Team psychological contracts: Effects of gender and social comparison orientation

Abstract

Understanding the psychological contract (PC) perceptions of college students is crucial for attracting and retaining them as early-career employees. We explore how gender and social comparison orientation (SCO) serve as antecedents and moderators of PC breach. Potential PC obligations were examined across 34 teams of full-time business students. Moderated relationships between SCO and gender were examined relative to PC development, breach, and commitment via a survey following a semester-long team project. Results showed that gender significantly influenced obligation perceptions, with females possessing stronger obligations of their team. Positive relationships existed between SCO and the strength of reported obligations and with breach perceptions. Breach was negatively related to affective commitment to the team. Gender moderated several relationships, with females generally showing stronger, significant associations, consistent with relational PC expectations (Adams et al., 2014). Given the rise of the boundaryless career (Kost et al., 2020), results enhance our understanding of implicit obligations college students hold in applied learning projects that further career-readiness. Results suggest that professors and career services staff can reduce the gap between students’ perceptions of their soft skills and employer expectations (Stewart et al., 2016). This study also facilitates our understanding of factors influencing team commitment, composition and perceived obligations.

Keywords

Psychological contracts teams gender social comparison orientation

Introduction

Research on psychological contracts provides key insights in both management and non-management domains (Adams et al., 2014; Kost et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2016). Contributions include identification of the types and content of psychological contracts (PCs), antecedent processes, and relationships with contract violation, breach, and fulfillment (Peng et al., 2016; Rousseau et al., 2018). Traditional views of PCs exist between employer and employee (Rousseau, 1995). However, researchers now recognize that other types of contracts and relationships exist, including PCs within teams (Marks, 2001). For example, horizontal PCs occur wherein obligations are developed between team members and/or with the team as a whole (Alcover et al., 2017; Laulié and Tekleab, 2016; Sverdrup and Schei, 2015). In addition, vertical PCs may exist between team leaders and team members (Laulié and Tekleab, 2016).

Despite considerable research on PCs, Rousseau and colleagues (2018) noted that PCs change over both time and context. In considering the temporal element of workplace PCs, we theorized that their development, especially in teams, might originate in early team experiences designed to prepare students for the workplace. Therefore, we examine team PCs among full-time college students who are pursuing a business degree. We argue that team PCs held by these individuals are important to consider, especially since Millennials and Generation Z currently make up the largest demographic of workers (89 million currently and 51 million more by 2030, respectively) (Nix, 2021; White et al., 2019). Research suggests that teamwork learned and practiced in college influences behaviour that continues into the workplace (Lub et al., 2016; Twenge and Campbell, 2008). With 76% of employers seeking college graduates who had developed effective team skills (see 2022 Job Outlook compiled by National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2022 further examination of business students’ perceptions of team PCs in project-based work may yield valuable insights. Schroth (2019) noted that managing workplace expectations of Gen Z can be done by developing realistic job previews and understanding what PC characteristics are most important to them.

In addition to considering students’ PCs as they train for the workplace, identifying potential similarities and differences in their perceptions may reveal gaps in education that can be exploited towards better preparing them to be more effective team members earlier in their careers. Phillips (2023) notes that strategic staffing decisions made about college graduates and their team-based project experiences may also influence the success of future training, performance management and compensation decisions in early-career jobs. As students’ awareness about existing stereotypes and biases is highlighted by professors and career center staff throughout their college careers, students may be better prepared to interview for and choose jobs that yield greater team commitment and career advancement opportunities (White et al., 2019). With worker skill enhancement beginning in college, employers may see reductions in early-career voluntary turnover due to fewer breach perceptions (Chin and Hung, 2013).

This study also examines the role of social comparison orientation (SCO) in team PCs. Kulik and Ambrose (1992) noted the importance of understanding the comparisons individuals make, highlighting that behavioral responses to comparisons can be positive, negative, or neutral. Understanding with whom cognitive comparisons are made is especially important in teams since such perceptions likely influence team obligations which in turn can trigger reciprocal behavior between team members (Schreuder et al., 2017). Additionally, SCO is a salient variable to consider since team members are highly proximal sources of information (Ho, 2005), with performance and contributions by team members being easily perceived, regardless of team roles (Alcover et al., 2017a).

Research also suggests that women hold stronger attitudes about PC obligations and form different PCs than men (Bellou, 2009; Buunk et al., 2020; Tallman and Bruning, 2008). There are also substantial gender differences in affective responses to social comparisons (Buunk et al., 2005), and we examine these in the context of team PCs among undergraduate students. Research suggests that women tend to be more concerned about the welfare of others based on communal attributes, whereas men tend to be more controlling, dominant, or forceful (Eagly and Karau, 2002). The present study seeks to contribute to existing research by further examining these relationships.

To begin, we briefly review research on PCs and PC obligations in teams. Next, we explore gender effects on PC obligations and SCO. We test hypotheses, present results and discuss them. We conclude by discussing practical implications and study limitations.

Hypotheses development

Team psychological contract obligations

In team PCs, horizontal PCs occur wherein obligations are developed between members and/or with the team as a whole (Alcover et al., 2017a; Laulié and Tekleab, 2016; Sverdrup and Schei, 2015). Like team functions related to tasks and relationships (i.e., maintenance functions; Ancona and Caldwell, 1988), PCs can be transactional or relational (Rousseau, 1995), with attitudes and behaviors influenced by the type of PC one perceives. Ideological PCs (i.e., commitments to a valued principle or cause) contain both transactional and relational components (Alcover et al., 2017b; Jensen et al., 2010) but may be less applicable in project-focused student teams, which tend to be more transactional (Cohen, 2012).

Rousseau (1995) identified three roles that social cues from one’s workgroup have in shaping perceptions of PC obligations: (1) providing messages for creation of PCs, (2) conveying social pressures to conform to perceived PC obligations in the group, and (3) influencing how individuals interpret others’ actions (p. 39). Further, the availability and relevance of team members make them especially salient sources of information, especially during PC formation (Laulié and Tekleab, 2016; Rousseau, 1995). Their proximity also makes them useful (and inescapable) reference points for evaluating team effectiveness (Margolis and Dust, 2019).

As a foundation for examining team PCs, we hypothesize that reciprocal obligations develop between team members in self-directed teams (Coyle-Shapiro and Neuman, 2004; Schreuder et al., 2017).

Hypothesis 1:

Individuals develop PC obligations of their team members.

Gender, comparisons, and team PCs

Gender and PC obligations

Salas and colleagues (2018) argued that interpersonal relationships that foster psychological safety are crucial for effective teamwork. However, a team’s failure to collaborate and share information can be due to subgroups or “fault lines” that develop based on demographics (Gratton and Erickson, 2007). Accordingly, gender may influence the development of PC obligations in teams. Females tend to emphasize gaining trust, developing consensus, and establishing relationships when working with others (Tannen, 1990). Women are also thought to value interpersonal and relational PC obligation items more so than men (Bellou, 2009; Margolis and Dust, 2019). Adams et al. (2014) found that women held stronger relational expectations than men. In addition, Tallman and Bruning (2008) found that women developed stronger PC obligations overall and tended to emphasize beliefs about obligations more often. Therefore, we hypothesize the following.

Hypothesis 2a:

Females report stronger PC obligations of team members than do males.

Social comparison orientation

Social comparison orientation (SCO) is the degree to which one engages in comparisons with others to learn about oneself (Gibbons and Buunk, 1999). As students develop and master team skills, comparison activities can facilitate information gathering about roles, tasks, and relationships. This is observed when students confer with each other to evaluate or compare test results, grades, and instructional feedback. Buunk and colleagues (2005) found that individuals with a higher SCO sought more information for judgments about themselves and others. Since individuals entering the workforce tend to rely on reference group comparisons more often than those already employed (McFarlin et al., 1989), these comparisons may aid in developing and mastering key team-based skills and facilitate much-needed information for task performance and relationship enhancement (Low et al., 2016). Essentially, team member comparisons trigger the sensemaking needed to develop and evaluate team member obligations, making such comparisons especially relevant (O’Neill and Cotton, 2017; Rousseau, 1995). Accordingly, we predict that individuals with a stronger SCO develop more obligations with team members to enable more judgments about roles, relationships, and team activities.

Hypothesis 2b:

Social comparison orientation is positively related to the strength of PC obligations.

Social comparison orientation and gender

Strauss and colleagues (2001) argued that individuals react and make attributions of others based on perceived similarities rather than actual similarities. Meadows and Sekaquaptewa (2013) found that stereotypes associated with gender influenced the roles explicitly chosen by males and females in a group project even though participants reported feeling no pressure to accept such roles. In that study, females chose organizational roles (e.g., taking notes, scheduling meetings, distributing agendas) despite considering such roles undesirable. Other studies suggest that feminine styles are considered more team-oriented, making females better at listening and being empathetic (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Kroska and Cason, 2019; Twenge and Campbell, 2008).

Buunk et al. (2020) found that women reported higher SCO than men, suggesting that women are more sensitive to stress and encounter more life stressors due to ongoing gender inequalities. Similarly, Rua and colleagues (2021) found that women who endorsed stereotypical gender roles realized worse economic outcomes in a negotiation, asserting that the pressure and anxiety of the negotiation caused many women to emphasize feminine behaviors deemed more socially acceptable. Although a slightly different context, teamwork involves negotiating roles and ways of working in the storming and norming stages of group development (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977). We hypothesize that women will seek more comparative information than men, perhaps to increase confidence that their influence and skills are valuable and useful to the team.

Hypothesis 2c:

Social comparison orientation is stronger for females than for males.

We argue that gender moderates the relationship between comparisons and PCs. Bear and Woolley (2011) found that teams with more females showed increased collaboration, greater social sensitivity, and valued taking turns equally in conversations. Krasnova et al. (2017) found that women gathered information from comparisons that were more relational whereas men focused on general information that was useful for enhancing their broader network (Krasnova et al., 2017). However, Hirshfield and Koretsky (2018) found that the gender makeup of project teams did not affect the content of conversations. With mixed research to date, it may be that gender influences teamwork in a context-specific manner. Therefore, we predict that gender moderates the relationship between SCO and PC obligations such that women higher in SCO report perceiving more PC obligations of team members than do men.

Hypothesis 2d:

Gender moderates the relationship between social comparison orientation and the strength of PC obligations, such that the relationship is stronger for females than for males.

Gender, comparisons, and team PC breach

Robinson and Morrison (2000) describe PC breach as unfilled obligations or expectations and examined implicit promises resulting in breach perceptions due to an incongruence between oneself and other parties. Despite considerable research on PC breach, comparatively little research has examined factors leading to perceived breach in teams (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2019). In considering referents for comparisons, Ho (2005) argued that proximal and positionally similar others—like team members—directly influence perceptions of PC fulfillment or breach. O’Neill and colleagues (2007) found that social comparisons serve as a sense-making mechanism for determining whether PC obligations are fulfilled or breached. Logically, one might assume that the more comparisons made, the greater likelihood of PC breach judgments. However, research to date has not examined this relationship, especially in the team context. To advance theory on social comparisons and PC breach in teams, the hypothesis below is offered.

Hypothesis 3a:

Social comparison orientation is positively related to perceptions of PC breach.

With research support for gender differences in perceptions of PC obligations, it is likely that gender moderates the relationship between SCO and breach perceptions such that effects will be greater for women than for men. In examining PCs and bullying, Kakarika et al. (2017) found gender differences related to perceptions of bullying, with women perceiving more bullying than men, resulting in reports of greater PC breach. Although bullying may be more intense and explicit than PC breach, we extrapolate from that research to suggest that gender differences exist relative to perceived mistreatment in a team. Consistent with earlier arguments, if women view interpersonal/relationship obligations as stronger than men (Bellou, 2009), they may also report more breach. Alternately, if men merely keep score relative to the content and tasks involved in a project (Blomme et al., 2010), they may only notice discrepancies when it directly affects them (Bellou, 2009). For women, however, in addition to project content, the value they place on participation and sharing in teams (Buunk et al., 2005; Tannen, 1990) may result in greater breach perceptions overall.

Hypothesis 3b:

Gender moderates the relationship between social comparison orientation and perceptions of PC breach, such that the relationship is stronger for females than males.

Obligations, breach, and team commitment

Although team members jointly shape PC perceptions and breach at the team level, outcomes may differ from those at the individual level (Gibbard et al., 2017). Laulié and Tekleab (2016) argued that even if team members do not verbalize PC obligations, affective outcomes result, and consideration of the implicit obligations of team members can trigger positive or negative emotions. Work effort and quality are common content elements in team PCs. Feature elements of team PCs are explicit/implicit elements and whether team members cut each other some slack or hold firm in terms of effort and quality (see Sverdrup and Schei, 2015 for a detailed discussion). Regardless of whether content or feature elements are formally, informally, or never agreed upon in a team, when perceived obligations are unfulfilled, PC breach occurs (Cruz et al., 2020).

Research suggests that breach reduces affective commitment in the workplace (Sturges et al., 2005). Similarly, in self-directed teams, Schreuder et al. (2017) found that individuals reciprocated based on perceived team obligations such that when a perceived obligation was fulfilled, affective commitment to the team increased. Similarly, it is expected that when team members perceive a PC breach in their team, less affective commitment toward the team results. Consistent with arguments presented above, it is also predicted that gender moderates this relationship.

Hypothesis 4a:

Perceived PC breach is negatively related to affective commitment to the team.

Hypothesis 4b:

Gender moderates the relationship between perceived PC breach and affective commitment to the team, such that the relationship is stronger for females than for males.

Methodology

Participants

The participants in this study included 133 traditional undergraduate students (ages ranged from 19 to 23) involved in team projects across multiple sections of management and information systems courses. This distribution is similar to U.S. Department of Labor statistics in which approximately 71% of males and approximately 67.5% of females aged 20-24 are currently in the labor market. A total of 34 teams comprised of three to five members each were created by the professors. Some students self-selected into teams, with professors assigning remaining students to teams based on need and number of members. Half the teams were comprised of all females or all males. The mixed gender teams varied in the ratio of females to males. All students were required to complete the respective team project for their course, but participation in the study was optional. Of the 140 students who were enrolled in the courses, 133 completed the questionnaire. The mean age of the participants was 20.45 years old (SD_age = 2.25), and about 37.1% were female. About 44% of the students were sophomores, about 37% were juniors, and about 19% were seniors, with about half (49.6%) having work experience.

Task and procedure

Students were required to complete an eight-week team project, accounting for 30% of their overall grade. The project content differed between the courses, but each required extensive team collaboration throughout the semester. In addition, the workload, time required, and general requirements were structured to be relatively equivalent. Teams had several deliverables throughout the semester, including midpoint and final deliverables.

Around the seventh week of a 16-weeks semester, teams were formed and given specific instructions and requirements for the projects. Teams were free to choose how or when they communicated. Most teams utilized a combination of electronic and face-to-face communication in meetings. Participants completed the research survey after finishing their projects but before they received final grades for the projects. Individuals also completed mandatory peer evaluations of their team members after projects were submitted, and the overall scores that individual team members received could be lower or higher based on individual performance and contributions.

Measures

Team obligations

To measure team obligations, a set of 20 items was created from existing research on team cohesion and group processes (Hogg, 1992; Rom and Mikulincer, 2003), cohesion and performance (Fullagar and Egleston, 2008; Mullen and Copper, 1994), team dynamics and individual exploration (Forsyth, 2018), team attachment and membership (Smith et al., 1999), and team effectiveness (Aubé and Rousseau, 2005; Halfhill et al., 2005; Harrison et al., 2003; Harrison and Klein 2007; Rink and Ellemers, 2010). The items reflected many of the most common student team functions and benefits from an individual team member’s perspective to capture what individuals might expect of their team experience and what they might expect of their fellow team members. The full set of items is listed in Table 2. Instructions were: Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you believe each of your team members in the group project in this course were obligated to provide or “owed you” each of the following, based on your belief in the existence of some promise or understanding within the team. Response choices ranged from 1 (not at all obligated) to 5 (completely obligated).

Social comparison orientation

A scale developed by Gibbons and Buunk (1999) measured individuals’ social comparison orientation. The scale included 11 items with response choices ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Sample items include: I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how others do things, and I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life.

Psychological contract breach

Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) five-item scale of PC breach was modified to focus on team members and the team project (e.g., Almost all the promises made by my teammates during the team project were kept (reverse-scored), and I did not receive everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions to the team project.). Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

Affective commitment

Affective commitment to the team was measured using Allen and Meyer’s (1990) scale. The eight-item scale was adapted to fit a team context. Sample items include: I would be very happy to work with this team in other courses, and This team has a great deal of personal meaning for me. The response options ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

Team performance

Team performance was measured using the final project scores received by each team. Final scores were standardized across courses.

Analysis and results

Reliability analyses on measurement scales were conducted using Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha for each scale was 0.95 for team obligations, 0.84 for social comparison orientation, 0.90 for PC breach, and 0.87 for affective commitment. The reliability analysis showed all scales to be highly reliable. Table 1 lists the intercorrelations for SCO, PC breach, and affective commitment. Common method bias was assessed using Harmon’s single factor score. The percentage of total variance explained by a single factor was 26.04%, which indicates that common method bias was not an issue. Several different analysis methods were used to test the hypotheses. When regression analysis was used, there were no control variables included in the models.

Table 1.

Inter-correlations.

	Social comparison orientation	PC breach	Affective commitment
Social comparison orientation	1	–.210^*	.191^*
PC breach	−.210^*	1	−.572^**
Affective commitment	.191^*	–.572^**	1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The mean for all potential team member obligations was 3.93 (SD = 0.65). The mean for SCO was 4.99 (SD = 0.91). The mean for PC breach was 2.46 (SD = 1.49). The mean for affective commitment was 4.16 (SD = 1.39). The mean team project score for teams across both courses was 86.80 (SD = 4.00). The minimum team project score was 77.67, and the maximum team project score was 94.14 (100 was the highest possible score).

