Psychological Contract Breach
how managers and employees see the organisational obligations
differently
Jesse Beek
10252215
19-06-15
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business
Bachelor’s Thesis Economics and Business Specialisation Business Administration
Statement of originality
This document is written by student Jesse Beek who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
Abstract... 3
1. Introduction...4
2. Literature review ...6
2.1 The psychological contract ... 6
2.2 Breach of the psychological contract ... 7
2.3 Consequences of the breach of the psychological contract ... 9
3. Employees ...11
3.1 Method ... 11 3.2 Dimensions ... 12 3.3 Results... 174. Managers ...20
4.1 Method ... 20 4.2 Results... 215. Discussion and conclusion ...24
5.1 Discussion ... 24
5.2 Implications for future research ... 25
5.3 Implications for practice ... 26
5.4 Conclusion ... 27
6. References ...28
Psychological Contract Breach
how managers and employees see the organisational obligations differently
Abstract
1. Introduction
In Western society it has become more common to switch jobs frequently. For organisations that wish to maintain their workforce it is important to keep their employees happy.
Otherwise employees leave the organisation which results in endless training and therefore high costs, preparing new employees for their job. As a consequence more attention has been given to the psychological contract in the past years. The psychological contract refers to
employees’ perception of what they owe to their managers and what their managers owe to
them (Robinson, 1996).First it is important to know the perception of the manager and employee as to what the employee should provide in their relationship. Secondly, it is important to know what employee and manager perceive that the manager should provide in their relationship.
In a market with high turnover the psychological contract is increasingly important because relationships do not have the same time to develop as in the past. Furthermore the trend towards globalisation, restructuring, and downsizing also increases the importance of psychological contracts because this resulted in changed employee-manager relationships (Robinson, 1996). Since 1996 the globalisation has only increased and the importance of the psychological contract with it. Rousseau (1989), one of the founders of psychological
contract theory, describes it as “an individual’s beliefs regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and another party”. A
psychological contract refers not to a legal agreement but is situated in the minds of managers and employees.
Robinson & Rousseau (1994, p. 126) note that psychological contracts are subjective and thus likely to be different in the eyes of the two parties involved. This can result in one party not executing its part of the psychological contract in the view of the other party which is called a breach of the psychological contract. Breaches of the psychological contract are considered as one of the most distressing things of daily experiences that is possible (Conway & Briner, 2002, p. 297). The occurrence of breaches results in an increasingly high turnover and decreasing trust, decreasing satisfaction and decreasing intentions to remain with the organisation (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). To summarise, if breaches of the psychological contract are evaded it results in a happier employee and manager and a more productive
the subject of organisational obligations the perceptions of both parties are of interest. This study adds to the prior literature in multiple ways. It reports what employees see as the obligations most often breached by the manager. Furthermore it reports which of these dimensions of obligations are seen as most important by the employee and how this is influenced by age and gender. Finally it reports the opinion of the manager about what employees see as organisational obligations. The difference between the managers’ and employees’ view has practical implications for managers in what they should change in their behaviour towards their employees. This study presents the difference between managers and employees perceptions of organisational obligations and offers managers practical guidelines.
The research method used is as follows. First, data were collected on which dimensions of the organisational obligations the employee perceive as breached. In agreement with Herriot, Manning and Kidd (1997) an inductive approach was used. The critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) was used to interview the employees. The responses were analysed by three students to categorise them in dimensions with the result that there can be identified which dimensions are important for the average employee and which of them is the most important.
Secondly, a group of managers are asked to rate which dimensions they think the employee mentioned the most. This group is not formed by the managers of the previously mentioned employees but is a separate group. The answers from the managers were then combined with the answers of the employees and it was investigated were the biggest differences between the groups occurred. The dimensions that managers over- or underestimate were explained. This improves the managers’ understanding of the psychological contract and offers managers practical guidelines on understanding the organisational obligations that their attention should shift too.
This thesis will continue with a literature review that will give an overview of earlier research, explain the main subjects and formalise the definitions used in the rest of paper. After this the research on the breach of organisational obligations as viewed by the employee is explained. The dimensions will be explained thoroughly and the results will be discussed. Afterwards the responses of the managers will be discussed and a combination of the view of the employee and the manager will be discussed. Finally the thesis will conclude with a discussion of the practical implications as well as the limitations of the paper and ideas for further research.
2. Literature review
This chapter will review the current literature about the psychological contract. Paragraph 2.1 will clarify the concept of the psychological contract and describe the key elements the psychological contract consists of. Then paragraph 2.2 examines the difference between violation and breach of the psychological contract. Finally paragraph 2.3 will describe the consequence a breach of the psychological contract has on employees and the organisation.
2.1 Psychological contract
As explained in the introduction the psychological contract does not only stand for a signed agreement between manager and employee. The psychological contract is a much wider concept. Before 1990 barely any research was done in the field of the psychological contract. As Rousseau (1989) notes the term psychological contract was used by few researchers including Argyris (1960), Levinson (1962) and Schein (1980). These researchers used the term to describe the expectations employees and managers had of each other that were not written down (Rousseau, 1989, p.126).
After 1990 interest for the psychological contract increased and this resulted in an increasing amount of studies. Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski and Bravo wrote in 2007: “the number of studies focusing on the psychological contract has grown tremendously during the past 15 years” (p. 648). This expansion of research started with the paper of Rousseau (1989) and the definitions she uses in the paper are still widely used. Rousseau (1989, p. 124) states
that: “When an individual perceives that contributions he or she makes obligate the
organization to reciprocity (or vice versa), a psychological contract emerges.” The reciprocity is an important part of the psychological contract. It demonstrates that the psychological contract does not contain the expectations of the employee but the perceived mutual
obligations of manager or employee (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). The difference between expectations and obligations is that expectations can exist for the employee while the employee does not think the manager is obligated to provide the expectations. The mutual obligations are not only expected but the employee also has the belief that the manager is obligated to provide them based on their mutual promises.
