived employer promises, perceived employer inducements, perceived employee promises, and perceived employee contributions. The ? ve-dimensional models always indicated a good ? t. Inspection of the Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003) 0. 39 (0. 75) 0. 16 0. 32 0. 35 0. 31 0. 09 0. 17 3. Social.
4. Financial 5. Private life 0. 06 0. 10 0. 15 0. 17 8. Loyalty 9. Ethics Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 0. 13 0. 06 0. 16 0. 20 0. 10 0. 09 12. Job 13. Social 14. Financial 15. Private life 5 7 0. 02 0. 03 19. Ethics 20. Employability 0. 08 0. 18 0. 26 0. 20 0. 13 0. 16 22. Job 23. Social 24. Financial 25. Private life 0. 13 0. 21 0. 11 0. 19 0. 06 0. 16 26. Role behavior 27. Flexibility 28. Loyalty T3 Perceived employee promises 0. 55 0. 19 0. 24 0. 53 21. Career T3 Perceived employer promises 0. 12 0. 10 0. 11 0. 13 18. Loyalty 0. 14 0. 24 0. 20 0. 42 0. 26 0. 21 0. 63 0. 23 0. 11 0. 02 0. 13 0. 13 0. 25 0.
20 0. 21 0. 22 0. 57 0. 18 0. 19 0. 28 0. 01 0. 15 0. 07 0. 14 0. 23 0. 35 0. 12 0. 32 0. 23 0. 59 0. 61 0. 24 0. 21 0. 19 0. 26 0. 43 0. 13 0. 28 0. 02 0. 12 0. 12 0. 15 0. 04 0. 16 9 0. 08 0. 13 0. 04 0. 13 0. 21 0. 23 0. 08 0. 17 0. 14 0. 12 0. 18 0. 19 0. 48 0. 47 0. 09 0. 25 0. 36 0. 60 0. 64 0. 33 0. 37 0. 37 0. 11 0. 18 0. 23 0. 18 0. 25 0. 23 0. 22 0. 11 0. 10 0. 12 0. 13 0. 17 0. 07 0. 12 0. 20 0. 08 0. 18 0. 16 0. 44 0. 32 0. 32 0. 20 0. 34 0. 14 0. 10 0. 29 0. 34 0. 24 0. 33 0. 42 0. 27 0. 24 0. 14 0. 13 0. 01 0. 29 0. 15 0. 15 0. 10 0. 12 0. 06 0. 14 0. 45 0. 24 0. 12 0. 24 0. 14 0. 18 0. 22 0. 14 0. 22 0.
15 0. 18 0. 40 0. 06 0. 16 0. 18 0. 16 0. 12 0. 19 0. 20 0. 11 0. 10 0. 09 0. 21 0. 12 0. 26 0. 19 0. 08 0. 30 0. 09 0. 14 0. 20 0. 21 0. 24 0. 20 0. 41 0. 17 0. 19 0. 18 0. 17 0. 21 0. 02 A0. 03 0. 22 0. 12 0. 40 0. 23 (0. 86) 0. 23 (0. 74) 0. 12 0. 11 0. 06 0. 06 0. 12 0. 34 0. 16 0. 44 0. 10 0. 17 0. 12 0. 11 0. 07 0. 07 0. 23 0. 00 0. 03 0. 41 0. 10 A0. 08 0. 02 0. 11 0. 15 0. 15 0. 12 0. 11 0. 14 0. 12 0. 06 0. 04 0. 01 0. 20 0. 07 0. 22 0. 36 (0. 66) 0. 18 (0. 76) 0. 23 0. 06 0. 13 0. 07 0. 11 0. 17 0. 12 0. 18 0. 04 0. 10 0. 14 0. 14 0. 17 0. 48 0. 21 0. 22 0. 00 0. 18 A0. 07 0. 26 (0. 70) 0. 44 0. 32 0. 20 0.
29 0. 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 0. 19 (0. 73) 0. 35 (0. 86) 0. 52 (0. 86) 0. 07 0. 12 0. 14 0. 23 0. 15 0. 07 0. 06 0. 09 0. 17 0. 13 0. 14 0. 06 0. 14 0. 04 (0. 86) 10 11 12 13 0. 38 (0. 78) 0. 35 0. 35 (0. 77) 0. 45 (0. 76) 8 0. 06 0. 08 0. 08 0. 20 0. 45 0. 05 0. 22 0. 21 0. 16 0. 12 0. 13 0. 14 0. 12 0. 18 0. 15 0. 40 0. 22 0. 55 0. 18 0. 39 0. 12 0. 45 (0. 63) 0. 20 (0. 84) 6 0. 06 0. 15 A0. 02 0. 06 A0. 08 0. 11 0. 37 0. 07 0. 13 0. 12 0. 41 0. 13 0. 19 0. 31 0. 08 0. 18 0. 18 0. 22 0. 21 0. 33 (0. 66) (0. 63) 4 17. Flexibility 0. 18 0. 15 0. 22 0. 32 0. 18 0. 21 0. 20 0. 36 0. 31 0. 23 0. 53 0. 32 0. 26 (0. 87) 3 16.
Role behavior T2 Perceived employee contributions 0. 44 0. 29 0. 17 0. 40 11. Career T2 Perceived employer inducements 0. 07 0. 06 0. 17 0. 21 7. Flexibility 10. Employability 0. 15 0. 27 6. Role behavior T1 Perceived employee promises (0. 84) 2. Job 2 1. Career T1 Perceived employer promises 1 Table 1. Correlationsa 22 23 0. 17 0. 06 0. 17 0. 11 0. 06 0. 20 0. 14 0. 18 0. 04 0. 42 0. 01 0. 23 0. 13 0. 27 0. 19 0. 23 0. 27 0. 26 0. 42 0. 60 0. 26 0. 34 0. 47 0. 42 0. 26 0. 22 0. 41 0. 52 (0. 88) 0. 47 (0. 70) 0. 41 (0. 75) (0. 77) Continues 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 0. 33 0. 32 (0. 72) 0. 44 (0. 89) 0. 10 0. 42 (0. 74) 0. 03 (0.85) (0. 75).
20 21 PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT 545 J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003) 0. 08 0. 09 0. 03 0. 16 0. 18 0. 06 0. 07 34. Financial 35. Private life Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 0. 04 0. 12 0. 10 0. 12 0. 03 A0. 03 39. Ethics 40. Employability 0. 15 0. 23 0. 22 0. 17 0. 12 0. 10 42. Job 43. Social 44. Financial 45. Private life 0. 08 0. 22 0. 15 0. 20 0. 17 0. 13 0. 01 0. 13 48. Loyalty 49. Ethics 50. Employability 0. 09 0. 07 0. 09 0. 15 0. 02 0. 04 52. Job 53. Social 54. Financial 55. Private life 56. Role behavior 0. 11 0. 10 T4 Perceived employee contributions 0. 26 0. 27 0. 10 0. 39 51.