An Investigation Of The Relational Component Of The Psychological Contract Across Time, Generation, And Employment Status.(Brief

Scheffe, H. 1953. "A Method for Judging all Contrasts in the Analysis of Variance." Biometrika 40: 87-104.

Schein, E. W. 1965. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shore, L. M. and K. Barksdale. 1998. "Examining Degree of Balance and Level of Obligation in the Employment Relationship: A Social Exchange Approach." Journal of Organizational Behavior 19. 731-744.

Tsang, P. S. and M. A. Vidulich. 1994. "The Roles of Immediacy and Redundancy in Relative Subjective Workload Assessment." Human Factors 36: 503-513.

Waller, M. J., C. P. Huber and W. H. Click. 1995. "Functional Background as a Determinant of Executives' Selective Perception." Academy of Management Journal 38: 943-974.

Whyte, W. H., Jr. 1956. The Organization Man. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Note. Reported Sum of Squares (SS) for the independent variables are Type III. Type III SS is the most conservative approach because it is the sum of squares that would be obtained for each variable if it were entered last into the model.

(***.)p [less than] .001.

Note. Reported Sum of Squares (SS) for the independent variables are Type III. Type III SS is the most conservative approach because it is the sum of squares that would be obtained for each variable if it were entered last into the model.

(*.)p [less than] .05; (***.)p [less than] .001.

[Graph omitted]

APPENDIX

Items on the Psychological Contract Survey

1. Mutual trust

2. Mutual respect

3. Confidence in each other's abilities

4. Openly communicate with each other

5. Concern for each other's needs

6. Mutual support

7. Loyalty to each other

8. Fairness with each other

9. Foster continuing growth and improvement

10. Actively help each other during times of trouble

11. Understanding for each other's needs

12. Mutual dependency

13. Commitment to each other

14. Really care about each other

15. Value each other and their contributions

16. Willing to invest in each other's future growth

17. Willingness to "go the extra mile"

Note. A 5-point rating scale was used on the survey, ranging from 1 (factor is/ was not present at all), 2 (factor is/was present only slightly), 3 (factor is/was present in moderate amounts), 4 (factor is/was present in relatively large amounts), to 5 (factor is/was present in very large amounts). Means, standard deviations, and inter-item correlational matrices for each of the four time periods are available upon request.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates