Understanding the changing nature of psychological contracts in 21st century organizations

PC theory

The PC is defined as an individual’s beliefs about the terms of the reciprocal exchange agreement between the employee and the organization (Rousseau, 1989). PCs may be operationalized from the perspective of the employee (Rousseau, 1990), the employer (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002), or both (Dabos & Rousseau, 2004). Hence, a PC is created when one party believes that future rewards have been promised, that he/she has made the relevant contributions, and as a consequence, that the other party is obligated to provide the promised benefits in return (Rousseau, 1990).

PCs serve two key functions (Hiltrop, 1995). First, they define the employment relationship between the parties, and second, they establish the mutual expectations that shape behavior. More specifically, from this functional viewpoint, PCs help to predict: (a) the kind of contributions that employers will receive from employees, and (b) the kind of rewards employees will receive from investing time and effort in the organization (Hiltrop, 1996). Context plays a critical role related to both of these functions (Chaudhry, Wayne, & Schalk, 2009). In this way, the PC is a core regulator of the EOR (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Rousseau, 2001), and it has been postulated to impact employee attitudes and behaviors regarding trust, which, in turn, generates commitment and cooperation (Malhotra & Murnighan, 2002). Furthermore, the implicit or explicit benefits promised provide the recipients with an inducement to reciprocate and to contribute something in return (Dabos & Rousseau, 2004).

Rousseau (1989, 1990) initially differentiated between transactional PCs, which focus on short-term economic exchanges between the parties, and relational PCs, which focus on long-term exchanges that include social and symbolic aspects. She later added the concept of balanced PCs (Rousseau, 1995), which refer to relationships that combine a varying mix of financial or material components with social and symbolic components. Balanced PCs are a variable combination of the open-ended time frame and mutual concern associated with relational contracts and the performance demands and clear expectations associated with transactional contracts (Rousseau, 2004). These three types of PCs comprise the most important forms of employment relationships. Finally, transitional arrangements reflect a breakdown of the employment relationship or the absence of a solid agreement between the parties; such arrangements often occur in precarious or unstable situations, such as a radical change, downsizing, or very short-term employment relationships, in which commitment and trust between the employee and the organization has eroded or is nonexistent (Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004).

An integrative viewpoint is that PCs are made up of employees’ beliefs and perceptions regarding the implicit and explicit promises and obligations that make up the employment relationship (Conway & Briner, 2005; Rousseau, 1995; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). In particular, PCs define what employees believe they have been promised by the organization and what they believe they are obligated to contribute in return (Dabos & Rousseau, 2004; Parzefall, 2008; Rousseau, 2001). Thus, the PC constitutes an implicit exchange agreement between individuals and their organization (Rousseau, 1995). Contracts of a psychological nature are usually presented in the literature as rooted in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961) and equity theory (Adams, 1965), describing mutual exchanges over time (i.e., long term) between employees and their organization (Bal, Chiaburu, & Jansen, 2010; Suazo, Martínez, & Sandoval, 2009), and they include what both parties are entitled to receive and what each is obliged to provide to the other. In general, employees and employers strive to maintain a fair balance in terms of the reciprocal inducements and contributions they offer each other (Rousseau, 2004; Taylor & Tekleab, 2004), and the PC defines the types of obligations that both parties are committed to fulfill (Janssens, Sels, & van den Brande, 2003). Accordingly, it is necessary to consider instances of both positive reciprocity (“you fulfill your part of the bargain, and I will fulfill mine”) and negative reciprocity (“you fail to fulfill your part of the bargain, and I won’t fulfill mine”) in order to fully understand the PC. Within the social exchange framework, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) argue that reciprocity rules can help employees and organizations establish positive exchanges, whereby organizational support is related to individual responses linked to effort and performance, affective commitment, OCB, and felt obligation to the organization. Overall, then, PCs lend structure to expectations concerning future exchanges, thereby reducing uncertainty between the parties (e.g., by defining roles and specifying future courses of action) and creating mutual obligations, which define the relationships in question (Schalk & Roe, 2007). The PC also plays a key role in creating social units (e.g., partnerships, organizations, joint ventures) and managing interdependencies between individuals, groups, and organizations (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993).

One of the key functions attributed to PCs is that of motivating the members of an organization to fulfill their obligations and commitments to one another. Traditionally, this occurs because reciprocity is both valued and expected (Rousseau, 2004). However, in reality, there are often more than two parties involved in the PC, as the PC includes multiple organizational agents who all may, in different ways, represent the “employer” within the context of contemporary work arrangements. Thus, other definitions of the PC have appeared in response to new organizational forms featuring triangular and nonstandard employment relationships. For example, Claes and colleagues (Claes, 2005; Claes et al., 2002) define the PC “as including perceptions of all parties and all aspects constituting the reciprocal promises (entitlements and obligations) implied in the employment relationship” (Claes, 2005, p. 132). This represents a more complex view of those who play a role in the EOR. Likewise, examining the relations between the various parties in multifocal exchange relationships calls for a more nuanced perspective, and should facilitate the development of a more realistic depiction of the EOR in the 21st century.

A multiple-foci exchange relationships approach to PCs

Employment relations increasingly take multiple forms (Claes, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro, Morrow, & Kessler, 2006; Kalleberg, 2000; Lapalme, Simard, & Tremblay, 2011) in the context of today’s nonstandard work arrangements. As a result, employees simultaneously depend on several agents, representing one or more organizations, who assign tasks and goals, supervise work, and provide rewards (or impose sanctions) depending on results. Prior research has typically assumed that each employee establishes one PC with the “organization” as the other party in a bilateral relationship. As a consequence, it is often taken for granted that the organization is represented by a single person (most often the employee’s direct supervisor or line manager; cf. Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002) who has the power to make all of the decisions affecting the employee and his or her PC. Meanwhile, people often think about organizations as possessing human-like qualities (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007); consequently, employees are described as forming relationships with their employers as a whole. However, this dyadic employee–organization relationship does not capture the full extent of the social context arising in the course of interactions between different agents, nor does it address all of the social comparison processes that can influence PC formation and development (Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bomme, & Tetrick, 2008). In contemporary organizations, then, employees are likely to maintain multiple relations with diverse organizational agents (Dawson, Karahanna, & Buchholtz, 2014; Lapalme et al., 2011), each of whom possesses a different degree of power and decision-making authority (Conway & Briner, 2005). As such, the identity of the representative organizational agent becomes a key question. Furthermore, there is the potential for inconsistencies in the messages sent by organizational agents to employees. As Schalk and Rousseau (2002) note, “the organization cannot be considered a single party to the psychological contract, and it does not always speak with one voice. Recruiters, managers, personnel policies/handbooks, and colleagues may all send different messages to employees” (p. 136).

