The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff

By D. J. McDonald, P. Makin. 2000

466 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Public Administration

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/475d6e5feb3b5e2ef55c662b91b112f505c217c4

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Health Professions

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Public Administration

Citations in the corpus

The key to successful achievement as an undergraduate student: confidence and realistic expectations? (2013, background): “The contract is implicit, but contains expectations by the employee concerning reciprocal obligations over conditions and obligations of service (Dabos and Rousseau 2004 ), and has profound implications for the performance of employees in work contexts (eg, McDonald and Makin 2000 ).”
Literature Review of Theory and Research on the Psychological Impact of Temporary Employment: Towards a Conceptual Model (2008, unknown): “…because their psychological contract is narrower and, hence, easier to monitor, or because temporary workers may have greater tolerance for organizational practices and procedures (Connelly and Gallagher 2004; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler 2002; McDonald and Makin 2000; Millward and Brewerton 2000).”
Balancing psychological contracts: Validation of a typology (2008, background): “On the one hand, transactional psychological contracts might be easier to monitor, implying less potential for breach and violation (McDonald and Makin 2000; Guest and Clinton 2005), if this is the case, then, mutual high obligations psychological contracts are likely to be higher on violation than…”
Exploring the job satisfaction and organisational commitment of employees in the information technology environment (2011, background): “Research suggests (Döckel, Basson & Coetzee 2006; McDonald & Makin 2000; Meyer & Allen 1997) that normative commitment is characterised by the obligations that create a psychological contract between employer and employee.”
Violation of the Psychological Contract: The Mediating Effect of Relational Versus Transactional Beliefs (2007, background): “…much research attention, in terms of its nature, antecedents, consequences, relevance and cultural underpinnings (e.g. Andersson 1996; Thomas & Anderson 1998; Cavanaugh & Noe 1999; McDonald & Makin 2000; Michael 2001; Rousseau 2001; Maguire 2002; Tekleab & Taylor 2003; Thomas, Au & Ravlin 2003).”
Job insecurity: Mediator or moderator of the relationship between type of contract and various outcomes? (2005, result): “Other studies did not establish significant contract-based differences on job satisfaction (De Witte & Näswall, 2003); still others found temporaries to score higher on job satisfaction than permanents (Galup, Saunders, Nelson & Cerveny, 1997; Guest & Conway, 1997; McDonald & Makin, 2000).”