Psychological contracting: Processes of contract formation during interviews between nannies and their ‘employers’

Abstract

Three studies (one exploratory pilot, one concurrent between‐group post‐only, and one prospective between‐group time‐series) are reported that investigate processes of psychological contracting in the context of interviews conducted by parents (i.e. as prospective employers) looking for a live‐in nanny to care for their children (i.e. prospective employee). The qualitative study involved the development of a coding scheme for analysing interviews with 18 experienced nanny‐employer pairs coupled with a focus group comprising five ‘experts’ trained in psychological contract theory. In the two inferential studies, we examined the quantity (frequency) character (explicit or implicit) and content (relational or transactional) of spontaneous discussion about mutual expectations within two types of employment interview (23 first‐time nanny‐employer pairs and 16 experienced nanny‐employer pairs). In particular, we looked at the consequences of those interviews for: (1) perceptions of mutual trust, mutual understanding and perceived reciprocity at post‐interview; and (2) selection decisions. The results showed that clarity of expectation (or experience) was associated with an increased likelihood of time spent referring to, or discussing, expectations—whether explicitly or implicitly (H1a), but did not induce a more explicit discussion (H1b). On the contrary, clarity predicted an increased likelihood of discussing expectations ‘implicitly’, especially relational considerations (H2b). Generally speaking, relational material was discussed more implicitly than explicitly, whereas transactional material was discussed more explicitly than implicitly (H2a). Moreover, what was discussed (relational or transactional) during interviews predicted feelings of mutual trust, not the explicit/implicit nature of the discussion (H3a). However, implicit discussion did mediate the association between discussion of relational material, mutual understanding (H3b) and perceptions of reciprocity (H3b). Finally, selection decisions could not be attributable to the explicit/implicit nature of discussion (H4a); rather, post‐interview outcomes (mutual understanding and trust, perceived reciprocity) mediated selection decisions (H4b). The theoretical and methodological implications of these findings are discussed.