In his seminal work on employee attachment, Reichers (1985) postulated that the different individuals and groups who are relevant to an organization must be specified and the foci of employee attachment identified. Reichers backed up his argument with propositions and findings from research on reference groups and role theory indicating that organizational members are very often aware of and committed to multiple sets of goals and values. In this light, Reichers suggested a number of foci which may be relevant to employees and their work-related attachments, including: “co-workers, superiors, subordinates, customers, and other groups and individuals that collectively comprise the organization” (Reichers, 1985, p. 472). Researchers in both the organizational behavior and social exchange literatures have recently recognized that employees simultaneously hold distinct perceptions about multiple-foci social exchange relationships, referring to several organizational agents, supervisors, and coworkers (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008; Marks, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). It is now accepted in the literature that organizational members typically engage in multiple exchange relationships with organizational agents, obtaining different benefits from each exchange (Gergen, Greenberg, & Willis, 1980; Reichers, 1985). Consequently, employees identify these multiple agents as relevant foci of commitment, trust, and support (Becker, 1992; Bentein, Stinglhamber, & Vandenberghe, 2002; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).

Importantly, each exchange relationship may differentially affect behaviors and attitudes (e.g., Lavelle, Brockner, et al., 2009; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Tekleab & Chiaburu, 2011), entailing certain reciprocity asymmetries. In terms of the PC, the idea of multiple agency focuses attention on the openness of content and simultaneity in action in response to different organizational constituents’ demands (Marks, 2001; McLean Parks, Kidder, & Gallagher, 1998). PC contributors include recruiters, supervisors, representatives of human resources departments, top managers, coworkers, and mentors (Scandura & Williams, 2002), while organizational socialization rituals and the larger organizational environment also play a contributing role. In other words, PCs do not develop in a vacuum (Haggard & Turban, 2012; Ho & Levesque, 2005). Instead, employees pick up perceptions of mutual obligations from differentiated sources, and their actions can simultaneously fulfill obligations to more than one agent.

Overall, then, a multifoci approach helps to identify the differential effects of the organization-level versus the team-level work environment on employee perceptions, their exchange relationships, and the PC. This is important because employees typically experience related, yet differentiated work contexts at the organization and team levels (e.g., Becker, 1992; Khazanchi, & Masterson, 2011). Consequently, a multifoci approach will facilitate exploration of the multiple relations existing between organizational agents and employees, the shifting nature of resource exchanges, and the dynamic nature of PC content and fulfillment (Alcover, Rico, Turnley, & Bolino, 2015). Figure 1 summarizes the proposed model and identifies the posited relationships between constructs and processes. The multiple-foci exchange model of the psychological contract identifies five key processes related to the core of the PCs (PC formation and development, information-seeking behavior, identification, PC fulfillment, and PC breach) and two groups of organizational agents concerning multifoci exchange relationships: distal agents (recruiters, senior management, top management) and proximal agents (direct supervisor and coworkers). The arrows departing from inside the semicircles in the figure indicate a direct relationship of each category of organizational agent (distal or proximal) with the respective proposition. The arrows coming from the outside circle of the figure indicate a relationship of both categories of organizational agents with the respective propositions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

A multiple-foci exchange model of the psychological contract.

Multifoci exchange relationships, temporal matters, and PC formation and development

According to Rousseau (2001), PCs are grounded in a previous schema that individuals use as a cognitive shortcut to help them conceptualize the terms of the employment relationship. This schema, which often operates implicitly, develops early in life when people develop generalized values about reciprocity, quid pro quo rules, and rewards for hard work. Such value sets are influenced by family, schools, peer groups, stereotypes about work, worker prototypes, and interactions with working individuals (E. W. Morrison & Robinson, 2004). Individual or dispositional characteristics can also influence this idiosyncratic schema, sensitizing an individual to perceive fairness (or the lack of it) in social exchanges. For instance, Coyle-Shapiro and Neuman (2004) have explored the role played by exchange and creditor ideologies. An exchange ideology captures individuals’ dispositional tendency to believe that their work effort should be contingent upon perceived organizational treatment; in contrast, a creditor ideology reflects a dispositional orientation towards giving more than one receives. This concept may also be related to the ideology-related contributions proposed by O’Donohue and Nelson (2009; see also Thompson & Bunderson, 2003), which arise “from an individual’s desire to further a highly valued cause or principle (beyond self-interest) … for example, derived from an employee’s adherence to a professional code of ethics” (O’Donohue & Nelson, 2009, p. 253).

Consequently, people hold internalized schemes and assumptions reflecting expectations about what they should give and receive in an employment relationship, even before their first job (Coyle-Shapiro & Parzefall, 2008). PCs start to emerge when an individual begins to look for a job and seeks out organizations that fit his/her schema and that are believed to have a positive reputation or to offer inducements, such as stability, career opportunity, professional status, or attractive benefits and rewards (Rousseau, 1995), even when preemployment information may be inaccurate or imperfect (Mohamed, Orife, & Slack, 2001). For this reason, it can be argued that a rudimentary framework for PCs already exists in an incipient or transitional state (Hui et al., 2004) when a contact is initially formed between a candidate and the representatives of the organization during the recruitment and selection process (Shore & Tetrick, 1994).

Applicants normally initiate contacts and exchanges with the formal representatives of the organization who are in charge of recruitment and selection. These agents transmit the employer’s expectations and promises to candidates even when such processes may actually be carried out by external HR service providers who are acting as intermediaries for the organization’s formal representatives. As a result, the individuals involved in selection and recruitment processes are often the first agents who influence the formation of the PC. This occurs during what Nelson (1987) refers to as the anticipatory socialization stage, in which the process of newcomer information-seeking takes place, and the encounter stage, in which organizational socialization tactics are structured and facilitate newcomer adjustment (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007). Thus, a transition begins when an individual joins a new organization, and the process of newcomer adjustment is facilitated by effective psychological contracting on the part of both newcomers themselves and inside agents acting on behalf of the organization (Nelson, Quick, & Joplin, 1991). The PC emerges, then, in the early stage of the relationship, when the inexperienced newcomer seeks and receives information on domains like task responsibilities, role demands, organizational culture, and career opportunities (H. D. Thomas & Anderson, 1998). This initial information provides the foundation upon which the PC will subsequently be developed and refined in the newcomer’s initial period as an employee and over the different phases of the socialization process (Nelson et al., 1991; Shore & Tetrick, 1994).

The formation and development of PCs is a dynamic process that is sensitive to the influence of numerous internal and external factors and to the content of information received from multiple sources (Rousseau, 1995; Sparrow, 1996; H. D. Thomas & Anderson, 1998). In this dynamic view of the EOR in general, and of the PC in particular (Freese, Schalk, & Croon, 2011), individuals participate as active agents by trying to understand all of the information they receive (De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2003; Weick, 1995). In this way, newcomers’ rudimentary PCs develop over time as part of a sense-making process associated with organizational socialization (Louis, 1980). Development stems both from the employment contract proposed by the organizational agents and from newcomers’ preentry ideas, which are embedded in their schemas about what employment relationships should look like (Rousseau, 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994; H. D. Thomas & Anderson, 1998). Based on this sense-making framework, De Vos et al. (2003) argue the existence of two principles that operate during encounter and organizational acquisition stages: (a) unilateral alignment of perceived promises with perceptions of reality, and (b) changes in perceived promises as a function of the reciprocity norm.

The changes brought about by PC development depend principally on the individual’s relations with the different organizational agents involved. The agents formally representing the organization play a major role in the early phases of the socialization process, and as a result, the content of the PC is largely shaped by the messages they transmit. As a consequence, newcomers’ PCs tend to be transactional (O’Neill & Adya, 2007), aligning with the formal terms and conditions of the employment contract, because they are formed out of interactions with distal organizational agents. Tekleab (2003) found that higher levels of formal socialization—driven by recruiters, managers, and mentors—lowered employee perceptions of employer obligations during the first 3 months of employment. As the informal socialization process proceeds through day-to-day interactions with colleagues, members of the work team, and immediate supervisors, these agents continually transmit information to the newcomer.

Research on socialization (e.g., Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983; Nelson & Quick, 1991) shows that newcomers rate peers, experienced coworkers, teammates, and supervisors as the most accessible and helpful sources of information, more useful and influential even than the formal induction strategies designed by the organization. For instance, H. D. Thomas and Anderson (1998) found that new army recruits adjusted their PC over the first 2 months of their role, and this change was influenced by social information processing that “moved” their PC closer to that of veteran soldiers. Meanwhile, PC content is enriched by information, expectations, obligations, and implicit promises, which accrue during the early socialization stage. This new information, which can be formal or informal, may confirm or contradict the information previously acquired, and it can also increase the ambiguity and uncertainty perceived by the new employee in relation to what he/she can expect to receive from organizational agents. Finally, Dulac, Coyle-Shapiro, and Delobbe (2006) showed that proactivity and socialization tactics were also important in influencing newcomers’ evaluations of their PC during the first year of employment.

Other research has shown that changes in newcomers’ perceptions of their employers’ promises are affected by perceptions of the rewards received (De Vos et al., 2003). At the same time, changes in newcomers’ perceptions of the promises they have made to their employer are affected by perceptions both of their own contributions and of the inducements received. In addition, research on the socialization process (Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1994) has found that leader–member exchange and team–member exchange exert a moderating role on the negative effects of unmet expectations right after being hired. Thus, developing relationships with supervisors or teammates can ameliorate the negative effects of unmet expectations during the first weeks after entry, which, in turn, influences socialization outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment, turnover intentions, job satisfaction). In sum, the findings indicate that PCs change over the course of the socialization process (O’Neill & Adya, 2007), and these changes depend on relations with the distal and proximal representatives of the organization. Based on these arguments, we offer the following propositions:

Proposition 1: Distal organizational agents (e.g., recruiters, senior managers, mentors) will have the greatest influence on the initial formation of newcomers’ PCs and will be primarily involved in the earliest stages of the socialization process.

Multifoci exchange relationships, information seeking/transmission, and PC content

Research on the PC has also addressed differences in newcomers’ information-seeking behaviors (e.g., Ho & Levesque, 2005). According to Ashford and Cummings (1983), new employees are active seekers of information about a wide range of matters related to the objectives they expect to attain over the course of the EOR. The formation and development of the PC can be considered a deliberate, goal-oriented process (Shore & Tetrick, 1994), grounded in the individual’s prior schema (Rousseau, 2001) and shaped by information obtained from diverse organizational agents. E. W. Morrison (1993) found that newcomers proactively seek information by asking questions and observing, and that the information sought and obtained varies with the organizational agent. While the information provided by a newcomer’s immediate supervisor and managers is mainly normative, that obtained from coworkers is typically social. All of this sets the stage for further refinement of the PC in the early employment period (Shore & Tetrick, 1994).

Information-seeking behaviors also involve close monitoring of the (proximal) work environment. Monitoring implies both interpretation and inference based on the information obtained, because self- and goal-related schemas (Rousseau, 2001) exert a major influence on the importance of the feedback received by the employee (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Colleagues provide the frame of reference and the context against which employees weigh the information received from agents situated higher up the organizational hierarchy, although referents may change depending on the particular aspect of the PC concerned (Ho, 2005; Ho & Levesque, 2005). For instance, employees’ referent choice may depend on the domain of information sought, and specifically whether the information is organization-wide (i.e., related to top organizational agents) or job and task related (i.e., related to direct supervisors and coworkers; Shah, 1998).

In the early stages of socialization, employees may experience discrepancies when events highlight significant differences between expectations and reality (Chaudhry et al., 2009). Any disparity employees perceive may trigger information-seeking behavior (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). The purpose of information seeking is to make subjective evaluations about what can be expected and obtained, and to draw comparisons with perceptions of referents’ actions and behavior (Chaudhry & Song, 2014). Sense-making theory (Chaudhry et al., 2009) can be applied to analyze these perceptions, providing a frame of reference through which to examine employees’ evaluations of possible discrepancies between the information and messages received from different organizational agents, given that possible ambiguities in the messages they transmit will be more easily observable depending on the intensity of the newcomer’s information-seeking behavior (D. E. Morrison, 1994). Based on these arguments, we offer the following two propositions:

Proposition 3: Changes and adjustments in the PC content will depend on which organizational agents are the targets of a newcomer’s information-seeking behavior; changes based on organization-wide or normative information will primarily come from top management agents, while changes based on job- and task-related information will generally come from one’s direct supervisor and coworkers.

Multifoci exchange relationships, identification levels, and PC content

In the same way that employees maintain differentiated exchanges with the organization and with their immediate supervisor (Khazanchi & Masterson, 2011; Tekleab & Chiaburu, 2011), research has shown that they also maintain differentiated exchanges with their work group and with the organization (e.g., van Dick, van Knippenberg, Kerschreiter, Hertel, & Wieseke, 2008; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). Theoretical models and research findings further suggest that the effects of exchanges taking place in work contexts are not uniform, given the varying influence of the organizational agents involved. According to the rule of proximity formulated by Lawler (1992), individuals develop stronger affective links to subgroups within a social system than they do to the system itself, and to work teams rather than to the organization as a whole. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) concur, arguing that Lewin’s (1943) field theory supports the notion that those entities which are closest to an employee (i.e., supervisors and coworkers) will have the strongest immediate influence on his/her attitudes and subsequent behaviors, and this has been empirically demonstrated in the case of commitment (Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000). This means that the members of the subgroup intensify their commitment towards and identification with those to whom they are closest, so that colleagues and the team leader will appear as the principal models in relation to attitudes and behavior, while other more distant organizational agents will be less influential (Lawler, 1992; Mueller & Lawler, 1999).

Self-categorization and social identity theories (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) also predict that individuals in a given comparative organizational context are more likely to identify with distinctive collectives such as their work team than with broader collectives like the larger organization to which they belong (Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004). As Richter, West, van Dick, and Dawson (2006) point out, in team-based organizational contexts, “the team rather than the organization emerges as the primary focus of identification” (p. 1252). In line with this rationale, van Knippenberg and van Schie (2000) argued that work group or team identification should typically be stronger than organizational identification for three reasons. First, day-to-day life in an organization tends to be played out in the context of the work group rather than in the more abstract organizational context. Second, work group membership is usually more salient than organizational membership. Finally, people tend to identify more with relatively small groups than with larger social entities, particularly when the entitativity of the group is high (i.e., the group is seen as a coherent entity and not just a simple collection of individuals; Campbell, 1958; Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001). Riketta and van Dick (2005) provide support for these claims, having concluded from their meta-analysis that work group or team identification is stronger than identification with the organization as a whole. In short, organizational and group identification and need fulfillment make up a dynamic set of intimately related cognitive and affective processes that influence the PC (Epitropaki, 2013; Masterson & Stamper, 2003), and examining these factors and processes should enhance our understanding of the underpinnings of employees’ attitudes and behaviors.

This dual identification process can also be understood from the perspective of optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991). This theory posits that individuals seek to balance two opposing needs, which govern the relationship between the self-concept and membership in social groups: (a) the need for assimilation and inclusion, a desire for belonging that motivates immersion in social groups; and (b) the need for differentiation from others that operates in opposition to the need for assimilation. The basic premise of optimal distinctiveness theory is that both identity needs are independent and work in opposition motivating group identification. The two opposing needs produce an emergent characteristic, namely the capacity for social identification with distinctive groups that satisfy both needs simultaneously (Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010). The distinctiveness theory supposes that these needs are optimally balanced in a small-to-moderate sized group of similar others (Zuckerman, 2016). For example, employees may seek to identify themselves with a work group that has its own unique identity distinct from that of the greater organization—or from other work groups. In this way, employees can satisfy both the need to be different from the organizational members as well as the need to be part of an organizational work group.

As previously mentioned, a distinction is made between relational and transactional exchanges (E. W. Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1995). According to the classic literature on exchange relations (Blau, 1964), employment relations may be either relational, where social, affective or symbolic content is involved, or transactional, where it is financial, material, or instrumental content that is most relevant. The relational component of the PC involves broad, long-term obligations, a more expansive sense of the boundaries of the relationship, and the exchange of socioemotional elements (e.g., commitment and trust), with job security in exchange for loyalty at the core. The transactional component focuses on specific, short-term exchanges of benefits and monetary obligations, which require limited involvement on the part of both the organization and employee—for example, when the organization pays for services rendered by the employee under the terms of the legal contract signed between the parties (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006; McLean Parks et al., 1998; D. C. Thomas, Au, & Ravlin, 2003). Previous research has found that the PC involved in the employment relationship includes both transactional and relational obligations (e.g., Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994), giving rise to balanced PCs (Rousseau, 1995) that are characterized by mutual-investment EORs that combine high or broad offered inducements with high or broad expected contributions (Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997).