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997, p. 228). However both sides of the psychological contract believe that the other side has the same interpretation. These beliefs come from a
combination of written, verbal and implied promises, past exchanges and other factors that parties take for granted (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
A psychological contract develops for multiple reasons. First, because not all
conditions of an employee’s relationship with the organisation are addressed in the formal
contract. In addition, psychological contracts guide the employees in their behaviour without guidance of the manager. Finally, it creates a connection for the employees with the
organisation. Thereby giving the employee the idea that he is able to influence his destiny (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). Employee’s perceiving a positive psychological contract fulfilment correlates with a positive employee performance and organisational commitment behaviour (Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bommer and Tetrick, 2008)
The perceived mutual obligations correspond to two categories: transactional and relational contracts (Rousseau, 1989, p. 137). Transactional contracts state the importance of financial exchanges, while relational contracts state the importance of a combination of non-financial and non-financial exchanges (Robinson, Kraatz and Rousseau, 1994, p. 139). Guzzo, Noonan and Elron (1994, p. 618) state that: “psychological contracts are, by their nature, far
more like relational than transactional contracts”. This paper in accordance with Robinson et
al. (1994) will examine the psychological contract as consisting of relational and transactional obligations.
Concluding, the important parts of the psychological contract are first that there are reciprocal obligations between employee and manager broader than the physical contract. Second the psychological contract can be perceived differently by the manager and employee. Third, the psychological contract consist of relational and transactional obligations.
2.2 Breach of the psychological contract
The psychological contract is subjective and can be perceived differently by employee and manager. An important part of the psychological contract consists of the trust that the other party honours their mutual obligations. When a manager breaks this trust the psychological contract is violated. Specifically a violation of the psychological contract is the deficiency of the manager to honour the mutual obligations the employee expects to be fulfilled (Rousseau, 1989, p. 128).
Because the psychological contract can be perceived differently by employee and manager a violation of the psychological contract can happen intentional which is classified as reneging but also unintentional which is classified as incongruence. (Morrison and
Robinson, p. 231). Reneging results from the managers being unable to fulfil their obligations or because they are unwilling to do so as a result of perceiving the benefits of violating the psychological contract greater than the cost. Incongruence results either from managers and employees having different cognitive frameworks of what a psychological contract requests, or from the complexity and ambiguity the psychological contract entails or from distorted communication between manager and employee or from a combination of these factors.
Comparable to the difference between expectations and reciprocal obligations, the violation of expectations and the violations of the psychological contract differs considerably. While unmet expectations are unsatisfactory for an employee it does not influence the
connection between manager and employee notably. A violation of the psychological contract results in more considerable damage. It is a violation of the whole relation between the
employee and manager and violates all of the trust between them. (Robinson and Rousseau, p. 247).
While in the introduction the term breach of the psychological contract was used, the term violation of the psychological contract is used when a manager does not fulfil their obligation. Many of the researchers of the psychological contract do not make a distinction between violation and breach of the psychological contract. In important research of the psychological contract such as the papers of Rousseau (1989) and Robinson and Rousseau (1994) the terms are used interchangeable. On the other hand, Morrison and Robinson (1997) make a clear distinction between the terms. Perceived breach is the cognitive assessment that
the employee’s manager has not fulfilled the mutual obligations. Violation represents the
emotional and affective state of the employee that can follow the perceived breach. (Morrison & Robinson, p.230-231). Zhao et al. (2007) follows this distinction in a meta-analysis. They demonstrate a high correlation between breach and violation (p.662).
In this paper the categorisation of what employees perceive as influencing the breach of the psychological contract is researched. The relation of the breach of the psychological contract with violation is assumed. As the definition for breach of the psychological contract
2.3 Consequences of the breach of the psychological contract
Aside from the distinction between breach and violation of the psychological, the paper of Zhao et al. (2007, p. 669) also demonstrate that negative emotions culminate from breach. These negative emotions result in direct costs such as turnovers as well as indirect costs such as negative attitudes. Most of the articles published researching the psychological contract focus on the results of breach of the psychological contract (Robinson and Morrison, 1997). Following the negative consequences of the breach of the psychological contract will be described.
Breaches of the psychological contract can result in employees that are less loyal to the organisation. For example it can be demonstrated that breaches of the psychological contract result in an increasingly high turnover and increasing intention to leave the company (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Turnley and Feldman (1998) and Robinson (1996) confirm that breach of the psychological contract can result in a higher turnover. Blomme, Rheede and Tromp (2010) establish that in the hospitality industry a high correlation exists between breach of the psychological contract and intention to leave. They demonstrate also that age and gender are significant variables in explaining intentions to leave. While there is research on how age and gender influence the consequences of breach, there is limited work on how age and gender correlate with the perceiving of breach of the psychological contract. This will be researched in paragraph 3.3.
Breach also influences the employee on a day-to-day basis. It results in the employee having less satisfaction, (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), less enthusiasm, less comfort and higher anxiety (Conway & Briner, 2002). By including supervisor evaluations of
performance Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood and Bolino (2002) extend the findings of earlier research that demonstrate the negative consequences of breach of the psychological contract. Employees do not only respond instantly to breaches but also over a longer period of time. Changes in organisational commitment and proactive behaviour can be small at the moments after the breach of the psychological but increase over time (Ng, Feldman & Lam, 2010).
Additionally, breach of the psychological contract influences the amount of deviant behaviour among employees. Breach of the psychological contract is correlated with higher absenteeism and less cooperative employment relations (Orvis, Dudley, Cortina, 2008). Breach of the psychological contract is positively correlated with offences spanning from leaving work without permission of the manager to damage of organisational property (Bordia, Restubog & Tang, 2008).
It can be said that it is proven that breach of the psychological contract has proven to have considerable harmful consequences. Because this is seen as proven this paper will concentrate on how to lower the amount of breaches of the psychological contract.
