that might help to shape the deal and perceptions of it. They report Coyle-Shapiro
and Neumann’s ( 2004 ) research concerning diVerent ideologies of exchange which
suggests that these are relatively stable personality characteristics. They found
variations between those they labeled ‘entitleds’ who generally expect to receive
more than they give in exchange, ‘equity sensitives’ who are concerned to achieve a
balance, and ‘benevolents’ with a creditor ideology who are happy to give more
than they receive. These diVerent orientations to the exchange are likely to shape
perceptions of the deal and reactions to it. Raja et al. ( 2004 ) found that diVerences
in personality characteristics such as neuroticism aVected preferences for relational
and transactional contracts. These individual diVerences may strengthen the case
for promoting idiosyncratic deals. They also support the need for a consistent
context, which, as Bowen and OstroV( 2004 ) suggest, might be reinforced by a
supportive climate, providing a strong HR system and encouraging a positive
exchange between employee and employer. HR practices applied at the organiza-
tion or establishment level thus set a framework but the ‘deal’ will often be
elaborated at the local level between the line manager and each of her staV.
Despite the assumption of Rousseau ( 1995 ) that HRM will help to shape the
psychological contract, there is little published evidence that explicitly considers
either this or any subsequent link to employee attitudes, behavior, and well-being.
One exception is a series of surveys in the UK by Guest and Conway. Guest and
Conway’s ( 2002 b) study of 1 , 306 employers found that more promises are likely to
be made and more are likely to be kept by the organization where more ‘high-
involvement’ HR practices are in place. Surveys of UK workers report similar
Wndings (see, for example, Guest and Conway 2002 a, 2004 a). Workers reporting
that they experience more HR practices also report that more promises are made by
the organization and that they are more likely to be kept. These results from both
employers and employees suggest that the presence of HR practices may help to
make the promises more visible and explicit or, in the language of the psychological
contract, more transactional. Transactional psychological contracts may be easier
to monitor and attract stronger obligations on the part of management to keep
them. In summary, greater numbers of HR practices are associated with a more
extensive psychological contract and with a greater likelihood that the promises
and obligations will be met.
The next step is therefore to determine the consequences of meeting the prom-
ises and obligations in the psychological contract. This has been the major focus of
research on the psychological contract, although most attention has been paid to
the consequences of non-fulWllment or breach of the psychological contract.
Studies (e.g. Conway and Briner 2002 a; Robinson 1995 ; Robinson and Rousseau
1994 ; Turnley and Feldman 1999 )haveconWrmed that breach of the psychological
contract is commonplace and that when it escalates to violation (Robinson
and Morrison 2000 ) it has more serious negative consequences. It has consistently
been associated with reduced commitment to the organization, lower job
hrm: towards a new psychological contract? 137