A list of the team member obligation items along with standard deviations and means for female and male and the overall sample are shown in Table 2. The items are listed from highest overall mean to lowest overall mean. The table includes additional statistics that are explained in detail below. For all items together, females had a mean rating of 4.08 and males had a mean rating of 3.83. The overall obligation items mean was 3.93.

Table 2.

Descriptive and test statistics of team member obligations.

Team member obligations (n = 133)	Overall	>3	Female	Male	Gender	Diff. Rank
Team member obligations (n = 133)	Ms (SDs)	ts (ps)	Ms (SDs)	Ms (SDs)	ts (ps)	Diff. Rank
Have respect for me and for other team members	4.47 (0.82)	20.58 (<0.01)	4.62 (0.66)	4.37 (0.90)	1.69 (0.05)	12
Complete tasks and assignments on time	4.41 (0.80)	20.32 (<0.01)	4.44 (0.78)	4.38 (0.81)	0.42 (0.34)	17
Attend/participate in meetings and discussions	4.23 (0.88)	16.20 (<0.01)	4.48 (0.78)	4.07 (0.91)	2.67 (<0.01)	3
Do fair share of work	4.22 (0.95)	14.82 (<0.01)	4.23 (1.02)	4.21 (0.90)	0.12 (0.45)	19
Cooperate with all team members	4.19 (0.8)	17.14 (<0.01)	4.38 (0.72)	4.06 (0.83)	2.31 (0.01)	8
Consider each other’s ideas and suggestions	4.17 (0.84)	16.07 (<0.01)	4.44 (0.73)	3.99 (0.86)	3.16 (<0.01)	1
Be understanding of and flexible with each other’s time and outside commitments	4.17 (0.87)	15.41 (<0.01)	4.31 (0.78)	4.07 (0.91)	1.53 (0.06)	13
Give necessary time and effort to complete a successful project	4.17 (0.86	15.57 (<0.01)	4.31 (0.73)	4.07 (0.95)	1.52 (0.07)	14
Listen to me and other team members	4.04 (0.91)	13.18 (<0.01)	4.29 (0.82)	3.88 (0.93)	2.61 (<0.01)	4
Contribute ideas and insights	4.00 (0.91)	12.63 (<0.01)	4.25 (0.81)	3.84 (0.94)	2.58 (<0.01)	5
Communicate relevant/useful information	3.99 (0.89)	12.83 (<0.01)	4.21 (0.85)	3.85 (0.90)	2.31 (0.01)	9
Help to solve or overcome problems and issues as they arise	3.95 (0.90)	12.16 (<0.01)	4.23 (0.73)	3.77 (0.95)	3.00 (<0.01)	2
Voice concerns and problems in a timely manner	3.93 (0.96)	11.26 (<0.01)	4.12 (0.86)	3.81 (1.00)	1.79 (0.04)	11
Help to effectively resolve conflicts	3.92 (0.96)	11.00 (<0.01)	4.17 (0.79)	3.75 (1.03)	2.51 (<0.01)	6
Remain engaged in the project throughout the semester	3.88 (1.01)	10.07 (<0.01)	4.13 (0.91)	3.72 (1.04)	2.38 (<0.01)	7
Plan and manage tasks and the process	3.78 (0.99)	9.06 (<0.01)	4.02 (0.90)	3.63 (1.03)	2.24 (0.01)	10
Give this team and project high priority	3.77 (0.91)	9.82 (<0.01)	3.83 (0.90)	3.74 (0.92)	0.53 (0.30)	16
*Sacrifice own ideas/desires for the good of the team	3.14 (1.11)	1.40 (0.08)	2.98 (1.15)	3.23 (1.09	–1.29 (0.10)	15
*Motivate others to do good work on the project	3.11 (1.11)	1.09 (0.14)	3.13 (1.03)	3.09 (1.16)	0.24 (0.40)	18
*Motivate me to do good work on the project	3.03 (1.14)	0.30 (0.38)	3.04 (1.03)	3.02 (1.21)	0.07 (0.47)	20

1. * Item was removed from further analysis. 2. A Levene’s test for equality of variance showed that the item, “motivate me to do good work on the project,” did not have equal variance between females and males. A t test assuming unequal variances was used for that item and the reported statistics reflect that. All other items had equal variances and the reported statistics are based on analyses assuming equal variances.

Hypothesis 1 states that individuals develop obligations of their team members. To determine this, it is necessary to show that individuals have a sufficiently strong consideration for each obligation. One approach to determine if obligations exist is to test whether the mean ratings of each obligation are statistically larger than the midpoint of the scale used. Haggard and Turban (2012) utilized this analytical approach when they investigated potential obligations of mentors and apprentices. A similar technique was used by Bellou (2009) in determining the obligations that employees report of their employers. The five-point scale was used for obligation means as indicators. Bellou (2009) considered obligations with mean scores greater than 3.05 as at least very important. In this study, a five-point scale with similar anchors was used, and t-tests examined the existence of team member obligations. Using Haggard and Turbin’s (2012) approach, obligations with mean scores greater than three were considered as being significant PC obligations. To test Hypothesis 1, we followed a similar approach. The results of the test are derived from the following information: The t test statistics and p-values are shown in Table 2 under the column labeled “>3.” All but three of the obligation means are greater than 3. This indicates that individuals believe their teams are at least to some extent obligated to provide certain things to the members of the teams. The results provide support for Hypothesis 1.

Examining the significant obligations, respect for team members is the strongest rated obligation. This is followed by three obligations centered on team members being actively involved with the team and fulfilling their team responsibilities. Three of the top five obligations are relational in nature, and two are transactional in nature. Three of the items were not considered significant obligations of teams.

