\u201cWho can I blame and what can I do?\u201d: making sense of psychological contract evaluations between Belgian and Chinese employees

Tim Vantilborgh,Jiahong Du

doi:10.1186/s11782-021-00105-w

Tim Vantilborgh, Jiahong Du

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-021-00105-w

Copy DOI

Abstract

This study explores cultural differences in the sensemaking process of employees following psychological contract evaluations. Data from 20 Belgian and 21 Chinese employees were collected using qualitative methods. An analysis of 94 critical incidents relayed by the employees reveals the attributional, emotional, and behavioral reactions that are triggered by psychological contract under-, exact-, and over-fulfillment. Our findings suggest that supervisors were seen as directly responsible for most of the employees’ psychological contract evaluations. Emotional responses are more complex in the process of attributing responsibility. Behavioral actions are subsequently used to deal with three types of psychological contract evaluations. A number of subtle differences are found between the Belgian and Chinese employees. The results highlight the unfolding and dynamic nature of the psychological contract in cultural comparisons.

Highlights

The psychological contract (PC) describes a person’s beliefs regarding the terms of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that person and another party (Rousseau 1989)
Our findings suggest that supervisors were seen as directly responsible for most of the employees’ psychological contract evaluations
Coyle-Shapiro et al (2019) call for Psychological contract (PC) researchers to consider contextual factors, such as cultural differences, in PC evaluations. We address this gap in the literature by comparing sensemaking processes triggered by PC breach and fulfillment perceptions between Chinese and Belgian employees

Summary

Introduction

The psychological contract (PC) describes a person’s beliefs regarding the terms of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that person and another party (Rousseau 1989). It encompasses the individual’s perceptions of the mutual obligations between both parties (Rousseau 1989). A PC breach refers to an employee’s cognition that an organization has failed to deliver on one or more of its obligations to the individual commensurate with his or her contributions to the organization (Morrison and Robinson 1997). By considering every discrepancy between what is delivered and what is perceived to be obligated as a breach, they distinguish over-fulfillment

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion