Subjectification during Processes of Recruitment - Essay Example

CRITICALLY EXPLORE THE CLAIM THAT THE CONCEPT THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT IS A MANIFESTATION OF AN INCREASINGLY INDIVIDUALIZED EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP. Introduction The last few decades have witnessed exhaustive research and study seeking to understand the role and impact of psychological contract in employment relationship. Intellectuals and researchers have raised diverse concerns over the perception and views that psychological contract is a manifestation of individualised employment relationship. Despite the intensive research on psychological contract, scholars are yet to come up with a universally acceptable definition and explanation of the term psychological contract (Anderson 2001, p. 91). Generally, psychological contract is presumed to be an implicit understanding of mutual obligations which is owned by employees, employer, and employing organisation. Psychological contract is also associated with legal and formal employment contract that define the formal responsibilities, duties, and obligation of the employee and the employer in the employment relationship. As elucidated in the psychological contract concept in an organisation, employer-employee relationship ought to have a mutual reciprocal exchange which strengthens the relationship. In most cases, employees are satisfied when there are greater differences between their contribution in the organisation and the inducement offered by the organisation. From the organisation perspective, employees’ contribution ought to be sufficient to attract more inducement from the organisation. Employees’ commitments should also be adequate to elicit employees’ contribution. Some scholars emphasise that employees could advance their performance if the organisation does not interfere too much with the employees’ norms. However, to facilitate mutual interaction in the work environment, employees should respect the rights of the organisation as well as the set ethical conducts. Individualised employment has in the recent past turned out to be a universal state of affair in a large number of local and multinational organisations. This ever-increasing occurrence can be attributed to several internal and external factors. To some extent, scholars and researchers have concurred with the notion that the concept of psychological contract has a significant role in the contemporary individualised employment relationship. However, there are some scholars who are passionately against the idea. To understand how employment relationship is individualised by psychological contract, the essay below will critically explore the claim that the concept of psychological contract is the manifestation of increasingly individualised employment relationship. In the contemporary economy, psychological contract can be presumed to be an individual belief on the existence of a mutual obligation between the employee and the employer. The mutual obligations which exist between the employee and the employer are brought about by the perception that, any promise that has been made either implicitly or explicitly should be respected. As a result, the fulfilment of promissory obligation by one side is contingent which helps to define the fulfilment of the other party’s obligation. Psychological contract is assumed to comprise employees’ perceptions on the mutual obligation present in the agreement between the employer and the employee. Moreover, mutual obligations that prevail between contemporary employees and employers are to a great extent sustained through the reciprocity norm. The reciprocity norm that exist between the employer and employees therefore results into individualised employment relationship Psychological contract is presumed to be shaped by the implications of promise verse needs. Based on the fact that expectation is as a result of needs, the level in which each part can influence these needs is constrained. As a result, the critical element in modern development is the extent in which each part in the employment relation can fulfil the identified needs. In most instances, psychological contract is significantly influenced by how organisation fulfils its promises thought either implicit or explicit signals. However, the level to which an organisation shape individuals’ psychological contract is significantly based on individual’s schema. Individual’s schema guides employees’ interpretation of obligations. Effective explanation of obligation allows individuals to function in a loosely pre-programmed unconscious way pending unordinary occurrence to take place (Bergstrom and Knights 2006, p.253). A psychological contract revolves around employee’s schema which shapes and defines employment relationship. By considering modern technological and economic developments, schema emerges in childhood development age. In childhood, an individual develops the generalised value of reciprocity, value, and hard work. Working values are, on the other hand, influenced and shaped by schools, families’ interaction with other working professional, and peer influence. Before being employed, employees are presumed to have assumptions which define what they should give and receive in employment relationship. The acquired experiences and perceptions which are defined by the individual’s schema have an incredibly essential role in influencing how an individual interprets signals and cues from the organisation. Socialisation period is as well incredibly essential in individualising employment relationship in contemporary economy. Socialisation process is especially essential as it affects organisational authority, which shapes individual’s psychological contract. In most cases, a fully formed schema is highly resistant to changes in the organisation. To reduce uncertainty and complete their psychological contract, newcomers use socialisation method to acquire more information regarding employer-employee relationship. Additionally, several scholars have confirmed that high level of socialisation is especially essential in reducing employees’ perception regarding the employers’ obligations, especially at the initial stage of employment (within the first three months of employment). Newcomers are presumed to change their initial perception concerning the employers’ obligation due to the received inducement. Newcomers in any organisation also changes their perceptions based on what they had been promised as a reward for their contribution into the organisation. Newcomers’ psychological contract during their first year of employment is as a result to a great extent shaped by their socialisation tactics and their proactive nature. Reliance on socialisation statistics is therefore attributed to the advanced individualised employment relationship in modern development. Employment relationship is also influenced by organisational factors such as structural contract makers and human contract makers. The most influential human contract makers include mentors, managers, as well as recruiters. Human contract plays an incredibly essential role in communicating reciprocal obligation to new employees and most specifically newly employed line managers. A structural contracts maker which includes human resources management practices are essential in linking the promises made to the employees and the role of employees in the organisation development. Despite the acceptable organisational influence, individual factors are still dominant in shaping the manner in which employees construe their psychological contracts. In addition, individual factors are essential in enacting contractual behaviours in work relationships. It is clear that personality predicts the type of psychological contract in a working relationship while employee reciprocation is influenced by exchange associated temperaments. Self-serving biases makes an individual to under estimate cost of incentive to the organisation and over estimate their contribution to the organisation. To appreciate and analyse the manner in which employment relationship are individualised, researchers have categorised psychological contract into two dimensions, relational and transactional. Relational and transactional contracts are differentiated based on their tangibility, focus, scope, stability and timeframe. Transactional contract talks about tangible exchanges which are economic in nature. The tangible exchanges include salaries, wages, and other tangible rewards. Relational contracts entail both intangible and tangible exchanges. Intangible rewards entail outings, certificate of appreciation as well as formal recognition. In most cases, relational employers’ obligation is linked to employees’ relational obligations. For instance, in many employers-employee relationships, job security is associated with royalty. Moreover, transactional employee obligation is related to transactional employees’ obligations. For example high pay results to high performance. The Employer Perspective and Individualised Employment Relationship The evaluation of the employers’ perception is also very essential in understanding the role of psychological contract in individualising modern employment relationships. In employer-employee relationship, the employers’ side is in most cases represented by many agencies and personnel. In various instances, the organisation has the responsibility of recruiting, selecting as well as socialising new recruits. However, the organisation does not personify all these activities, yielding a number of different positions. The first position explores the exchange relationship at the dyadic level between the immediate managers and the employees. The exchange relationship between employees and immediate managers play major roles of monitoring, maintaining as well as forming employees’ psychological contracts. Immediate managers also have the responsibility of representing the expectation of the organisation to the employees by evaluating and responding to employees’ performance and behaviour at workplace. In spite of their immediate role in shaping psychological contract, for an employee to appreciate the legitimacy of immediate managers, the immediate manager must appear to understand and undertake their responsibility on behalf of the organisation. Immediate managers should as well occupy higher position in the leadership hierarchy. Recent researches have as well confirmed that all decisions that affects employment relationship is usually agreed upon by executive managers or highly experienced and competent professionals who hold the highest position in an organisation. Managers who are at the high positions are responsible of shaping the relationship between employees and employers. The communication between high ranked managers and employees has a very critical influence in shaping the perception of psychological contract (Conway & Briner, 2005, p.79). In most instances, the role of senior and immediate managers in the control and management of employee-employer relationship in an organisation may appear to be confusing. The most effective way of harmonising the role of the two key players is by recognising the fact that an employee may develop multiple exchange relation by either facilitating a direct linkage with the senior manager (distal relationship) or by creating a professional relationship with an immediate manager (proximal). Despite playing a very essential role of making decision, immediate managers also hold a very complicated responsibility of implementing the laid down policies and regulations. Additionally, low level managers may as well create individualised psychological contract with the employees’ through other aspects such as flexibility and autonomy. From that rationale, irrespective of their managerial positions in the organisation hierarchy, all managers have exceptionally essential role in shaping and managing employees’ psychological contracts which is responsible for modern individualised employment relationship. In spite of being assumed to play a very essential role in individualising contemporary employment relationship, some scholars and researchers holds contrary opinion on the role of psychological contract in modern individualised employment relationship. The definitions and explanation of some terms used by some scholars