3. Employees
This chapter will review the research on the breach of organisational obligation by the manager as perceived by the employee. First the methodology is clarified and justified and demographic statistics are given. Then the dimensions of the psychological contract
employees perceive as breached are defined and a comparison is made with previous research that also adopted categories. Finally the distribution of the incidents in the dimensions and the influence of age and gender on this contribution is examined.
3.1 Method
To determine the dimensions of the psychological contract that employees perceive as breached, questionnaires were used. In agreement with Herriot et al. (1997) an inductive approach was. The critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) was used to interview the employees. A question closely related to the question used by Herriot et al. (1997) was used but was focused only on the organizational obligations. The question asked:
We are interested in your part as an employee of your organisation. Can you describe an event in which, in your opinion, you were treated badly by your employer? With bad is meant: not in a way you think organisations are supposed to treat their employees.
Furthermore respondents were asked what their gender, age and function was and if they worked in the public or private sector.
Because the research is about all employees the population was considerable. We chose to use a large group of students who by convenience sampling got one respondent each. This resulted in 642 responses to the question. Respondents had diverse kinds of jobs from bartender to senior environment inspector. Employees in different stages of their career were represented in the sample. It varied from under aged part time workers to employees close to their retirement.
These responses were analysed by three students. The goal of this analysis was twofold. The first goal was to find comparisons between the incidents indicated by the employees and to make dimensions where incidents could fit in. The second goal was to identify which of these dimensions are most important for the average employee. The students first looked at a random sample of 100 responses and then established the
dimensions that were deductively retrieved from the data. Afterwards all the data were categorised in the dimensions. These dimensions will be described in section 3.2.
While categorising the incident responses in to dimensions the incident responses were also filtered in two ways. First, responses that clearly discussed two separate incidents were split and both were separately analysed to categorise in a dimension. Secondly, incident responses were listwise deleted when it was clear that the respondent did not understand the question or when the responded did not experience any breach of the psychological contract in their working career. The nine incident responses that were removed can be found in Appendix A.
The amount of incident responses in the final sample was 641. Of these respondents 325 (50.7%) were male and 315 were female (49.3%). 535 (83.6%) worked for a commercial / private company and 105 (16.4%) worked for the government. Age of the respondents spanned from fifteen till sixty-nine. 308 respondents (48%) had an age from fifteen till twenty-nine, 46 respondents (7.2%) had an age from thirty till forty-four and 287 respondents (44.8%) had an age of forty-five or older.
3.2 Dimensions
In this paragraph the dimensions will be labelled and defined. Each dimension is illustrated by two examples. The order is based on the amount of the incidents that fitted the dimension with the dimension with the highest amount of incidents first and the dimension with the lowest amount of incidents last.
Pay and benefits
The amount of pay and benefits is perceived by the employees as equal to the job they are doing and the correct amount is transferred at the correct time.
- The amount I got paid was not right and tips were not given to the employees; - Following the collective bargaining agreement groceries I should have been in a
higher salary scale. Instead of being paid as somebody who also is cashier and orders products my boss paid me a lower pay that is supposed to be for shelf stackers.
Humanity
The manager acts supportive and responsible on the work floor and allows time off for the employees for personal circumstances.
- On a busy day I went home sick because it was not possible for me too work
anymore. Two weeks later I also was too sick to work. Then my boss called me that if I call in sick one more time he had to fire me;
- When I was working I experienced a robbery. I called a colleague from another branch that helped me instantly and informed the region manager. My region manager never visited me or called me while I even had to take a free day to go to the court case.
Hours
Employees work the agreed hours, which is an amount that is realistic and humane.
Furthermore employees get a sufficient amount of breaks and opportunity to take days off. - Because of an excessive amount of working hours I got sick and had a burnout; - My manager did not provide me with the minimal amount of hours that he was
contractual obligated to give me.
Input
Employees are asked for their input and expertise in the company and the manager makes use of these inputs. Also the manager will use rebuttal if the employees are accused of anything.
- When a patient of me filed a complaint about me at the complaint committee, they gave a ruling without my manager asking me what happened;
- Reorganization suddenly happened in my organization, without involving me and my colleagues. None of our ideas or our expertise were used.
Validity
Reasons for firing or rejection are valid, realistic and logical.
- After 21 years of working I was fired because they said I made too much private calls. Before that I never heard about this and I just got compliments;
- Because there was a difference of opinions in the company instead of debating I was led in to a process leading to dismissal. Unreasonable arguments were used to make it look justified.
Communication
Accurate information is communicated to employees. All information is communicated clearly and different forms of the communication give the same information.
- I worked as salesman for a tobacco shop. They only told me a week before the shop closed that it would happen and that my job would not exist anymore;
- The deal at my work was that if we reached a target in our shift we got a bonus. When I reached the target on a day my manager told me that I would not get the bonus because it was a celebration day. This was not communicated to us.
No harassment
The manager treats the employees respectful in his direct communication and does not harass them.
- I was sitting between eight colleagues when my manager came at me angrily and started yelling about forms that should have been destroyed;
- When I missed a drinking order a customer had to wait longer. My boss decided to embarrass me and yell at me in front of all the customers
Equal treatment
The manager treats every employee equally.
- When I was already working for a company for a long time, the manager his son came working at the company. When a position came free and I was up for promotion he position went to the manager his son;
- Where I work not everybody gets the same treatment by the manager. Some have to do more work than others.
Job security
Promises and agreements concerning extension of contract and future promotions are honoured.
- I was promised that I would get my own branch to manage after the summer vacation. After the summer vacation they started looking for an outside manager to fill the position;
Realism
The objectives set by the manager are realistic. This includes the manager not asking the employees to do more than they can and not ask them to do different activities than they are supposed to do.
- In my first week as cashier my manager gave me the task of cleaning the toilet and the cantina because the cleaner was sick;
- When my supervisor quit his job, me and three colleagues got the job of taking over his tasks. We had to work a lot harder but did not get extra wages or recognition.
