MN7181 - The imporatance of psycological contarct in HR in a Veiw with employee Realtions

The psychological contract has captured the attention of researchers as a
framework for understanding the employment relationship.  In terms of research,
there has been an exponential growth in publications on the topic in the last 15 years
(following the publication of Rousseau’s 1989 article) giving the impression of a
relatively new concept.  Its introduction can however be traced to the 1960s.  The
concept developed in two main phases: its origins and early development covering the
period 1958 to 1988, and from 1989 onwards.  This chapter begins with a review of
the initial phase in the development of the psychological contract highlighting the
commonalities and differences amongst the early contributors.  We then review
Rousseau’s (1989) reconceptualization of the psychological contract, as this has been
very influential in guiding contemporary research.  The two distinct phases in the
development of the psychological contract have given rise to a number of key debates
which we discuss prior to outlining an agenda for future research.
Historical Development of the Psychological Contract
 In tracing the development of the psychological contract, we focus on the
seminal works of Argyris (1960), Levinson, Munden, Mandl and Solley (1962) and
Schein (1965).  We also review the work of Blau (1964) and Gouldner (1960) as these
represent the foundational ideas of social exchange theory upon which subsequent
theorizing on the psychological contract draws. 

A psychological contract can be understood as a ‘deal’ between employer and employee concerning ‘the perception of the two parties, employer and employee, of what their mutual obligations are towards each other.

CIPD 2005:2

Psychological contracts are a set of ‘promises’ or ‘expectations’ that are exchanged between the parties in an employment relationship. These parties include employers, managers, individual employees, and their work colleagues. Unlike formal contracts of employment, they are often tacit or implicit. They tend to be invisible, assumed, unspoken, informal or at best only partially vocalized. Because of this, you have to make a determined effort to find out what they are.

The case of Design Fabrications illustrates some issues raised by the existence of a group psychological contract. 

https://www.alchemyformanagers.co.uk/topics/6ixdhhPwDvZFjsZc.html

Classical early studies
Although Argyris (1960) was the first to coin the term psychological contract,
the idea of the employment relationship as an exchange can be traced to the writings
of Bernard (1938) and March and Simon (1958).  Barnard’s (1938) theory of
equilibrium posits that employees’ continued participation depends upon adequate
rewards from the organization.  Here lies the idea of a reciprocal exchange underlying
 2
the employee-organization relationship.  This was elaborated upon by March and
Simon (1958) in their inducements-contributions model.  They argued that employees
are satisfied when there is a greater difference between the inducements offered by
the organization and the contributions they need to give in return.  From the
organization’s perspective, employee contributions need to be sufficient enough to
generate inducements from the organization, which in turn need to be attractive
enough to elicit employee contributions.  The work of March and Simon (1958) is
rarely acknowledged in the psychological contract literature (Conway & Briner, 2005)
but the idea of a reciprocal exchange bears a remarkable resemblance to a core tenet
of the psychological contract.    
 Argyris (1960) viewed the psychological contract as an implicit understanding
between a group of employees and their foreman, and argued that the relationship
could develop in such a way that employees would exchange higher productivity and
lower grievances in return for acceptable wages and job security (Taylor & Tekleab,
2004).   Argyris (1960) believed that employees would perform at a higher level if the
organization did not interfere too much with the employee group’s norms and in
return employees would respect the right of the organization to evolve. The defining
characteristics of this first explicit conceptualization of the psychological contract
viewed it as an exchange of tangible, specific and primarily economic resources
agreed by the two parties that permitted the fulfillment of each party’s needs. 
 Subsequently, Levinson et al. (1962) introduced a more elaborate
conceptualization of the psychological contract that was heavily influenced by the
work of Menninger (1958).   Menninger (1958) suggested that in addition to tangible
resources, contractual relationships also involve the exchange of intangibles.

Content 

 In light of the subjective nature of the psychological contract, researchers have
attempted to categorize psychological contract items (e.g., job security, interesting
work, career prospects, pay, training and developmental opportunities, autonomy in
job) in terms of two underlying dimensions: transactional and relational.  The
distinction between the two draws upon the legal work of MacNeil (1974; 1980) and
also parallels Blau’s (1964) distinction between economic and social exchange .

New’ psychological contracts

New psychological contracts are potentially more unstable, since they can be more temporary or ad hoc. They assume a greater sense of ‘partnership’ between employer and employee, usually on the expectation of a less permanent period of salaried ‘employment’. There is a growing trend towards employment arrangements with ‘interim workers’, contract workers, portfolio or knowledge workers, or ‘interim managers’. Such people may work with an organisation for a limited period, or on an agency or freelance basis. The psychological contract of interim workers is even more complex, because it is negotiated – consciously or unconsciously – as a tripartite relationship between the placement agency, the temporary worker and the temporary ‘employer’.

References 

Argyris, C. (1960).  Understanding Organizational Behavior.  Homewood, IL:   Dorsey Press. Arnold, J.  (1996).  

