clearly deWned, time bound, and easy to monitor. Relational contracts are more
implicit and informal and less easy to tie down and monitor. Some of the literature,
focusing on change in psychological contracts, and mindful of the claimed growth
in numericalXexibility reXected in portfolio workers and boundaryless careers, has
suggested a move towards transactional contracts. A contrasting literature, focus-
ing more on functionalXexibility, has suggested a move to relational contracts. An
example of this would be a blurring of what constitutes organizational citizenship
behavior and a concern that extra-role activities such as staying late at work as a
matter of course, and reXecting a long hours culture, becomes an informal norm.
The transactional–relational distinction was initially brought to the analysis of
psychological contracts by Rousseau, who found support for it in some of her early
empirical work (Rousseau 1990 ). However, Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler ( 2000 )
found three factors and Hui et al. ( 2004 ) also found three, adding a ‘balanced’
factor to theWrst two. Furthermore, the boundary between transactional and
relational elements is, in some cases, far from clear. There is therefore some
doubt about the validity of the distinction, doubt about the direction of any
change, and, more fundamentally, doubt about whether it makes sense to consider
a move in one direction or another. If two or three relatively independent dimen-
sions are identiWed, then it should be possible to be simultaneously high or low on
each or all of them.
Nevertheless, the argument about the changing nature of the psychological
contract poses distinctive challenges for the human resource function. First, it is
important to have policies and practices that can keep up with a rapidly changing
context and also tap in to changing employee expectations. In recent years, the
growing interest in work–life balance provides a good example of this. Second, it is
probably wise to expect that some people are going to believe that their psycho-
logical contract has been breached. Indeed, Conway and Briner ( 2002 a) found that
psychological contracts are breached on an almost daily basis. However, they also
indicate that if breach of the psychological contract is an everyday occurrence, then
it may not be too serious. Morrison and Robinson ( 1997 ) have drawn a distinction
between breach and violation. The step up to violation occurs when there is an
emotional reaction and the worker feels aVronted and upset by the experience. The
challenge for the HR profession is to ensure that this rarely happens since it is
invariably associated with negative outcomes for both individual and employer
(Conway and Briner 2005 ).
A related challenge for the HR function is a shift from general to idiosyncratic
contracts. General deals are relatively easy to monitor and manage from the centre.
The case made by Rousseau ( 2001 , 2003 ) is that the growth inXexibility, concerns for
work–life balance, and the reducing size of many workplaces means that key
elements of the psychological contract are negotiated at the local level between
the employee and her line manager. The kind of social exchange that has long
been recognized in the context of leader—member exchange (LMX) theory
134 d a v i d e. g u e s t