Ethics
Manager acts in both an ethical and legal manner to all stakeholders of the organisation. - My manager went through my email, without me knowing;
- When I was a teacher at a private education institution I was asked to not let a pupil take a mandatory test so that he could pass the class.
Atmosphere
The manager guarantees that employees are respectfully treated by colleagues and customers. - One of my colleagues treats me very bad. My manager does nothing;
- I just started in a nursing home. None of my colleagues helped me and most of them ignored me. When I told my problems to the manager he says it is my own problem.
Training
Providing employees with proper orientation when starting their job and with proper training while working or entering a new job title giving them the abilities they need to perform well. - When I started my job I did not get any introduction. I asked for guidance but nobody
helped me;
- I got promoted but my manager did not give me the training and orientation to perform my new job. Together with not getting feedback this resulted in me getting terrible reviews.
Environment
A manager must provide a physical work environment that is safe for the employee’s health. - We had to clean the warehouse with some dangerous cleaning products. While my
manager told us that we should watch out that we did not get it on our skin, we did not get any protection;
- I was selling ice cream in the sun all day and did not get any protection. When I started feeling sick there was no one that I could call and I could not leave the stand alone.
Robinson and Rousseau (1994) as well as Herriot et al. (1997) also categorised organisational obligations. Robinson and Rousseau (1994) describe types of breach instead of describing the organisational obligations like Herriot et al. (1997) and this paper separate of the breach. Also the research method Robinson and Rousseau (1994) use is significant differently. They asked a group of MBA graduates:
Has or had your employer ever failed to meet the obligation(s) that were promised you? If yes, please explain.
The addition of ‘that were promised you’ disregards a significant part of the psychological contract that an employee expected but was not directly promised to them resulting in a low content validity. Only questioning MBA graduates result in a low external validity.
Concluding, while Robinson and Rousseau (1994) also use open-ended questions to find types of breach, their research method makes it not valuable to compare.
More interesting is it to compare this paper’s found dimensions with Herriot et al. (1997) because of a close relation between the dimensions which can be seen in Table 1. While very comparable there are some differences. First, Pay and Benefits is split in two separate obligations in Herriot et al. (1997). Training, Environment, Equal Treatment (Justice) and Job security (Fairness) are except small differences in the title or description almost identical to their counterpart in Heriot et al.
Also Humanity and No harassment are combined in one organisation obligation by Heriot et al. In this paper we decided to have two separate dimensions because we think, that in incidents of breach there is a difference between not comforting an employee and
Dimensions Organisational obligations of Herriot et al.
Pay and Benefits split in obligation Pay and Benefits
Humanity combined with No harassment in Humanity
Hours partly presented in Needs
Input combined with Communication in Consult
Validity combination of Security and Justice
Communication combined with Input in Consult
No harassment combined with Humanity in Humanity
Equal treatment Justice
Job security Fairness
Realism no counterpart Ethics no counterpart Atmosphere no counterpart Training Training Environment Environment no counterpart Discretion no counterpart Recognition
Table 1. Dimension described in this paper with their counterparts described in the paper of Herriot et al. (1997)
In addition the dimension Validity of our paper is a combination of the obligations Security and Justice from Heriot et al. This is chosen because these incidents were seen as overlapping too much by the researchers in this paper. Furthermore the dimensions Realism, Ethics, and Atmosphere were not present in the categorisation of Heriot et al. The obligations Discretion and Recognitions had no counterpart in the categorisation of this thesis. This can be result of the changing times considering the Research of Heriot et al. was done in 1997.
3.3 Results
In addition to the dimensions that were found it was also found which of these dimensions were perceived by the employees the most and which were perceived the least important. Also the influence of age and gender was analysed. First the distribution of incidents in the
dimensions will be discussed. Below are the amounts of incident responses attributed to every dimension.
Dimension Frequency Percent
Pay and Benefits 98 15,3
Humanity 91 14,2 Hours 86 13,4 Input 54 8,4 Validity 54 8,4 Communication 52 8,1 No harassment 48 7,5 Equal treatment 46 7,2 Job security 29 4,5 Realism 28 4,4 Ethics 18 2,8 Atmosphere 16 2,5 Training 15 2,3 Environment 6 0,9 Total 641 100,0
Table 2. Dimensions with their frequencies and percentages
Three dimensions stand out all separately having a percentage of responses that is more than 10% of the total responses. These are Pay and benefits, Humanity and Hours. This suggests that employees perceive breaches of these dimensions more often and that managers do not pay enough attention to avoid breaching these dimensions of the psychological
contract. Dimension that have a low frequency are Environment, Training, Atmosphere and Ethics. This suggests that these are less perceived by employees or that managers pay more attention to avoid breaching these dimensions.
Two intermediate groups exist. One intermediate group existing of Input, Validity, Communication, No harassment and Equal treatment has percentages (7.2% - 8.4%) close to the three dimension that have a high frequency of responses. This suggest that to a lesser extent than the three dimensions that have a high frequency, these dimensions are also perceived by the employee as breached more often or that mangers do not pay enough
dimensions too.
Then, to test the relationship between the dimensions the employees perceived and the age of the respondents the Chi-Square Independence Test was used. It was chosen to
categorise the ages in two groups to research the difference between employees at the start of their career and employees in a further stage. The groups were employees under thirty (N = 308) and employees that were thirty or older (N = 333). A significant association was found between the number dimensions were perceived and age ( (13) = 90.38, p ≈ .000). To determine which dimensions produced the significance the standard residuals were compared to the Z-score. Because p < 0.05, the critical value used was positive or negative 1.96. Three dimensions were determined as having age as a significant influence on how much the dimension was chosen by employees (Appendix B).
First, Hours had a standard residual of 4.5 for under thirty and -4.3 for thirty and older which is greater that the critical value. This results indicates that employees who are under thirty are more likely to see the dimension Hours as more important than employees that are thirty or older do. Secondly, Input had a standard residual of -3.5 for under thirty and 3.4 for thirty and older which is greater that the critical value. This results indicates that employees who are thirty and older are more likely to see the dimension Input as more important than employees under thirty do. Finally, Validity had a standard residual of -2.9 for under thirty and 2.8 for thirty and older which is greater that the critical value. This results indicates that employees who are thirty and older are more likely to see the dimension Validity as more important than employees under thirty do (Appendix C).
Finally, to test the relationship between the dimensions the employees perceived and the gender of the respondents the Chi-Square Independence Test was used. (Appendix D). The assumption that at least 80 per cent of cells should have expected cell frequencies of 5 or more was also fulfilled with the gender test. Furthermore a significance of p < 0.05. No significant association was found between the amount that dimensions were chosen and gender. ( (13) = 12.23, p ≈ .509). Therefore it is concluded that the gender of the employee does not influence the amount that dimensions were chosen (Appendix B).1
1Additionally the relation between the amount that dimensions were chosen and if the
employees worked for a private company or the government was tested. This was not possible (Appendix C). The Chi-Square Independence Test indicated an association ( (13) = 29.41, p ≈ .006). But the credibility of these results is very low because one of the
4. Managers
This chapter will research if managers understand which dimensions are perceived most by employees. First the methodology is clarified and justified and demographic statistics are given. Then the results of the research of managers is described and compared with the
employees’ results.
4.1 Method
To determine if managers understand which dimensions are perceived as most important by employees questionnaires were used. The original questionnaire written in Dutch that was given to the Dutch managers can be found in Appendix D. The questionnaire started with an explanation of the dimensions that were perceived by the employees explained in the last chapter in random order. Also it was explained to the managers how the employees were interviewed and the question which was asked of the employees was shown to the managers.
We are interested in your part as an employee of your organisation. Can you describe an event in which, in your opinion, you were treated badly by your employer? With bad is meant: not in a way you think organisations are supposed to treat their employees.
The managers were not asked to answer the question themselves but it was only shown to them to make the managers understand the questionnaire the employees had to answer. Subsequently the managers were asked which of these dimensions they thought to be most often perceived by the employee as being breached.
All incident responses the employees gave could be categorised in the earlier explained dimensions. In which dimension do you think were most of the answers of employees categorised? Please make a top 5.
Additionally managers were asked what their age was. Furthermore they were asked how many employees they have under their direct supervision and which percentage of these employees had an age under thirty at the moment of responding to the questionnaire.
Because the research is focused on all managers the population was considerable. The group of managers interviewed were not the managers of the employees researched in
personal relations and could judge the other party objectively. Second, the managers were explained that the employees consisted of a diverse group and could judge the group as a diverse group instead of judging only their own employees. The respondent managers were determined with convenience sampling and snowball sampling. This resulted in 53 responses to the questionnaire.
Analysing consisted of multiple steps. First the ranking data of the managers had to be converted. To both take in account the frequency of total spots in top 5 and the frequency of the ranking in that top 5, a converting system was established. The converting system resulted in an order for the dimensions that could be compared with the order that was established in paragraph 3.3. The Kendall rank coefficient was used to compare the two orders. After that the dimensions that where undervalued or overvalued were analysed.
The amount of incident responses in the final sample was 53. Of these respondents 33 (62.3%) were male and 20 were female (37.7%). The managers had different numbers of employees under direct supervision. 28 respondents (53%) had one to five employees under direct supervision, 10 (19%) respondents had five to ten employees under direct supervision, 14 respondents (26%) had ten to twenty employees under direct supervision and one (2%) respondent had twenty to forty employees under direct supervision.
4.2 Results
The results of the questionnaire can be found in Table 3 on the next page. In the table the dimension are sorted from the greatest frequency of total spots in the top 5 till the least frequency of total spots in the top 5. The frequency of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4thand 5thplaces for every dimension can be seen in the table.
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 Total spots in top 5
Communication 17 6 6 7 3 39
Pay and Benefits 9 7 4 6 9 35
Input 10 8 5 4 4 31 Hours 3 5 7 7 6 28 No harassment 3 6 5 5 2 21 Humanity 1 4 5 4 3 17 Training 3 2 6 5 1 17 Environment 2 1 3 2 8 16 Atmosphere 1 7 4 0 2 14 Validity 0 3 4 3 2 12 Equal treatment 1 0 1 4 5 11 Ethics 1 3 0 3 3 10 Realism 2 0 1 1 4 8 Job security 0 1 2 2 1 6 Total 53 53 53 53 53
Table 3. Dimension with the frequencies of number one to five rankings, sorted on the total spots in the top 5 from highest frequency to lowest.
The conversion system used gives five points for a 1stplace, four points for a 2ndplace, three points for a 3rdplace, two points for a 4thplace and one point for a 5thplace. The calculations can be found in Appendix F. The conversion system resulted in an order of dimensions which the responding managers thought were perceived most often by the employees. In Table 4 the orders of managers and employees are placed next to each other.
Dimension Managers Employees
Communication 1 6
Input 2 4
Pay and Benefits 3 1
Hours 4 3 No harassment 5 7 Training 6 13 Humanity 7 2 Atmosphere 8 12 Environment 9 14 Validity 10 4 Ethics 11 11 Equal Treatment 12 8 Realism 13 10 Job security 14 9
To find if the managers and employees order are closely related the correlation was
calculated. Kendall’s rank correlation coefficient was used. This showed a significant
correlation of 0.29 (N = 14, = 0.287, p ≈ .014). The significant correlation results of multiple features. Input, Pay and Benefits, Hours, Intimidation and Ethics are have a distance of less than three places of each other. More important: from the top seven dimensions the employees perceived, the managers have six of them in their top seven as well. This makes the low correlation even more notable. Most of the low correlation can be explained by two factors. The first factor is the differences inside the top seven and especially the difference in the lowest seven were observably different. The second factor is the two dimensions that are in different halves have a big difference between the employees and managers.