Hypothesis 2a states that females report stronger obligations of their teams than do males. To test this hypothesis, t-tests were conducted to determine if the mean team obligations were greater for females than for males on each item (Bellou, 2009). The t test statistics and p-values are shown in Table 2 under the “Gender” column. The rank of the magnitude of the differences in means is listed under the “Diff Rank” column (1 represents the greatest difference, 20 represents the least difference). Females reported statistically higher means for 12 of the 20 obligations, and there were no obligations for which males reported statistically higher means. Additionally, another t-test compared the means of the 17 significant team obligations between females and males. Mean team obligations were 4.26 (SD = 0.61) for females and 3.95 (SD = 0.69) for males. The t test statistic was 2.63 (p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 2a.

Hypothesis 2b states that SCO is positively related to the strength of PC obligations. Regression analyses showed that SCO explained 5% of the variance in team member obligations (R² = 0.05, F(1,131) = 6.98, p < 0.01) and significantly predicted the level of obligations of team members (β = 0.17, p < 0.01), although the R² is small. Hypothesis 2b is supported.

To test the moderating effect of gender on the following mean values and relationships, we used a two-group moderation technique. For this technique, we compared the means or the relationships between females and males to determine if there were significant differences based on gender. If the means or relationships were significantly different between the two groups, we can conclude that gender was a moderator.

Hypothesis 2c states that SCO is stronger for females than for males. Females had a mean SCO value of 5.22 (SD = 0.89). Males had a mean SCO value of 4.83 (SD = 0.89). Results of the t-test showed a statistically significant difference in levels of SCO in females versus males (t = 2.45, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 2c is supported.

Hypothesis 2d states that gender moderates the relationship between SCO and PC obligations and that the relationship is stronger for females than for males. Regression analysis was used to test for moderation effects of gender. PC obligations were regressed on SCO separately for females and males. SCO explained 15.0% of the variance in PC obligations for females (R² = 0.15, F(1,50) = 8.84, p = 0.005) and 1.4% for males (R² = 0.01, F(1,79) = 1.10, p = 0.30). The relationship was positive and significant for females (β = 0.388, p = 0.005) and weaker and not significant for males (β = 0.117, p = 0.30). Hypothesis 2d is supported.

Hypothesis 3a states that SCO is positively related to PC breach. There is a possibility of nested or team effects for this relationship. An HLM analysis revealed that there was not a significant difference between the null model and the hierarchical model. Therefore, no team effects were detected, and further HLM analyses were not warranted. Regression results showed that SCO explained 5% of the variance in PC breach (R² = 0.05, F(1,131) = 6.82, p = 0.01) and is a significant predictor of breach. However, it was in the opposite direction (β =-0.35, p = 0.01). Individuals with higher SCO reported less PC breach. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a is not supported.

Hypothesis 3b states that gender moderates the relationship between SCO and PC breach and that the relationship is stronger for females than for males. PC breach was regressed on SCO separately for females and males. SCO explained 13.5% of the variance in PC breach for females (R² = 0.14, F(1,50) = 7.82, p = 0.007) and 0.1% for males (R² = 0.01, F(1,79) = 0.53, p = 0.47). The relationship was negative and significant for females (β = -0.37, p = 0.007) and weaker and not significant for males (β = -0.08, p = 0.47). Although the relationship found here is negative rather than positive (as proposed in H3a), the relationship is stronger for females than it is for males. Hypothesis 3b is supported.

Hypothesis 4a states that perceived PC breach is negatively related to affective commitment to the team. There is also a possibility of nested or team effects for this relationship. An HLM analysis revealed that there was not a significant difference between the null model and the hierarchical model. Therefore, no team effects were detected, and HLM analysis was not warranted. Regression results showed that PC breach explained 33% of the variance in affective commitment (R² = 0.33, F(1,131) = 63.59, p < 0.001), and a statistically significant negative relationship exists (β = –0.47, p < 0.001). Hypothesis 4a is supported.

Hypothesis 4b states that gender moderates the relationship between perceived PC breach and affective commitment to the team and that the relationship is stronger for females than for males. Regression analyses were used to test the relationship for both females and males. PC breach explained 34.8% of the variance in affective commitment for females (R² = 0.35, F(1,50) = 26.71, p < 0.001) and 31.9% for males (R² = 0.32, F(1,79) = 37.05, p < 0.001). The relationship was negative and significant for females (β = −0.59, p < 0.001) and was also negative and significant for males (β = −0.57, p < 0.001). Hypothesis 4b is not supported.

Discussion

This study confirmed that perceived team obligations and PCs exist in business student project teams. Furthermore, salient PC obligations that individuals held of their teams were defined. Results also showed that individuals’ level of SCO was correlated with levels of PC obligations and breach. It was found that women and men differed in their views of PC obligations and in their levels of SCO. Results also showed that gender moderates the relationships between SCO and perceived obligations and breach. It was also confirmed that perceived PC breach has a negative relationship with affective commitment to the team, consistent with extant research (Cruz et al., 2020; Schreuder et al., 2017; Sturges et al., 2005).

Findings about the obligations that individuals hold of their team members revealed some interesting insights. Individuals appear to give the most weight to respect for team members, with the obligation high for both females and males. The three obligations that were not considered relevant across females and males were related to motivations. Results indicate that individuals do not consider motivation to be the responsibility of individual team members. Although somewhat unexpected, this is consistent with findings by Fertig et al. (2022) in which undergraduate students exhibited higher compliance competencies than working graduate students, presumably due to learned conformance to expectations in academic classrooms.

There were significant differences in the ratings between females and males for most obligations. The obligation with the greatest difference between females and males—with females rating it significantly higher than males—was consideration for others’ ideas and suggestions, a more relational obligation. This is also consistent with Fertig and colleagues’ findings (2022) in which females scored higher than males in the DISC steadiness competency, which is characterized by thoughtfulness, patience, and a preference for harmony over conflict (pp. 4-5). Females in this study rated all but one of the other items higher than did males. The only item that males rated higher than did females—which was not a significant difference—related to sacrificing one’s own desires for the good of the team.

This study also examined the role of SCO and its relationship with PC obligations in teams. Similar to the study by Guimond and Chatard (2014), findings here revealed gender differences in SCO, with females reporting higher levels compared to males. Additionally, higher SCO related to higher overall levels of PC obligations. Those who reported making more comparisons also had a higher awareness of what others were doing and perceived higher PC obligations. Looking at gender as a moderator of this relationship, however, revealed interesting insights. Significant differences between females and males were found such that it was stronger and statistically significant for females and weaker and insignificant for males. In other words, SCO mattered for females but not for males. It appears that the result finding the general relationship between SCO and levels of PC obligations was carried by females.

It was also hypothesized that stronger SCO results in greater breach perceptions. Results did not support the predicted positive relationship. Instead, it showed the opposite to be true: SCO had a significant and negative relationship with breach perceptions. That is, individuals with stronger SCO experienced lower levels of breach. Once again, significant differences were found between females and males. The negative relationship was stronger and statistically significant for females and weaker and insignificant for males. As above, the strong relationship between SCO and PC breach among females is what yielded the significant, negative relationship. Perhaps females—who showed stronger SCO—were more aware or more likely to recognize shortcomings or challenges across all teams due to their heightened sensitivity to stress and more communal orientation (i.e., helpful, sympathetic, kind) (Buunk et al. 2020; Eagly and Karau, 2002), making them more likely to accept those as typical of assigned teamwork instead of PC breaches.

As to the finding of a negative relationship, perhaps because all teams were generally successful, social comparisons led individuals to consider their team members’ contributions as sufficient and yielding adequate success, especially in a short-term class project in which relationships ended after the semester. As Hirshfield (2018) suggests, some students overlook their own stereotypical attitudes and behavior of fellow team members unless it is brought to their attention. Although an observational component was not included here, it raises an interesting question as to whether interventions on the part of the professor, highlighting behavioral tendencies of team members before, during, and after the team works together, might yield increased awareness of students’ perceptions and the comparisons taking place that influence effective teamwork and PC breach.

Consistent with other research, study results suggest that PC breach reduced affective commitment to the team. To the extent that implicit promises are not kept, individuals are less committed to the team (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). Including an explicit discussion of perceived obligations early on and development of a shared team charter (Johnson et al., 2022; Sverdrup and Schei, 2015) or shared psychological contract (Laulié and Tekleab, 2016) as a project deliverable may help team members realize greater PC fulfillment (Locke and Latham, 2002) and remain more committed to the team. This study also looked at gender as a moderator of this relationship. Results did not show any significant differences between females and males in the association between PC breach and affective commitment to the team. Perhaps once a PC breach is perceived, the norm of reciprocity is invoked equally such that males and females perceive similar inequity (Schreuder et al., 2017). Future research examining the role of equity in this relationship is recommended.

Limitations

We acknowledge some limitations when studying traditional college-aged students in short-term team projects. Research shows mixed results relative to the effective transfer of skills practiced in college and those needed in the workplace (Fernandez and Liu, 2019). However, research utilizing student teams can yield important professional insights for management (Fertig et al., 2022). Akkermans and colleagues (2019) emphasized the importance of social context in examining team PCs. In examining team PCs among undergraduate students, they theorized that project-based work skills cultivated in college classrooms better prepared students for entering the workforce. Koskina (2013) found that perceptions of PCs among postgraduate HR students were similar to employees. Students’ PCs focused more on implicit and non-promissory expectations of educational experiences versus promises that make up PCs in the employment context. And Fertig et al. (2022) found interesting gender and experience differences related to behavioral competencies developed among working graduate students compared to those of undergraduate students.

Although student team results may not fully generalize to the workplace, the phase model of PCs developed by Rousseau and colleagues (2018) may shed light on perceptions of PC fulfillment relative to the valence of one’s affect following disruptive events. Perhaps the creation phase occurring at the beginning of one’s employment has some similarity to students experiencing career-readiness activities in their coursework. In this phase, the emphasis is on developing a PC that can be relied on when pursuing one’s goals. Here, understanding gaps that may exist as undergraduates transition from an academic context to a professional context can provide relevant insights related to PC obligations forthcoming in pursuing workplace goals. These can then be addressed by professors and career counselors earlier in students’ training.

Another limitation is that participants reported obligations near the conclusion of the team projects. As suggested by Schreuder et al. (2017), individuals might report different perceptions or think differently about team members’ obligations at other times throughout the project. Some individuals may also have overlooked obligations because most of the work had already been completed when surveys were completed.

Conclusion

This study contributes to our understanding of obligations and psychological contract (PC) development within teams, shedding light on the role of gender differences. It finds that SCO shapes obligations and perceived breaches, with gender playing a pivotal role in the relationship. We underscore the significance of equipping professors and career center staff with these insights to optimize career readiness among college students. Enhancing students’ capacity to adapt to unfamiliar roles, articulate and address perceived obligations, and detect issues in their team’s work can prepare them for real-world teamwork.

In the context of burgeoning ‘gig’ work and boundaryless careers, this study advocates for career-readiness training that encourages students to reflect on the dynamics of team composition, gender variations, and implicit PC obligations. Such interventions could counteract potentially maladaptive patterns of team behavior carried from academic contexts to professional environments, reducing the gap between students’ soft skills and employer expectations. We suggest professors and career counselors foster an understanding of PC obligations and individual differences as crucial for students to positively impact their own and their team members’ PC contract fulfillment, improving team commitment and enhancing career readiness.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Bonnie S O’Neill

Martin D Hassell

References

Adams

Adams Quagrainie

Klobodu

(2014) Psychological contract formation: the influence of demographic factors. International Area Studies Review 17(3): 279–294. DOI: 10.1177/2233865914545523.

Akkermans

De Jong

, et al. (2019) Me and my team: The role of social context in psychological contract breach and fulfilment. Anonymous, Handbook of Research on the Psychological Contract at Work. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Alcover

Rico

Turnley

, et al. (2017a) Psychological contracts in teams. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes: 417–439. DOI: 10.1002/9781118909997.ch18.

Alcover

Rico

Turnley

, et al. (2017b) Understanding the changing nature of psychological contracts in 21st century organizations: A multiple-foci exchange relationships approach and proposed framework. Organizational Psychology Review 7(1): 4–35. DOI: 10.1177/2041386616628333.

Allen

Meyer

(1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x.

Ancona

Caldwell

(1988) Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group and Organization Studies 13(4): 468–494. DOI: 10.1177/105960118801300405.

Aubé

Rousseau

(2005) Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: the role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice 9(3): 189–204. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189.

Bear

Woolley

(2011) The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36(2): 146–153. DOI: 10.1179/030801811X13013181961473.

Bellou

(2009) Profiling the desirable psychological contract for different groups of employees: evidence from Greece. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(4): 810–830. DOI: 10.1080/09585190902770711.

10.

Blomme

van Rheede

Tromp

(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. International Journal of Human Resource Management 21(1): 144–162. DOI: 10.1080/09585190903466954.

11.

Buunk

Zurriaga

Peíró

, et al. (2005) Social comparisons at work as related to a cooperative social climate and to individual differences in social comparison orientation. Applied Psychology: An International Review 54(1): 61–80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00196.x.

12.

Buunk

Dijkstra

Bosma

(2020) Changes in social comparison orientation over the life-span. Journal of Clinical and Developmental Psychology 2(2). DOI: 10.6092/2612-4033/0110-2359.

13.

Chin

Pao-Ling

Min-Li Hung (2013) Psychological contract breach and turnover intention: The moderating roles of adversity quotient and gender. Social Behavior and Personality 41(5): 843–859. DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.5.843.

14.

Cohen

(2012) The relationship between individual values and psychological contracts. Journal of Managerial Psychology 27(3): 283–301. DOI: 10.1108/02683941211205826.

15.

Coyle-Shapiro

Neuman

(2004) The psychological contract and individual differences: the role of exchange and creditor ideologies. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64(1): 150–164. DOI: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00031-9.

16.

Coyle-Shapiro

Pereira Costa

Doden

, et al. (2019) Psychological contracts: past present and future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6(1): 145–169. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015212.

17.

Coyle-Shapiro

(2002) A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(8): 927–946. DOI: 10.1002/job.173.

18.

Cruz

Zagenczyk

Hood

(2020) Aggregate perceptions of intrateam conflict and individual team member perceptions of team psychological contract breach: the moderating role of individual team member perceptions of team support. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 36(1): 77–86. DOI: 10.5093/jwop2020a7.

19.

Eagly

Karau

(2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review 109(3): 573–598. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.

20.

Fernandez

Liu

(2019) Examining relationships between soft skills and occupational outcomes among U.S. adults with—and without—university degrees. Journal of Education and Work 32(8): 650–664. DOI: 10.1080/13639080.2019.1697802.

21.

Fertig

O’Neill

Wells

, et al. (2022) Who they are versus what they want: how dominance influence steadiness and compliance profiles can aid in developing employability. Industry and Higher Education 36: 2023. DOI: 10.1177/09504222211070950.

22.

Forsyth

(2018) Group Dynamics. Belmont CA: Cengage Learning.

23.

Fullagar

Egleston

(2008) Norming and performing: using microworlds to understand the relationship between team cohesiveness and performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38(10): 2574–2593. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00404.x.

24.

Gibbard

Griep

De Cooman

, et al. (2017) One big happy family? Unraveling the relationship between shared perceptions of team psychological contracts person-team fit and team performance. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1966. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01966.

25.

Gibbons

Buunk

(1999) Individual differences in social comparison: development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(1): 129–142. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129.

26.

Gratton

Erickson

(2007) Eight ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review 85(11): 100. DOI: 10.1109/EMR20115729976.

27.

Guimond

Chatard

(2014) Basic principles of social comparison: does gender matter? In: KrizanGibbons

Frederick

(eds), Communal Functions of Social Comparison. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139035583.013.

28.

Haggard

Turban

(2012) The mentoring relationship as a context for psychological contract development. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42(8): 1904–1931. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00924.x.

29.

Halfhill

Sundstrom

Lahner

, et al. (2005) Group personality composition and group effectiveness: an integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research 36(1): 83–105. DOI: 10.1177/1046496404268538.

30.

Harrison

Klein

(2007) What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation variety or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1199–1228. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2007.26586096.

31.

Harrison

Mohammed

McGrath

, et al. (2003) Time matters in team performance: effects of member familiarity entrainment and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology 56(3): 633–669. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00753.x.

32.

Hirshfield

(2018) Equal but not equitable: self-reported data obscures gendered differences in project teams. IEEE Transactions on Education 61(4): 305–311. DOI: 10.1109/TE.2018.2820646.

33.

Hirshfield

Koretsky

(2018) Gender and participation in an engineering problem-based learning environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 12(1): 51–71. DOI: 10.7771/1541-5015.1651.

34.

(2005) Social influence on evaluations of psychological contract fulfillment. Academy of Management Review 30(1): 113–128. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2005.15281438.

35.

Hogg

(1992) The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

36.

Jensen

Opland

Ryan

(2010) Psychological contracts and counterproductive work behaviors: employee responses to transactional and relational breach. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(4): 555–568. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-009-9148-7.

37.

Johnson

Baker

Dong

, et al. (2022) Do team charters help team-based projects? The effects of team charters on performance and satisfaction in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education 21(2): 236–260. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2020.0332.

38.

Kakarika

González-Gómez

Dimitriades

(2017) That wasn’t our deal: a psychological contract perspective on employee responses to bullying. Journal of Vocational Behavior 100: 43–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.005.

39.

Koskina

(2013) What does the student psychological contract mean? Evidence from a UK business school. Studies in Higher Education 38(7): 1020–1036. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.618945.

40.

Kost

Fieseler

Wong

(2020) Boundaryless careers in the gig economy: an oxymoron? Human Resource Management Journal 30(1): 100–113. DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12265.

41.

Krasnova

Veltri

Eling

, et al. (2017) Why men and women continue to use social networking sites: the role of gender differences. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 26(4): 261–284. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2017.01.004.

42.

Kroska

Cason

(2019) The gender gap in business leadership: exploring an affect control theory explanation. Social Psychology Quarterly 82(1): 75–97. DOI: 10.1177/0190272518806292.

43.

Kulik

Ambrose

(1992) Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Academy of Management Review 17(2): 212–237. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1992.4279534.

44.

Laulié

Tekleab

(2016) A multi-level theory of psychological contract fulfillment in teams. Group and Organization Management 41(5): 658–698. DOI: 10.1177/1059601116668972.

45.

Locke

Latham

(2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist 57(9): 705. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.

46.

Low

Bordia

(2016) What do employees want and why? An exploration of employees’ preferred psychological contract elements across career stages. Human Relations 69(7): 1457–1481. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715616468.

47.

Lub

Matthijs Bal

Blomme

, et al. (2016) One job, one deal…or not: do generations respond differently to psychological contract fulfillment? The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27(6): 653–680. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1035304.

48.

Margolis

Dust

(2019) It’s all relative: A team-based social comparison model for self-evaluations of effectiveness. Group and Organization Management 44(2): 361–395. DOI: 10.1177/1059601116682901.

49.

Marks

(2001) Developing a multiple foci conceptualization of the psychological contract. Employee Relations 23(5): 454–469. DOI: 10.1108/EUM0000000005897.

50.

McFarlin

Frone

Major

, et al. (1989) Predicting career-entry pay expectations: the role of gender-based comparisons. Journal of Business and Psychology 3(3): 331–340. DOI: 10.1007/BF01023050.

51.

Meadows

Sekaquaptewa

(2013) The Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Role Adoption in Student Teams. Atlanta, GA: American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition, 23.1217.1–23.1217.16. Available at: https://peer.asee.org/22602.

52.

Mullen

Copper

(1994) The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: an integration. Psychological Bulletin 115(2): 210–227. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210.

53.

National Association of Colleges and Employers (2022) Job Outlook. Bethlehem. Available at https://www.naceweb.org/

54.

Nix

(2021) Gen Z Workers to Triple By 2030, Snap-Commissioned Report Says. Bloomberg. Available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-10/gen-z-workers-to-triple-by-2030-snap-commissioned-report-says

55.

O'Neill

Cotton

(2017) Putting the horse before the cart: the influence of trigger events on justice perceptions and work attitudes. Journal of Managerial Issues 29(4): 343–364. DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2015.12530abstract.

56.

O'Neill

Halbesleben

Edwards

(2007) Integrating employment contracts and comparisons: what one can teach us about the other. Journal of Managerial Issues 19(2): 161–185. Available at https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40604562

57.

Peng

Jien

Lin

(2016) Antecedents and consequences of psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Psychology 31(8): 1312–1326. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-10-2015-0383.

58.

Phillips

(2023) Strategic Staffing. University Park, IL: Chicago Business Press.

59.

Rink

Ellemers

(2010) Benefiting from deep-level diversity: how congruence between knowledge and decision rules improves team decision making and team perceptions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 13(3): 345–359. DOI: 10.1177/1368430209344866.

60.

Robinson

Morrison

(2000) The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(5): 525–546. DOI: 10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5%3C525.

61.

Rom

Mikulincer

(2003) Attachment theory and group processes: the association between attachment style and group-related representations goals memories and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(6): 1220–1235. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1220.

62.

Rousseau

(1995) Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. DOI: 10.4135/9781452231594.

63.

Rousseau

Hansen

Tomprou

(2018) A dynamic phase model of psychological contract processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior 39(9): 1081–1098. DOI: 10.1002/job.2284.

64.

Rua

Aytug

Simarasl

, et al. (2021) How traditional gender roles hurt both women and men: negative processes and outcomes in mixed-gender negotiations. Gender in Management: An International Journal 36(2). DOI: 10.1108/GM-05-2019-0065.

65.

Salas

Reyes

McDaniel

(2018) The science of teamwork: progress reflections and the road ahead. American Psychologist 73(4): 593–600. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000334.

66.

Schreuder

Schalk

de Jong

(2017) Psychological contracts in self-directed work teams: development of a validated scale and its effects on team commitment. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 23(3): 136–155. DOI: 10.1108/TPM-07-2016-0035.

67.

Schroth

(2019) Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review 61(3): 5–18. DOI: 10.1177/00081256198410.

68.

Smith

Murphy

Coats

(1999) Attachment to groups: theory and management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(1): 94–110. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.94.

69.

Stewart

Wall

Marciniec

(2016) Mixed signals: do college graduates have the soft skills that employers want? American Society for Competitiveness Competition Forum 14(2): 276–281.

70.

Strauss

Barrick

Connerley

(2001) An investigation of personality similarity effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the role of familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74(5): 637–657. DOI: 10.1348/096317901167569.

71.

Sturges

Conway

Guest

, et al. (2005) Managing the career deal: the psychological contract as a framework for understanding career management organizational commitment and work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(7): 821–838. DOI: 10.1002/job.341.

72.

Sverdrup

Schei

(2015) “Cut me some slack:” The psychological contracts as a foundation for understanding team charters. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 51(4): 451–478. DOI: 10.1177/0021886314566075.

73.

Tallman

RRJ

Bruning

(2008) Relating employees’ psychological contracts to their personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(6): 688–712. DOI: 10.1108/02683940810894756.

74.

Tannen

(1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. New York, NY: Morrow. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500015372.

75.

Tuckman

Jensen

MAC

(1977) Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies 2(4): 419–427. DOI: 10.1177/105960117700200404.

76.

Twenge

Campbell

(2008) Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8): 862–877. DOI: 10.1108/02683940810904367.

77.

White

Stafford

Beaver

(2019) Toward more effective recruitment of millennials according to job interest: a comparison of job Titles versus job action statements. International Journal of the Academic Business World 13(1): 1–9. Available at https://www.jwpress.com/Journals/IJABW/BackIssues/IJABW-Spring-2019.pdf#page=9