Mind Works Overtime In Psychological Contract

Newcastle Herald

Monday March 10, 2008

DAVID MEACHEAM BUSINESS PRACTICE

WE all have in our heads some idea of what we are supposed to do in our working day, regardless of what we find in our work contracts or job descriptions.

The largest part of what we see as our work role is not explicit. Instead it is likely to be part of what is termed the psychological contract.

Common elements of that contract are such matters as applying consistent effort to your job, asking for something further to do when you run out of work, and showing some loyalty to your employing organisation.

A lot of these psychological contract elements are learned in our early working lives. Older workers take these matters for granted but younger ones often need to learn them.

When managers are drawn into a discussion of the psychological elements of their employees' contracts, they can be tempted to rush into making explicit every conceivable element. This can be a trap because what is not included in the formal job contract may be considered as being excluded deliberately.

This has the effect of making the whole relationship very legalistic.

Our understanding of the psychological contract has evolved from a belief in an economic exchange of effort for wages to an opinion that jobs should also fulfil the human need for relationships.

It is not enough to simply be paid for making effort at work; people need to know that they have made a difference.

This question of providing in work an opportunity for people to contribute was the subject of some writing by management consultant the late Peter Drucker. In 1999 he wrote: "Whenever anyone goes to his or her associates and says, 'This is what I am good at. This is how I work. These are my values. This is the contribution I plan to concentrate on and the results I plan to deliver', the response is always, 'This is most helpful. But why haven't you told me earlier?' "

On one occasion when I was teaching this to a Masters class, a student said that if she began such a conversation with some of her staff, she would be afraid of what she might hear.

My response was that at least she would have begun the conversation. It is an approach with a degree of risk but it can be more productive than years of bosses and staff guessing at what the other's expectations of work roles may be.

Dr David Meacheam is senior lecturer in knowledge management and human resources, University of Newcastle business and law faculty