Pestle Of Ryanair
Essay Preview: Pestle Of Ryanair
Report this essay
INTRODUCTION
This critical review of the article of Briner, B and Conway, N (2006) “Protecting the psychological contract” will briefly consider the problem formulation, the place of the theory, methodology, Standard of analysis and presentation. The writers show that an employment contract is vital in the relationship between the employee and the organisation. That a psychological contract is as equally important but is less well known. They further highlight that the psychological contract is highly subjective and contains contracts that are inexplicit, unwritten and not legally binding. They also bring out different reactions from employees when they feel that there has been a broken promise or violation of the contract. They also see the psychological contract as a t useful and important way of understanding an employment relationship and its behavioural effects. The psychological contract has a way of understanding employee well being, attitude and performance and different organisations have different psychological contract and as a result it is essential that people understand how it works.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT
The writers look at how the Psychological contract is made. It is good to see the writers highlighting that signals are likely to be sent out to prospective employees at every stage of the selection process with regards to what can be really expected of them. This shows that the contract starts even before employment. When employed, they get information from their work colleagues and continue to shape and reshape the psychological contract. This is supported by De van, (2004) with the reference to Rousseau, 1995; Shore & Tetrick, 1994 “That psychological contract involves employee beliefs about the reciprocal obligations between themselves and their employers. They can be viewed as the foundation of employment relationships”. Furthermore, Guest, 1999) suggests that in explaining the connection between HR Practices and employee outcome such as job satisfaction, perceived job security and motivation, the psychological contract may be a key intervening variable. However, highlighted by Wellin, M (2007) and Markin et al (1996) the mutuality of the relationship is vital. This does not seem to be highlighted here by the authors instead their focus is toward employees. In the same light the psychological contract has not been made very understandable as it seems to be taking a unitary view.
The article highlights how the psychological contract can be managed. It is useful to see the writers show that in earlier managing of the psychological contract, the emphasis was on making contract explicit. It is also appealing to see the writers highlight the potential disadvantages of this. They also highlight that effective management of the contract and getting line managers equipped with knowledge and resources are very important. However, the writers fail to show that there are different types of psychological contract that can exist. This fact is shown by Rousseau (1996) who identified a 2×2 model of the psychological contract, giving rise to four different contracts. Looking at the contract from this different dimension could have shown ways of managing each contract which would have been more explicit.
The writers show how employees react if they feel that the employer has broken promises or violated the contract. It is good to see them show the adverse effect that occurs as a result of this. This is supported by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) fact sheet that; where employees believe that management has broken promise, a negative effect is seen on the job. Also Sims (1994) helps to strengthen this in explaining that the violation of the psychological contract can show the participants that the common set of values or goals that the parties shared no longer exists. On the other hand it could be thought provoking as to whether a promise existed in the first place, not to even talk of it being broken. Also the types of violations highlighted by Rousseau (2000) as inadvertent, disruption and breach of contract are omitted.
The article shows the importance of line managers in trying to repair damages caused and in getting them to try to understand employees perspective of the psychological contract thereby avoiding broken promises. However according to Spindler (1994) the psychological contract is problematic as employees are often unclear about what they want from and can contribute to the organisation. Furthermore some employers are equally unclear about the expectations from the employees. In this light it might be worth questioning the possibility of prevention of a contract that is unclear from being broken.
The writers highlight that the psychological contract plays a vital role in
Understanding the relationship between the employers and employees and how this affects the behaviour. This is further emphasised by Guest et al (1996) in pointing out that a positive psychological contract needs to be taken seriously as it is strongly linked to higher commitment to the organisation, higher employee satisfaction and better employment relations. Psychological contracts are dynamic, once formed they do not remain static but are constantly evolving through organisational experience and how can it be protected when this is the case? According to Rousseau (1995) they can change without any formal effort to alter their terms.
They also show the practicality of psychological contract being violated and the consequences. The example given by the writers is not universally applicable; it could also be thought to be dependent on the person involved. Guest et al (1996) suggest that the core of the contract can be measured in terms of fairness of treatment, trust, and the extent to which the explicit deal or contract is perceived to be delivered, some aspect of the suggestion of Guest have been neglected by the writers.
CONCLUSION
This article is lacking depth and it lacks authoritative resources. In an employment context, the employees can fall back on Psychological contract as a means of interpreting and predicting their organisations and their relationship and it also provides a sense of control. Thus, its primary function is one of uncertainty reduction, giving employees a greater sense of predictability, security and control (McFarlane Shore and Tetrick 1994; Rousseau,1994). According to Schein (1980) the psychological contract is a powerful determiner of behaviour in organisations. Protecting such a contract is wise as it