The big difference inside the top seven are Communication and Humanity.
Communication is ranked by the managers on the first place, while the employees rate it on the sixth place. The managers overvalue either the frequency that Communication it is breached or overvalue how important the breach is for the employee. Humanity is ranked by the managers on the seventh place, while the employees rate it on the second place. The managers undervalue either the frequency of breach of Humanity or undervalue how the employees perceive the breach of Humanity.
Inside the lowest seven Atmosphere and Environment are overvalued. The managers overvalue either the frequency of which these dimensions are breached or overvalue how the employees perceive the breaches of these dimensions. Equal treatment, Realism and Job security are undervalued. Managers undervalue the number of times these dimensions are breached or undervalue how important the breach of these dimensions is for the employee.
The second factor that explains the low correlation entails the dimensions Training and Validity. The dimension Training is overvalued substantially. While in the order of the employees the Training takes a 13thplace, it ranks 6thin the managers order. The managers overvalue the frequency these dimensions are breached or overvalue how important the breach of these dimension is for the employee greatly. The dimension Validity is undervalued substantially. While the employees rank it as the fourth important, managers undervalue Validity on a tenth place. They either undervalue the amount that Validity is breached or how important breach of Validity is for the employee.
5. Contributions and implications
This chapter will conclude this paper. First, the contributions and its limitations will be stated. Then ideas for further research will be explained. Afterwards guidelines will be given for managers. Finally the conclusion will be stated.
5.1 Contributions
Comparison with existing literature.
Difference from…..blab..blab..papers…heriot…etc.
This difference can be a result of the shift in the nature of work that have happened since the blab paper was written. These changes make it important to keep pursuing researching the psychological contract (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998)
Compared to Herriot et al. (1997) this paper has advantages as well as disadvantages in researching managers. Advantages of the research are that it creates a unique viewing point were managers were questioned about what they think the employees would answer. Because no research of the psychological contract has ever done this before this adds to the existing. Disadvantages are that it does not give a lot of opportunities for statistical research, besides calculatingKendall’s tau-b.
5.2 Implications for future research
References
Blomme, R., Van Rheede, A., & Tromp, D. (2010). The use of the psychological contract to explain turnover intentions in the hospitality industry: A research study on the impact of gender on the turnover intentions of highly educated employees. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(1), 144-162.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1104.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23(3), 287-302.
Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 52.
Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2006). Toward a better understanding of psychological contract breach: A study of customer service employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(1), 166.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327. Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological
contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 617.
Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader--member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfilment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208.
Herriot, P., Manning, W., & Kidd, J. M. (1997). The content of the psychological contract.
Landry, G., Vandenberghe, C., & Ayed, A. K. B. (2014). Supervisor commitment to
employees: Does agreement among supervisors' and employees' perceptions matter? The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 885-900.
Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 39-56. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how
psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226-256.
Ng, T. W., Feldman, D. C., & Lam, S. S. (2010). Psychological contract breaches,
organizational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 744.
Orvis, K. A., Dudley, N. M., & Cortina, J. M. (2008). Conscientiousness and reactions to psychological contract breach: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(5), 1183.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 574-599.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. The Academy of Management Journal,
37(1), 137-152.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(S1), 679-695. Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory
framework in the employment relationship. Trends in Organizational Behavior, 1(91), 91-109.
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 71-83.
Willem, A., De Vos, A., & Buelens, M. (2010). Comparing private and public sector employees' psychological contracts: Do they attach equal importance to generic work aspects? Public Management Review, 12(2), 275-302.
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology,
Appendix A
Reden van verwijdering
- Geen idee waar het over gaat. Werkloos
- Er is bij mij geen psychologische contractbreuk gepleegd zover ik weet. 19
- In de situatie waarin psychologische contractbreuk voorkomt valt het gevoel van vertrouwen vanuit de werkgever weg. In dit geval voelde desbetreffende persoon zich benadeeld met betrekking tot de geleverde prestaties tot dusver. De motivatie om hard te werken verdween snel na de psychologische contractbreuk. Desbetreffende persoon had het gevoel dat het slechts een kwestie van tijd was voordat zij op zoek kon gaan naar een nieuwe baan.
- Ik ben zo ongeveer 30 jaar in loondienst en kan mij geen situatie herinneren waarvan ik vond dat ik slecht behandeld werd.
- Ik werk inmiddels nu ruim 25 jaar bij dezelfde werkgever. Er hebben zich in die 25 jaar nog nooit gebeurtenissen voorgedaan waarin ik mezelf echt oneerlijk of slecht behandeld voelde. Ik werk er natuurlijk ook niet voor niks nu al meer dan 25 jaar. Ik heb in die 25 jaar
verschillende leidinggevenden gehad. Natuurlijk kon ik het met de één wel eens minder goed vinden dan met de ander maar ik kan niet zeggen dat ik ooit slecht behandeld ben.
- Nee, dat heb ik nooit meegemaakt. Ik ben altijd prettig behandeld en gewaardeerd in mijn werkzaamheden. Ik werkte in een klein bedrijf waar een gemoedelijke sfeer hing en alle werknemers het goed met elkaar konden vinden.
- Nooit
- Ik heb in mijn werkervaring nog nooit met zo'n situatie te maken gehad.
- Slecht behandeld? Nee, volgens mij niet, zover ik mij herinneren kan. Ik werk hier ook nog niet heel lang dus ja, maar tot nu toe geen problemen hier met andere mensen.
Appendix B
Chi-Square Independence Tests: Dimensions and gender:
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 12.227a 13 .509 Likelihood Ratio 12.345 13 .500 Linear-by-Linear Association .928 1 .335 N of Valid Cases 641
a. 2 cells (7.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.96.
Dimensions and working for a private company or government: Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 29.410a 13 .006 Likelihood Ratio 30.112 13 .005 Linear-by-Linear Association 6.194 1 .013 N of Valid Cases 641
a. 6 cells (21.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .98.
Dimensions and age:
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 90.381a 13 .000 Likelihood Ratio 97.188 13 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 33.946 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 641
Appendix C
Dimension Ageonder30 Total Under thirty Above thirty Pay and Benefits Count 50 48 98 Expected Count 47.1 50.9 98.0 % within Dimension 51.0% 49.0% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 16.2% 14.4% 15.3% % of Total 7.8% 7.5% 15.3% Residual 2.9 -2.9 Std. Residual .4 -.4 Hours Count 70 16 86 Expected Count 41.3 44.7 86.0 % within Dimension 81.4% 18.6% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 22.7% 4.8% 13.4% % of Total 10.9% 2.5% 13.4% Residual 28.7 -28.7 Std. Residual 4.5 -4.3 Training Count 10 5 15 Expected Count 7.2 7.8 15.0 % within Dimension 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 3.2% 1.5% 2.3% % of Total 1.6% 0.8% 2.3% Residual 2.8 -2.8 Std. Residual 1.0 -1.0 Justice Count 19 27 46 Expected Count 22.1 23.9 46.0 % within Dimension 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 6.2% 8.1% 7.2% % of Total 3.0% 4.2% 7.2% Residual -3.1 3.1 Std. Residual -.7 .6 Realism Count 10 18 28 Expected Count 13.5 14.5 28.0 % within Dimension 35.7% 64.3% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 3.2% 5.4% 4.4% % of Total 1.6% 2.8% 4.4% Residual -3.5 3.5 Std. Residual -.9 .9Communication Count 25 27 52 Expected Count 25.0 27.0 52.0 % within Dimension 48.1% 51.9% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% % of Total 3.9% 4.2% 8.1% Residual .0 .0 Std. Residual .0 .0 Atmosphere Count 7 9 16 Expected Count 7.7 8.3 16.0 % within Dimension 43.8% 56.2% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 2.3% 2.7% 2.5% % of Total 1.1% 1.4% 2.5% Residual -.7 .7 Std. Residual -.2 .2 No harassment Count 31 17 48 Expected Count 23.1 24.9 48.0 % within Dimension 64.6% 35.4% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 10.1% 5.1% 7.5% % of Total 4.8% 2.7% 7.5% Residual 7.9 -7.9 Std. Residual 1.7 -1.6 Humanity Count 41 50 91 Expected Count 43.7 47.3 91.0 % within Dimension 45.1% 54.9% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 13.3% 15.0% 14.2% % of Total 6.4% 7.8% 14.2% Residual -2.7 2.7 Std. Residual -.4 .4 Input Count 8 46 54 Expected Count 25.9 28.1 54.0 % within Dimension 14.8% 85.2% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 2.6% 13.8% 8.4% % of Total 1.2% 7.2% 8.4% Residual -17.9 17.9 Std. Residual -3.5 3.4
Environment Count 4 2 6 Expected Count 2.9 3.1 6.0 % within Dimension 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% % of Total 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% Residual 1.1 -1.1 Std. Residual .7 -.6 Job security Count 14 15 29 Expected Count 13.9 15.1 29.0 % within Dimension 48.3% 51.7% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% % of Total 2.2% 2.3% 4.5% Residual .1 -.1 Std. Residual .0 .0 Ethics Count 8 10 18 Expected Count 8.6 9.4 18.0 % within Dimension 44.4% 55.6% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 2.6% 3.0% 2.8% % of Total 1.2% 1.6% 2.8% Residual -.6 .6 Std. Residual -.2 .2 Validity Count 11 43 54 Expected Count 25.9 28.1 54.0 % within Dimension 20.4% 79.6% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 3.6% 12.9% 8.4% % of Total 1.7% 6.7% 8.4% Residual -14.9 14.9 Std. Residual -2.9 2.8 Total Count 308 333 641 Expected Count 308.0 333.0 641.0 % within Dimension 48.0% 52.0% 100.0% % within Ageonder30 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 48.0% 52.0% 100.0%
Appendix D
QuestionnaireHet invullen zal slechts 5 minuten van uw tijd kosten en de door u verstrekte gegeven zullen anoniem verwerkt worden.
Deze questionnaire is bedoeld voor werkgevers. Onder werkgevers wordt in deze questionnaire managers / leidinggevende verstaan.
Ik doe onderzoek naar de verantwoordelijkheden die de werkgever heeft aan de werknemer en het verschil in hoe werkgevers en werknemers dit interpreteren. Het verschil in
interpretatie zorgt voor veel problemen en het doel van mijn onderzoek is dan ook
werkgevers te helpen te begrijpen welke verantwoordelijkheden vaak verschillend worden geïnterpreteerd door werkgevers en werknemers.
Als u het resultaat van het onderzoek wilt ontvangen kunt u dat op de laatste pagina
aangeven. Het onderzoek zal dan na afronding naar u worden opgestuurd en hopelijk zal het u helpen bij de omgang met werknemers.
Graag vraag ik u de volgende dimensies door te nemen. Het is zeer belangrijk dat u elke dimensie individueel doorneemt.
Dimensies van het psychologische contract
1. Loon.
Loon omvat het correcte bedrag op de correcte tijd uitbetalen aan de werknemer en of het bedrag wat betaald wordt in de ogen van de werknemer gelijk staat aan het werk. Dit geldt voor het salaris, fooien en vakantiegeld en extra’s als auto van de zaak etc. 2. Werkuren
Dit omvat een realistische en humane hoeveelheid uren die de werknemers
(aansluitend) moeten werken. Dit bevat zowel overuren als pauzes. Daarnaast gaat het hier ook om de mate waarin werknemers de kans krijgen om vrij te vragen van het werk.
3. Training en inwerken
Hierbij gaat het om het juist inwerken en opleiden van werknemers zodat zij hun taken kunnen vervullen op de manier waarop de werkgever dat wenst.
4. Rechtvaardigheid
Rechtvaardigheid wordt gedefinieerd als het gelijk behandelen van werknemers door de werkgever.
5. Realisme
Realisme betekent dat de doelstellingen die door de werkgever gesteld worden haalbaar en realistisch zijn. Hieronder valt ook dat de werkgever niet meer van de werknemer vraagt dan deze kan bieden of dat de werknemer lager werk doen dan waar hij of zij voor opgeleid is of dan afgesproken is met de werkgever
6. Communicatie
Communicatie houdt in dat correcte informatie aangaande diverse werk gerelateerde zaken naar de werknemer wordt gecommuniceerd. Dit moet gedaan worden op een duidelijke manier zodat er geen misverstanden tussen de werkgever en werknemer ontstaan. Dit geldt ook voor communicatie tussen verschillende leidinggevenden en werkgevers, zodat de werknemer geen dubbelzinnige of incorrecte informatie verkrijgt.
7. Werksfeer
Werksfeer omvat een respectvolle behandeling van collega’s en klanten naar de
werknemer toe. Het gaat hierbij om de mentale werkomgeving, waaronder ook taalgebruik valt.
8. Intimidatie
Intimidatie omvat een directe respectvolle behandeling van de werkgever naar de werknemer waarbij niet ondoordacht wordt beschuldigd. Hierbij gaat het om de mentale werkomgeving, waaronder ook taalgebruik valt.
9. Humaniteit
Dit houdt in dat werknemers op een menselijke manier bejegend worden, waarbij er tevens van de werkgever verwacht wordt dat deze de werknemer ondersteund in persoonlijke situaties (zoals ziekte) en zichzelf op een verantwoordelijke manier gedraagt.
10. Input
Input wordt gedefinieerd als de mate waarin de mening van werknemers gevraagd wordt en in hoeverre deze mening gewaardeerd wordt door de werkgever. Ook valt hieronder of er wederhoor wordt gebruikt als een klant iets beweert over een werknemer.
11. Werkomgeving
Dit houdt in dat de werkgever een fysieke omgeving verschaft die veilig is voor de gezondheid en het welzijn van de werknemer.
12. Baanzekerheid
Dit betekent dat beloften die aan werknemers worden gedaan aangaande verlenging en vernieuwing van contracten en beloftes voor toekomstige functies of taken en
verantwoordelijkheden worden nagekomen. 13. Legaliteit/Ethiek
Hiermee wordt bedoelt dat de werkgever zowel op een ethische als legale manier handelt.
14. Geldigheid
Dit betekent dat eventuele redenen voor een ontslag of afwijzing van een functie, geldig, realistisch en logisch zijn.
Hoofdvraag:
De volgende vraag is aan een groep van circa 600 werknemers voorgelegd:
“Wij zijn geïnteresseerd in uw rol als werknemer van uw organisatie. Kun u een gebeurtenis
beschrijven in welke u, naar uw mening, slecht behandelt bent door uw werkgever? Met slecht wordt hier bedoeld: niet op de wijze waarvan u vindt dat een organisatie zijn
werknemers hoort te behandelen.”
De antwoorden konden allemaal als breuken van de dimensies op de vorige pagina worden ingedeeld. In welke dimensie denkt u dat de meeste antwoorden van de werknemers vielen? Maak alstublieft een top 5 van dimensies waarvan u denkt dat die het vaakst voorkomen. Vul enkel de nummers 1 t/m 5 in bij uw top 5. De rest van de vakken kunnen leeg gelaten
worden. Dimensie Top 5 Loon Werkuren Training en inwerken Rechtvaardigheid Realisme Communicatie Werksfeer Intimidatie Humaniteit Input Werkomgeving Baanzekerheid Legaliteit / Ethiek Geldigheid
Andere vragen
Wat is uw Functie:……… ………
Hoeveel werknemers heeft u ongeveer onder uw directe leiding:
o 1 – 5
o 5 – 10
o 10 – 20
o 20 – 40
o Meer dan 40
Welk percentage van uw werknemers heeft op dit moment een leeftijd onder de 30 jaar?
o 0% - 20% o 20% - 40% o 40% - 60% o 60% - 80% o 80% - 100% Geslacht? o Man o Vrouw o Onbepaald
Appendix E
Male / Female Frequenc y Percent Male 33 62.3 Female 20 37.7 Total 53 100.0Male / Female frequency and percentages
Amount of employees under direct supervision Frequency Percent
1 – 5 28 53
5 – 10 10 19
10 – 20 14 26
20 – 40 1 2
More than forty 0 0
Total 53 100.0
Amount of employees under direct supervision frequency and percentage
Percentage of employees under thirty Frequency Percent
0 – 20 14 26 20 – 40 11 21 40 – 60 13 25 60 – 80 8 15 80 – 100 7 13 Total 53 100.0
Appendix F
Dimension 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = Total Points Position
Communication 85 24 18 14 3 144 1
Pay and Benefits 45 28 12 12 9 106 3
Input 50 32 15 8 4 109 2 Hours 15 20 21 14 6 76 4 No harassment 15 24 15 10 2 66 5 Humanity 5 16 15 8 3 47 7 Training 15 8 18 10 1 52 6 Environment 10 4 9 4 8 35 9 Atmosphere 5 28 12 0 2 47 8 Validity 0 12 12 6 2 32 10 Equal treatment 5 0 3 8 5 21 12 Ethics 5 12 0 6 3 26 11 Realism 10 0 3 2 4 19 13 Job security 0 4 6 4 1 15 14
Calculated points for the top 5 places. The 85 points for example are a calculation of the amount of number 1 spots times the points fitting that place: 17 * 5 = 85. Also the total points are included and the position. If two scores had an equal amount of total points the one with the highest frequency of total places got the higher position.