The psychological contract:  A concept in need of closer scrutiny?  European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5: 511-520. 

Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003).  Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration.  Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 491-509. 

Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. Wiley: New York.

 Conway, N. & Briner, R.B. (2002). A Daily Diary Study Of Affective Responses To Psychological Contract Breach And Exceeded Promises, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 287-302.

 Conway, N & Briner, R.B (2005).  Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Conway, 

MN7181 - Learning Styles

Introduction

Basic Learning Cycles / Styles have been developed and Following article will be discussed mainly on Kolbs Learning Cycle as an approach to learning styles  ( Honey and Mumford, 1989 ) & VAK Learn ing Styles (Barbe, 1979 )

The Experiential Learning Cycle - Kolbs Learning Cycle 

Kolb's experiential learning style theory is typically represented by a four-stage learning cycle in which the learner 'touches all the bases':

1. Concrete Experience - a new experience or situation is encountered, or a reinterpretation of existing experience.
2. Reflective Observation of the New Experience - of particular importance are any inconsistencies between experience and understanding.
3. Abstract Conceptualization reflection gives rise to a new idea, or a modification of an existing abstract concept (the person has learned from their experience).
4. Active Experimentation - the learner applies their idea(s) to the world around them to see what happens.

Effective learning is seen when a person progresses through a cycle of four stages: of (1) having a concrete experience followed by (2) observation of and reflection on that experience which leads to (3) the formation of abstract concepts (analysis) and generalizations (conclusions) which are then (4) used to test hypothesis in future situations, resulting in new experiences.

Kolb (1974) views learning as an integrated process with each stage being mutually supportive of and feeding into the next. It is possible to enter the cycle at any stage and follow it through its logical sequence.

Learning Style of Honey and Mumford, 1989 ) 

Learning styles were developed by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford, based upon the work of Kolb, and they identified four distinct learning styles or preferences: Activist, Theorist; Pragmatist and Reflector. These are the learning approaches that individuals naturally prefer and they recommend that in order to maximize one's own personal learning each learner ought to:

• understand their learning style
• seek out opportunities to learn using that style

To understand your particular learning style Honey and Mumford have developed a Learning Style Questionnaire [see further reading] and with this information, you will be in a far better position to do three really useful things [quoting P. Honey]:

1. "Become smarter at getting a better fit between learning opportunities and the way you learn best. This makes your learning easier, more effective and more enjoyable. It saves you tackling your learning on a hit-and-miss basis. Equipped with information about your learning preferences, you'll have many more hits and fewer misses."
2. "Expand the 'band width' of experiences from which you derive benefit. Becoming an all-round learner, increases your versatility and helps you learn from a wide variety of different experiences - some formal, some informal, some planned and some spontaneous."
3. "Improve your learning skills and processes. Increased awareness of how you learn, opens up the whole process to self-scrutiny and improvement. Learning to learn is your most important capability since it provides the gateway to everything else you want to develop."

Note: However, to be an effective learner you should also develop the ability to learn in other styles too.

Characteristics

The characteristics of the four learning styles are summarized in the following table  Honey & Mumford (1982) 

Learning style ▼	Attributes	Activities
Activist	Activists are those people who learn by doing. Activists need to get their hands dirty, to dive in with both feet first. Have an open-minded approach to learning, involving themselves fully and without bias in new experiences.	·         brainstorming ·         problem solving ·         group discussion ·         puzzles ·         competitions ·         role-play
Pragmatist	These people need to be able to see how to put the learning into practice in the real world. Abstract concepts and games are of limited use unless they can see a way to put the ideas into action in their lives. Experimenters, trying out new ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work.	·         time to think about how to apply learning in reality ·         case studies ·         problem solving ·         discussion
Reflector	These people learn by observing and thinking about what happened. They may avoid leaping in and prefer to watch from the sidelines.  Prefer to stand back and view experiences from a number of different perspectives, collecting data and taking the time to work towards an appropriate conclusion.	·         paired discussions ·         self analysis questionnaires ·         personality questionnaires ·         time out ·         observing activities ·         feedback from others ·         coaching ·         interviews
Theorist	These learners like to understand the theory behind the actions. They need models, concepts and facts in order to engage in the learning process. Prefer to analyse and synthesise, drawing new information into a systematic and logical 'theory'.	·         models ·         statistics ·         stories ·         quotes ·         background information ·         applying theories

McLeod, S. A. (2017, Oct 24). Kolb - learning styles. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html

Bibliography 

Kolb, D. A. (1976). The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Boston, MA: McBer.

Kolb, D.A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences, in: A.W. Chickering (Ed.) The Modern American College (pp. 232–255). San Francisco, LA: Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Studies of group process (pp. 33–57). New York: Wiley.

Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1984). Organizational psychology: readings on human behavior in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

1. Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982) Manual of Learning Styles London: P Honey
2. PeterHoney.com [eternal link]