Investigating the Perception of Public Sector Higher Education Institution Faculty Members about the Influences of Psychological Contract on Organizational Commitment
- 1 Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
- 2 Faculty of Engineering, Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan
- 3 Collage of Engineering, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan
- 4 Collage of Engineering, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan
- 5 Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract
The core aim of this research study is to investigate the consequences of psychological contract on organizational commitment. The context of the study is higher educational Institution International Islamic University Islamabad. Data is collected from 90 faculty members of International Islamic University Islamabad through questionnaire by using the convenience sampling approach. The alpha index is using minimum (0.60) to measure the item reliability. Regression analysis indicates that psychological contract is positively and significantly associated with affective commitment (0.55), continuance commitment (0.74), and the normative commitment (0.69). From the findings, it is concluded that psychological contract is very important for organizational commitment. Higher degree of psychological contract has a result of more organizational commitment. This paper recommended that higher educational institutes should focus on developing a positive and healthy psychological contract with employees. Failure to do so may result in unhealthy psychological contract and can produce negative employee related outcomes.
- Bocchino, C.C., Hartman, B.W. and Foley, P.F. (2003) The Relationship between Person-Organization Congruence, Perceived Violations of the Psychological Contract, and Occupational Stress Symptoms. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.55.4.203
- Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z. and Hirst, G. (2013) Transformational Leadership and R & D Workers’ Multiple Commitments: Do Justice and Span of Control Matter? Journal of Business Research, 66, 2269-2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.039
- Eslami, J. and Gharakhani, D. (2012) Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. ARPN Journal of Science and Technology, 2, 85-91.
- Lemire, L. and Rouillard, C. (2005) An Empirical Exploration of Psychological Contract Violation and Individual Behaviour: The Case of Canadian Federal Civil Servants in Quebec. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 150-163. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579786
- Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D. and Liefooghe, A. (2005) Managing the Career Deal: The Psychological Contract as a Framework for Understanding Career Management, Organizational Commitment and Work Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 821-838. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.341
- Atkinson, C. (2006) Trust and the Psychological Contract. Employee Relations, 29, 227-246. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450710741720
- Cassar, V. and Briner, R. (2011) The Relationship between Psychological Contract Breach and Organizational Commitment: Exchange Imbalance as a Moderator of the Mediating Role of Violation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 283-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.007
- Rousseau, D.M. (1994, 2000) Psychological Contract Inventory. Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
- Deery, S.J., Iverson, R.D. and Walsh, J.T. (2006) Toward a Better Understanding of Psychological Contract Breach: A Study of Customer Service Employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.166
- Robinson, S.L., Dirks, K.T. and Ozcelik, H. (2004) Untangling the Knot of Trust and Betrayal. In: Kramer, R.M. and Cook, K.S., Eds., Trust and Distrust in Organizations, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 327-341.
- Chrobot-Mason, D.L. (2003) Keeping the Promise: Psychological Contract Violations for Minority Employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 22-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940310459574