To read this content please select one of the options below:

Making sense of psychological contract breach

Marjo‐Riitta Parzefall (Department of Strategy, Management and Leadership, European Business School, Wiesbaden, Germany)
Jacqueline A‐M. Coyle‐Shapiro (Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK)

Journal of Managerial Psychology

ISSN: 0268-3946

Article publication date: 25 January 2011

14650

Abstract

Purpose

A small number of psychological contract studies have explored the cognitive processes that influence employees' evaluation and reactions to perceived contract breach. The aim of this paper is to extend this reseaerch with a qualitative study on breach using a sense making perspective.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 15 interviews employing critical incident technique to examine employee sense making processes were carried out.

Findings

The findings highlight the variety of ways employees perceive contract breach and the processual nature of the experience. Emotions and actions were intertwined in the process of attributing responsibility and finding an explanation for the breach.

Research limitations/implications

Contract breach is not necessarily a discrete event and reciprocity is integral to the sense making process. The findings provide a basis for future research that could explore the role of time, contextual factors and various employer representatives as sense‐givers in psychological contract evaluations.

Practical implications

Employer representatives can aid employees to make sense of critical events that occur in organizations to minimize the effects of breach.

Originality/value

The paper provides an under‐researched sense making‐perspective on psychological contract breach. Through a qualitative inquiry, the complex nature of the employees' experience of and reaction to breach, is highlighted.

Keywords

Citation

Parzefall, M. and Coyle‐Shapiro, J.A. (2011), "Making sense of psychological contract breach", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 12-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111099592

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles