At the Heart of Work Experience

I've written this short article because I continue to observe a heated debate on the web about what should (or could) be the different motivational drivers (of attraction, performance, retention) for an increasingly multigenerational workforce. While studies (academic and business) are proliferating, I have a growing feeling that these focus only on epiphenomena or superficial elements of an issue that can be summarized in two sentences:

How to motivate people?

"By trying to understand what motivates them" (Prof. Stefano Castelli)

What are employees' priorities?

They depend on their personal life moment (or life stage).

If we agree on these two points, then we might try to shift the focus from the identification of "motivational drivers" to the underlying cognitive-motivational process(es) (at intra-psychic and inter-subjective levels), within the individual-organization relationship. This focuses on the well-being and engagement of the former (individual), toward the employee performance 'expected' by the latter (organization). In light of organizations' increasing attention to issues of workforce experience, inclusiveness, well-being and engagement, this point seems to me to be definitely relevant. My personal view is that current debates on these issues often do not explicitly address the so-called "psychological contract" concept; however, this is a very basic (foundational) dimension of every people-organization relationship.

The "psychological contract" can be defined as an individual cognitive structure that reflects how a person (an employee) perceives their exchange/collaboration relationship with their organization. It is a belief system that is established between the individual and the organization (usually the boss, acting on its behalf) about mutual expectations and obligations, within the employment relationship. These obligations motivate the judgment (attitude) and behavior of both parties, when met or disregarded. Psychological contracts underlie the dynamics of rapprochement, integration and separation that are established between individuals and the employer (and/or its management). Respect or violation (even if only perceived) of this "contract" is what determines the quality of the work experience and the duration of employment relationships.

What are the characteristics of the psychological contract?

• It is always bi-directional, in that it involves (and engages) both the individual and the organization, with the same level of accountability;
• It is dynamic; it can undergo variations/changes during the course of the employment relationship as a result of changes in goals and context;
• It has a duration limited to the period of interaction (indirect/direct), from pre-hire to the individual's exit from the organization (employee lifecycle). It arises with the formulation of an opinion (employer brand image) about the organization (e.g., through word-of-mouth or social media initiatives), through those conscious (or unconscious) "employer branding" activities;
• It is considered valid as long as the employment relationship is perceived as generating 'value' for both parties involved (organization and individual);

To understand, however, on what basis to properly set up such a contract, organizations (and individuals) should be aware that there are at least four possible types. Each type has different implications, perceptions and obligations, and therefore should be handled differently.

• Transactional: for occasional (or short-term) collaborations, focusing on the economic terms of the agreement for specific services;
• Relational: for long-term collaborations compensated by the organization through a stable salary and focusing on the professional growth and well-being of the individual;
• Balanced: for long-term collaborations with specific benefits, for which the organization also offers ongoing training support;
• Transitional: for short-term collaborations without specific performance terms. This does not constitute a 'real' psychological contract or commitment between the parties;

Ensuring effective management of the psychological contract between organization and individual is a mutual commitment aimed at making the partnership beneficial and win-win for both parties. In this way, the organization will have employees who are motivated and committed to giving their best, while the latter will feel like protected and supported 'partners,' free to focus on their work. Obviously, the role of management (and leadership) is crucial here.

If we take this perspective as valid, then the psychological contract will have to be managed at two parallel and interacting levels:

• Explicit: at the hiring stage, through the formalization of mutual commitment by contract and periodically at the stage of setting and monitoring performance goals;
• Implicit: through the behaviors enacted in daily work and the trusting relationships established with supervisors and co-workers;

What are the duties of the parties involved in the contract?

• Organization side: to facilitate the integration of the individual into the organizational context and seek to ensure the best possible conditions for the individual to succeed in the work activities (performance) required and agreed upon;
• Individual side: to commit to working within the shared objectives and making a positive value contribution to the organization through the team(s) with which they work;

What can organizations (and management) do to better manage the relationship with their employees? The following are some examples:

1. Ensure a presence (psychological rather than physical) of supervisors, fostering the establishment of relationships based on: respect for the person and the collaborative relationship; transparency in information exchanges and performance cycle management; and trust toward the other person, their intentions and abilities;
2. Providing the optimal (environmental) conditions for the performance of work activities (e.g., availability of technological-instrumental equipment and resources);
3. Fostering the development of a 'truly' inclusive work environment that promotes psychological safety and the ability to express oneself authentically (but always in a professional manner);

Management of the psychological contract in my view would require reflection on the part of organizations, which could then be expressed in a range of services and initiatives to enable managers in this goal. On the other hand, a truly people-centered HR management practice should perhaps rethink its policies and processes considering these aspects described here.

What do you think? I'd be happy to read your comments

Disclaimer: This article is my own reworking and contains personal considerations from work experience. I'd like to thank the "life colleagues" and all the authors who inspired me.

REFERENCES

• Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
• Conway, N., & Rob Briner (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Hui, C., Lee, C., and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), 'Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in China: Investigating Generalizability and Instrumentality,' Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 311–321.
• Rousseau, D.M. (2000), 'Psychological Contract Inventory Technical Report,' Technical Report, Heinz School of Public Policy and Graduate School of Industrial Administration.
• Rousseau, D.M. (2013), 'Psychological Contract Theory,' Encyclopedia of Management Theory, SAGE reference, 635-639.