Aren't there two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization–employee agreement on contract obligations and violations

By Amanuel Tekleab, M. Susan Taylor. 2003

443 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/37016481a480415aa73d5ae954f8d1dae6694654

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Understanding the changing nature of psychological contracts in 21st century organizations (2017, unknown): “…(e.g., Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012; Guest, 1998; Henderson et al., 2008; Kickul, Lester, & Finkl, 2002; Rosen, Chang, Johnson, & Levy, 2009; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003; Turnley et al., 2003): (a) affective (e.g., positive feelings, psychological security, organizational identification, and…”
A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: testing a moderated-mediated model (2013, background): “Several studies have indicated that the immediate manager is a central agent in the employee-organization relationship and can often serve as the primary representation of the “organization” for the employees (Liden, Bauer & Erdogan, 2002; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003).”
Balanced versus Unbalanced Psychological Contracts in Temporary and Permanent Employment: Associations with Employee Attitudes (2009, unknown): “Reciprocity is a critical issue in psychological contract research (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003).”
Psychological contract breach and work performance (2010, background): “This can be done by providing employees with realistic expectations rather than make unrealistic promises, and periodically reassess the extent to which employees and the organization (or their representing leaders) are “on the same page” (Tekleab and Taylor, 2003).”
Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions. (2009, background): “For example, Tekleab & Taylor (2003) assessed leader and follower levels of agreement on their mutual obligations and their psychological contract with each other.”
Toward the Employability—Link Model: Current Employment Transition to Future Employment Perspectives (2008, background): “…Price, Munden, Mandl, & Solley, 1962; Schein, 1969; Uchitelle, Battenberg, & Kochan, 2007) between employer and worker, defined as the whole of implicit mutual expectations that both parties have about career development, planning, and management (see also Freese, 2007; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003).”
The Psychology of the Employment Relationship: An Analysis Based on the Psychological Contract (2004, background): “…have a shared understanding of the promises and obligations and the extent to EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP 547 © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2004. which they have been met or breached (see, for example, Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Porter et al., 1998; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003).”
LMX Differentiation: A Multilevel Review and Examination of its Antecedents and Outcomes (2009, background): “When the leader is perceived as a symbolic representative of the organization in the employment relationship (e.g., Tekleab & Taylor, 2003), the commitment one experiences toward the leader should be extended to the organization.”
The Psychological Contract: A Critical Review (2006, background): “…of one or both parties; others stress a need to understand peoples’ expectations from employment; while another school of thought suggests that reciprocal mutuality is a core determinant of the psychological contract (Rosseau and Tijoriwala, 1998; Atkinson et al. 2003; Tekleab and Taylor, 2003).”
Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the psychological contract: Employee and employer perspectives (2002, background): “By incorporating the employer’s perspective, the issue of mutuality between the employee and employer can be explored (Coyle-Shapiro, 2001; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 1998; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998; Tekleab & Taylor, 2001).”
Balancing psychological contracts: Validation of a typology (2008, result): “In contrast, studies on perceptions of employees' obligations, or on possible exchanges between employer's and employees' obligations are scarce (for an exception, see Tekleab and Taylor 2003 ).”
Breach Begets Breach: Trickle-Down Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on Customer Service (2010, background): “The supervisor is an important agent of the organization (Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003); therefore, we expect that lack of OCBs from the supervisor will also lead to perceptions of psychological contract breach with the organization (subordinate PCB-O).”
Participation in continuous, on-the-job training and the impact on job satisfaction: longitudinal evidence from the German labour market (2007, methodology): “As such, and based on the analysis by Tekleab and Taylor ( 2001 ), it can be argued that in the absence of a high level of agreement about the obligation of the firm, employees may perceive this situation to constitute a contract violation, with foreseeable consequences for the level of job satisfac”