in psychological contract have developed disagreement on the role of psychological contract in individualising employee relationship. For instance, as explained in the psychological contract, promise entails expectation, but expectation in psychological contract does not necessary represent promissory elements. In most instances, expectation is brought about by past experiences and other probabilistic beliefs on future incidences. Promise is mostly based on individuals’ behaviours or communication that makes an individual to beliefs a promise has been made by the employer. The main controversy between the general meaning of the term expectation and the meaning that are given in psychological contract has raised endless question on the contribution of psychological contract on modern individualised employment relationship. In general terms, expectation represent general belief that an incidence may happen in future while promise is a precise perception that something is likely to occur based on behaviours or with an intention of fulfilling the communicated message (Callaghan & Thompson 2002, p. 233). It is only those obligations that arise from implicit or explicit promises constitute psychological contract. This therefore means that obligation that comes from moral values or previous employment experiences should not be incorporated in psychological contract. Taking into account the fact that, several researchers have used the three terms consistently (expectations, obligations and promises) to understand psychological contract, the unfulfilled promise is therefore equated to unmet expectation. Using obligation, promise as well as expectation in the analysis of psychological contract as a result weakens the analytical power of the role of psychological contract in increasing individuality in employment relationship. The extent in which promise, expectation and obligation represent the role of psychological contract require more research, definition and analysis (Bozionelos, 2005, p. 1607). Reciprocity and exchange is the central aspect in the analysis of psychological contract. This can be confirmed by excessive use of concepts such as reciprocal exchange agreement as well as reciprocal obligations. However, the researchers have failed to explain whether the explained exchanges are general or whether these exchanges are accompanied by specific inducements. In analysing other factors that influences employment relationships, the analyses has failed to expound on some inducements that affect exchange such as promotion, training as well as payment. The inclusion of these factors may helps in an intensive analysis of the role of social exchange theory in the evaluation of employee-employer relationship. In the case of psychological contract, researchers have asserted that, resources exchanges are not specific to facilitate the identification of what is exchangeable. Finally, the presumption that reciprocity is essential in explaining contingent interplay between employer and employee contractual behaviour is not satisfactory enough to explain the role of psychological contract in modern individualised employment. Researcher have also not used the association between contract fulfilment or breach and its outcome to support norm of reciprocity. Given the role of reciprocity in the maintenance, development as well as termination of psychological contract, the term reciprocity should be given extra attention in the analysis of the role of psychological contract in individualising employment relationship. Psychological contract therefore ought to provide goals which can be used by employees to access their behaviours and goals. Moreover, further researches ought to be done to evaluate the level at which reciprocity underlies the exchange relationship as well as it effects in employment relationship. Understanding of the motives behind reciprocity is as well necessary in understanding the details of reciprocation. Conclusion In the light of the above analysis, it is clear that psychological contract has an incredibly significant role in shaping the modern individualism in the contemporary employment relationship. The relationship between employers, employees, and employment organisations is based on mutual agreement which explains the contribution of the employee to the organisation and the reward the employee’s is expected to get after working in the organisation. Psychological contract have proved to be influenced by several factors including socialisation and past experiences. The nature of the relationship between employees and the employers has a great role in shaping the performance of the organisation. However, several researches have as well confirmed that, the relationship between employees and employers is based on individual interests. Lack of clear definition of some terms that are used in psychological contract has complicated the understanding of the role of psychological contract in individualising employment relationship. Researchers have as well not given a clear analysis of the facts which triggers several relationships in employee-employer interaction. Therefore, to intensively understand the concept psychological contract and its role in modern employment, researchers and other scholars ought to undertake intensive researches to recognize all factors that trigger interaction in the organisation. References Anderson, N., 2001, “Towards a theory of socialization impact: Selection as pre-entry socialization”, International Journal of Selection & Assessment 9, (1-2), 84-91. Bergstrom, O. and Knights, D., 2006, “Organizational discourse and subjectivity: Subjectification during processes of recruitment”, Human Relations, 59, 3, 351-377. Bozionelos, N., 2005, “When the inferior candidate is offered the job: The selection interview as a political and power game”, Human Relations, 58, 12, 1605-1631. Callaghan, G. & Thompson, P., 2002, “We recruit attitude: The selection and shaping of routine call centre labour” Journal of Management Studies, 39, 2, 233-254. Conway, N & Briner, R., 2005, “Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research”, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Read More