Hence, it is common to find the dual component of PCs in the EOR, although relational and transactional content are not necessarily in perfect balance (Millward & Brewerton, 2000). Linking this aspect with the types of relations and identifications mentioned before (Ellemers et al., 2004; van Dick et al., 2008), it is likely that the relational content of the PC tends to develop with proximal members of the organization (e.g., colleagues and the leader of the work team), while transactional content is established primarily with distal organizational agents. In this regard, the proximity rule formulated by Lawler (1992) predicts that employees will establish stronger affective links with their close colleagues than with other agents representing the organization in a more abstract or impersonal manner. This prediction is also consistent with the “identity-matching principle” (IMP; Ullrich, Wieseke, Christ, Schulze, & van Dick, 2007). The IMP states that identification at any level of categorization is more predictive of attitudes and behavior related to that identification than to others, because these outcomes match the respective identity. Based on these rationales, we offer the following propositions:

Proposition 5: The stronger identification of employees with their work group is associated with the relational content of the PC, which derives from relationships with the direct supervisor and colleagues.

Multifoci exchange relationships, PC fulfillment, and the influence of referent comparisons

Overall, the concept of PC fulfillment refers to employee perceptions of the extent to which the organization lives up to its side of the bargain (Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012; Dabos & Rousseau, 2004; Rousseau, 1995). The perception of fulfillment refers to the balance or match between the organization’s promises—and therefore the employee’s expectations—and the benefits it actually provides. Chaudhry and Song (2014) have recently argued that the PC and PC fulfillment can be differentiated, despite their shared theoretical basis in social exchange theory and reciprocation norms (Rousseau, 1995). Specifically, while the PC focuses on the obligation–benefit ratio (i.e., what the organization owes that is beneficial to the employee), PC fulfillment focuses on the receipt–promise ratio (i.e., what the organization actually provides compared to what the employee was promised; Ho, 2005; Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003). Thus, the two concepts refer to different aspects of the relationship (Chaudhry & Song, 2014).

Prior studies have shown that perceptions of PC fulfillment have at least three different consequences for employees (e.g., Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012; Guest, 1998; Henderson et al., 2008; Kickul, Lester, & Finkl, 2002; Rosen, Chang, Johnson, & Levy, 2009; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003; Turnley et al., 2003): (a) affective (e.g., positive feelings, psychological security, organizational identification, and loyalty); (b) attitudinal (e.g., job satisfaction, trust, organizational commitment, and intention to remain in the organization); and (c) behavioral (e.g., in-role performance, OCB, and counterproductive work behavior; McLean Parks et al., 1998; Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). However, the perception of PC fulfillment does not arise in a vacuum but in the social context of each organization. From a social influence standpoint, Ho (2005) proposes that employees’ perceptions and evaluations of PC fulfillment are influenced by social information cues from referent others (Shah, 1998), particularly when employees share a common or similar PC. These may be either cohesive others or structurally equivalent others (Burt, 1987; Marsden & Friedkin, 1993). Cohesive others—or relational others, according to the terminology proposed by Burkhardt (1994)—influence the focal individual through the close social proximity arising from daily, direct interaction in the normal work context (e.g., teammates). Structurally equivalent others (positionally similar others according to Burkhardt [1994]) influence the focal individual because they share a similar position in the social structure of the organization, so they are comparable and provide a reasonable benchmark against which to measure the degree of PC fulfillment (Ho, 2005).

As originally proposed by Ho (2005), Ho and Levesque (2005) found that the effects of social influence also varied with the domain of the promise evaluated. In the case of organization-wide promises, employees’ fulfillment evaluations were similar to those of their friends, who provided mutual social support to one another. In the case of job-related promises, however, their fulfillment evaluations differed from those of coworkers, who played a dual role as both friends and substitutes. These findings reveal new and important informal constituents in the realm of PC evaluation, broadening the existing focus on recruiters, managers, coworkers, mentors, and top management (e.g., Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002; Rousseau & Greller, 1994), as well as reinforcing the notion that third parties to the PC can influence fulfillment evaluations (Ho & Levesque, 2005).

Evaluations of the PC give rise to one of three results—fulfillment (balance), underfulfillment, and overfulfillment (Ho, 2005; Lambert, Edwards, & Cable, 2003; Rousseau, 1995; Turnley et al., 2003). Fulfillment occurs when the individual perceives that he/she has received what was promised. While benefits received can be assessed fairly objectively when they are tangible (e.g., wages, incentives, rewards, promotions), evaluations of promises regarding social or intangible benefits (e.g., organizational support, career development opportunities) are typically more subjective. Meanwhile, employees may perceive that the organization actually provides more than was promised or was explicitly agreed, leading to a positive imbalance in the social exchange agreement (Turnley et al., 2003). This can lead to a broadening or strengthening of the social exchange relationship, and the employee may even endeavor to raise the level of his/her reciprocal contributions to the organization (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997); this response is consistent with the predictions of equity theory (Adams, 1965). Finally, employees perceive underfulfillment when they find that they have received less than the organization promised in terms of either tangible or intangible rewards like those mentioned before. In this case, underfulfillment leads to the perception of psychological contract breach, which we shall discuss next. Based on these arguments, we offer the following proposition:

Proposition 7: Perceptions of PC fulfillment do not all stem from a single source but are the result of comparisons made by the employee between what was promised by and what has been received from the various organizational agents, each of whom can fulfill, overfulfill, or underfulfill the PC.

Interestingly, previous research has failed, in general, to differentiate the sources of PC fulfillment; instead, research has generally focused solely on fulfillment by the “organization,” and this has prevented a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in multiple-foci exchange relationships. The proposal made by Ho (2005) undoubtedly takes referent others and their role in perceptions of PC fulfillment into account, but it still fails to consider the different organizational agents who may be the sources of fulfillment/nonfulfillment. Furthermore, the interesting distinction between fulfillment, overfulfillment, and underfulfillment still fails to account for the fact that one agent may fulfill his/her part of the bargain, while another may underfulfill it, and a third may overfulfill it (Alcover et al., 2015), which increases the complexity of the evaluations about the PC.

From a relative deprivation perspective, Crosby (1976, 1984) describes five types of cognitions as key determinants of the extent to which individuals perceive that the treatment that they have received is fair. One of them relates to the criterion of comparison: people will feel deprived when there is a discrepancy between a referent other’s outcomes and one’s own outcomes. Previous research shows how comparisons influence employee evaluations of the employment relationship. For instance, Oldham, Kulik, Stepina, and Ambrose (1986) found that employees contrast facets of their own jobs (e.g., compensation, supervision, job complexity, job security) with those of comparative referents. Additional research on the topic suggests that employee evaluations of the employment relationship are not an objective computation of how much individuals have received versus how much they were promised, but, rather, a complex web of personal and social construction of reality created from the social comparison processes related to referent others (Chaudhry & Song, 2014; Ho, 2005; E. W. Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Thus, from a social comparison standpoint, an employee will react negatively to the extent the employee believes that a referent’s PC has been fulfilled to a greater extent than their own PC has (Chaudhry et al., 2009). Conversely, we suggest that an employee will react positively to the extent he/she believes that his/her own psychological contract has been fulfilled to a greater extent than a referent’s PC has. Finally, as noted earlier, the effects of social influence also vary with the domain of the promise assessed (Ho, 2005; Ho & Levesque, 2005). Consequently, employees will compare their own job-related promises with the benefits received by cohesive others in relation to each organizational agent and will compare their own organization-wide promises with the benefits received by structurally equivalent others in relation to each organizational agent. Based on these arguments, we offer the following two propositions:

Proposition 8: Perceptions of PC fulfillment regarding job-related promises will be strongly influenced by comparisons with the PC fulfillment received by cohesive others in relation to each organizational agent, with respect to whom the balance will be one of fulfillment, overfulfillment, or underfulfillment.

Multifoci exchange relationships, PC fulfillment, and behaviors and attitudes implied

Following our earlier arguments, we further contend that the response to perceived PC fulfillment will differ depending on which agent is responsible for the content or domain of the PC (e.g., Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Tekleab & Chiaburu, 2011). Integrating the recent literature on organizational identification and the distinctions drawn between different social referents (Burkhardt, 1994; Burt, 1987) provides a compelling basis for examining our proposed model of multiple-foci exchange relationships in PCs. In prior work (van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), researchers have argued that work group identification and organizational identification should be treated as distinct concepts with differential relationships to attitudes and behavior. These propositions are confirmed by the meta-analytic findings obtained by Riketta and van Dick (2005), whose work showed that the key predictor of job attitudes and behaviors is the one that is most proximal to the attitude or behavior in question, irrespective of the strength of identification with either the work group or the organization. These results are consistent with the proximity rule formulated by Lawler (1992), and with the distinction drawn between organizational citizenship behaviors directed towards individuals (OCB-I) and behaviors directed towards the organization (OCB-O; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Empirical data also support the idea that foci of identification relate differentially to specific forms of OCB from a social identity approach (Christ, van Dick, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003). Likewise, other researchers have observed that people view themselves as having relationships with and obligations toward both their supervisors and their employing organization (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000), a matter also noted in LMX research (see, Henderson et al., 2008; Restubog, Bordia, Tang, & Krebs, 2010). Taken together, this line of work suggests that attitudes and behaviors which primarily relate to the organization (e.g., turnover intentions, organizational commitment, OCB-O) are primarily predicted by organizational identification, while attitudes and behavior that primarily concern the work group context (e.g., job satisfaction, group citizenship behavior, LMX, OCB-I) are more closely aligned with work group identification (Riketta & van Dick, 2005).

Meanwhile, there is a growing realization in the field of organizational justice research that employees distinguish between different sources of fairness, which has led to the development of the multifoci social exchange relationships approach (e.g., Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001; Lavelle et al., 2007; Liao & Rupp, 2005; Masterson et al., 2000). According to this multifoci model, employees’ perceptions of the fairness of a social entity are likely to be based on their assessments of justice-related information regarding that specific entity. Current work in this area suggests that employees consider at least two sources of (in)justice (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). First, the proximal source is the individual’s immediate supervisor, who has a direct relationship with team members and can influence relevant outcomes because he/she acts as a bridge to the middle and top levels of the organization. Second, employees may also attribute unfairness to the organization as a whole (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Although it is subtler, this second source is also relevant because, as noted earlier, employees often think of their employing organizations as independent social actors who are capable of justice or injustice (Cropanzano, Chrobot-Mason, Rupp, & Prehar, 2004; Treviño & Bies, 1997), and capable of fulfilling or breaching PCs (DiMatteo, Bird, & Colquitt, 2011; Epitropaki, 2013).

In addition, findings from a significant number of studies in related domains support the existence of a chain of relationships between organizational justice, different forms of social exchange relationships, and attitudinal and behavioral reactions on the part of employees (Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). For example, procedural justice, which refers to the fairness of the formal procedures underlying organizations’ decisions about their employees, is associated with the social exchange relationship between the employee and the organization, and it tends to predict POS (Masterson et al., 2000; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002). Interactional justice, on the other hand, is sometimes divided into the two subdimensions of interpersonal and informational justice. The former refers to the extent to which organizational agents treat employees with respect and dignity, and the latter to the timeliness and accuracy of the information communicated (Colquitt, 2001). Interactional justice is associated with a close social exchange relationship between the employee and his or her immediate manager, and it tends to predict LMX quality (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Masterson, Byrne, & Mao, 2005; Masterson et al., 2000). From a justice perspective (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001), then, the perception of fair treatment tends to create closer, open-ended, and reciprocal social exchange relationships. For instance, Tyler and Blader (2003) found that being treated fairly by the team leader and teammates affirms individuals’ acceptance and worth as a group member, thereby increasing their identification and commitment to the team. These kinds of relationships produce obligations for the employee to repay relevant parties.

Also, Lavelle and colleagues (2007; Lavelle, Rupp, Manegold, & Thornton, 2015) have proposed the term “target similarity effect” to refer to a chain of processes. First, they recognize that employees build justice perceptions about multiple organizational parties. Second, they acknowledge that the justice evaluations made by employees about each particular organizational party will affect the level of social exchange between them. Third, they predict that employees will react to felt justice and social exchange by directing their work attitudes and behaviors toward each particular focal party. Lavelle et al. (2007) conclude by recognizing that the organization, supervisors, and coworkers are usually the foci of justice perceptions, social exchange relationships, and the beneficiaries of attitudes and behaviors, as shown in a number of studies (e.g., Lavelle, McMahan, & Harris, 2009; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002).

In short, the findings of research in the areas of both organizational identification and organizational justice support the existence of multiple foci or organizational agents who act as referents for employees. Furthermore, the consequences of both organizational processes may differ depending on the organizational agents concerned, so that they positively affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Extending these arguments to PC fulfillment, the multiple-foci perspective, and target similarity, we argue the following:

Proposition 10: PC fulfillment by proximal organizational agents (e.g., direct supervisors and fellow members of the work team) will be more positively associated with job attitudes and behaviors like job satisfaction, trust in the supervisor, LMX quality, OCB-I and supervisor-directed OCB, and in-role performance, than PC fulfillment by distal organizational agents (e.g., top managers).

Multifoci exchange relationships, PC breach/violation, and behaviors and attitudes implied

The perception of nonfulfillment of the PC has usually been conceptualized as a breach from the standpoint of employees’ cognitive evaluations and as a violation when it is accompanied by a negative emotional response (Conway & Briner, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). More specifically, Rousseau (1995) argued that breaches of the PC may be (a) inadvertent, when divergent interpretations exist, but the organization makes a good faith effort to live up to what it perceives its obligations to be; (b) the result of disruption, when the organization is unable to fulfill the PC due to external reasons (e.g., financial difficulties); or (c) deliberate, when the organization chooses to breach the PC even though it has the ability to honor it. Where bad faith is apparent, the consequences of such breaches can be severe, particularly when the employee feels betrayed. Betrayal is a serious violation of the norms and expectations of a relationship (Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998), and the consequences are often intensely negative, even dramatic, due to the emotional reactions of members who feel betrayed (E. W. Morrison & Robinson, 1997). PC breach implies that the employee perceives that organizational agents have failed to abide by the promises made or obligations contracted, resulting in an imbalance in the social exchange relationship (Suazo, 2009). Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and equity theory (Adams, 1965), the individual will seek to restore the balance in the face of such nonfulfillment. Consistent with these theories, the results of numerous studies (e.g., Bal et al., 2008; Conway & Briner, 2005; E. W. Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Zhao et al., 2007) have shown that both PC breach and PC violation are associated with negative job attitudes and work behaviors.

Affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) proposes that the whole spectrum of events at the workplace shapes emotions, which in turn, influence job attitudes and behaviors. Thus, the perception of a negative event at the workplace causes negative emotional reactions, such as dissatisfaction, regret, anger, and frustration (E. W. Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Turnley & Feldman, 2000; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Zhao et al., 2007). The negative consequences of perceptions of breach and of the emotions associated with violations have been empirically observed in investigations of employee attitudes and behaviors (Kickul, Lester, & Belgio, 2004; Lester et al., 2002). While the majority of studies individually analyze the consequences of breach and violation, the meta-analysis performed by Zhao and colleagues (2007), which is anchored theoretically in affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), found support for the relationship between the perception of a breach and the subsequent negative emotional reaction or violation (E. W. Morrison & Robinson, 1997); this relationship has also been confirmed in other studies (e.g., Suazo, 2009).

The attitudes associated with breach and violation include reduced POS (Kiewitz, Restubog, Zagenczyk, & Hochwarter, 2009; Suazo, 2009), lower levels of affective organizational commitment (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Lapalme et al., 2011), increased levels of emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003; Tekleab et al., 2005; Turnley & Feldman, 1998), more distrust (Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004; Robinson, 1996; Robinson, & Rousseau, 1994), greater intentions to leave (Alcover, Martínez-Íñigo, & Chambel, 2012; Suazo, Turnley, & Mai-Dalton, 2005; Zhao et al., 2007), and increased trade union commitment (Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2004). Behavioral responses often include lower in-role work performance (Bal et al., 2010; Turnley et al., 2003; Turnley & Feldman, 1999b), reduced OCBs (Chambel & Alcover, 2011; Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2006; Restubog et al., 2010; Restubog, Hornsey, Bordia, & Esposo, 2008; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Turnley & Feldman, 1999a), and higher levels of absenteeism (Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2006). The research findings also concur in relation to the effects of breach and violation. Various studies have noted the moderating effect of certain variables like trust (Lapalme et al., 2011), employee conscientiousness (Orvis, Dudley, & Cortina, 2008), organizational cynicism (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003), and the content of the (transactional or relational) psychological contract breached (Zhao et al., 2007), which would seem to show that not all breaches and violations are created equal (Dulac et al., 2008).

However, thus far, the effects of PC breach and violation have not been sufficiently investigated with regard to the organizational agents responsible for nonfulfillment. This is an important gap in the literature, which the multiple-foci approach could help to close. Following the arguments described in the preceding section, the consequences of psychological contract breach and violation are likely to differ depending which organizational agents fail to fulfill their commitments. The outcomes will be related to different PC contents or domains, in line with theories incorporating different forms and targets of social exchanges in organizational contexts (e.g., Di Matteo et al., 2011; Lavelle et al., 2007; Lavelle et al., 2015; Masterson et al., 2000; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Tekleab & Chiaburu, 2011), and the negative consequences will differentially affect certain employee attitudes and behaviors, as we argued in relation to PC fulfillment. Based on these arguments, we present the following propositions:

Proposition 12: PC breach by proximal organizational agents (e.g., direct supervisors and fellow members of the work team) will be negatively associated with attitudes and behaviors like job satisfaction, trust in the supervisor, LMX quality, OCB-I and supervisor-directed OCB, and in-role performance.

Based on previous research findings supporting that PC violation feelings are distinct from the cognitive evaluations that underlie them (i.e., PC breach), and that a complex interpretation process intercedes between the two (Lester et al., 2002; E. W. Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Suazo, 2009; Zhao et al., 2007), we offer an additional proposition:

Proposition 14: PC breach by proximal organizational agents (e.g., direct supervisors and fellow members of the work team) will cause more negative emotional reactions and increased feelings of violation than PC breach by distal or hierarchically superior organizational agents (e.g., top managers).

Implications for theory and research

In contrast to the traditional conceptualization of social exchange relationships between individuals and organizations, more recent approaches have adopted a conceptualization that recognizes the existence of multiple foci in exchange relationships (Cole, Schaninger, & Harris, 2002; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). This approach has proved useful for increasing our understanding of a variety of organizational phenomena, including justice (Lavelle et al., 2007; Lavelle et al., 2015); perceived organizational, supervisor, and coworker support (Wayne et al., 2002; Wayne et al., 1997); and LMX relationships (Ilies et al., 2007; Khazanchi & Masterson, 2011; Tekleab & Chiaburu, 2011). Prior research on the PC has also recognized multifoci processes in PC formation, development, fulfillment, and breach/violation (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Marks, 2001; Schalk & Rousseau, 2002); however, to date, no systematic, integrative view of the multifoci approach has been offered.

Our goal in this paper, then, has been to explain how a multiple-foci exchange relationships approach might further enrich our understanding of the PC. As described here, adopting the multifoci social exchange relationships approach as a general framework for studying PCs can enable us to develop a more complete and realistic understanding of the psychological contract (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Shore et al., 2012). Moreover, this approach also helps our understanding of how research on the psychological contract may be further integrated with both contemporary constructs like group and organizational identification (van Dick et al., 2008; van Knippenberg et al., 2007), LMX (Henderson et al., 2008), organizational justice, affective commitment, and OCB (Lavelle et al., 2007; Lavelle, McMahan, et al., 2009; Robinson & Morrison, 1995), as well as classic theories like social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), equity theory (Adams, 1965), the proximity rule (Lawler, 1992), social identity theory (Ellemers et al., 2004), organizational support theory (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003), and sense-making theory (Weick, 1995). As a result, this integrated examination may extend the literature in both conceptual and practical ways.

The multifoci approach underscores the need to identify the various organizational agents involved in the processes related to the formation and development of PCs. These agents play an important role during the early stages of socialization and continue to act as differentiated referents over the life of the PC. In addition, these agents are often responsible for PC fulfillment/breach. At the same time, our multifoci perspective proposes that different organizational agents may ultimately influence employee attitudes and behaviors in different ways based on the concept of target similarity (Lavelle et al., 2007). Further, our approach also recognizes that employees’ perceived social exchanges with a particular organizational agent should impact their attitudes and behaviors towards that agent (Masterson et al., 2000).

Overall, our paper suggests that there is much to be gained by emphasizing the multiple sources involved in the formation, development, and fulfillment/breach of the PC. Previous research has demonstrated that the development of PCs involves multiple agents, who create a series of multidependencies and distributed contracts that change over time (Alcover et al., 2015). This approach allows us to more accurately capture the relations created in contemporary work contexts that are characterized by high levels of complexity and organizational fluidity (Schreyögg & Sydow, 2010). As such, our paper emphasizes the utility of a multifoci approach to PCs and highlights new directions for future research development.

For example, further studies are needed to explore the interactive effects of different PC agents on employee attitudes and behaviors, and the impact of time on both the development and fulfillment of the PC with regard to various organizational agents (Freese et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2012). Accordingly, it will be necessary to design longitudinal studies capable of capturing the dynamic nature of the multiple relations implicit in social exchanges and the ways they change over time (Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012; Jones & Skarlicki, 2013). Empirical testing of the propositions presented in this article should allow us to establish a foundation for subsequent refinement of the model. Finally, our propositions will need to be tested in different cultural and national contexts (Rousseau & Schalk, 2000) given that both the PC and the associated processes analyzed here may be sensitive to cultural variables, as some studies have already suggested (among others De Jong, Schalk, & De Cuyper, 2009; Hui et al., 2004; D. C. Thomas et al., 2010).

Implications for practice

Our framework also has a number of implications for the management of PCs in today’s organizations. First, understanding how the nature and quality of employees’ relations with their teammates, direct supervisors, and other organizational agents influence their perceptions of what comprises the PC, and its fulfillment, could help managers better understand and predict employees’ job attitudes and behaviors. At the same time, identifying the multiple foci of exchanges and the specific contents linked with each would allow for a more precise understanding of the sources of fulfillment/nonfulfillment and, therefore, should help increase managerial awareness of how to strengthen or restore relations and exchanges between employees and other organizational agents.

We also believe that our approach provides a more holistic view of the work experience and the EOR (Shore et al., 2012), because it integrates not only perceptions about the contents of exchanges between employees and the organization but also the processes involved in comparison with referent others (cohesive others and structurally equivalent others); the quality of relations with coworkers, supervisors, and other organizational agents; perceptions of organizational justice at all levels; and the processes involved in organizational and team identification. An integrated view will also allow managers to better understand the organizational climate and the specific culture associated with each work context, and to design actions to intervene and change facets of the work context that harm relations between organizational members.

Taken together, our proposals should facilitate a more comprehensive and precise diagnosis of the processes involved in the relations, expectations, and exchanges affecting multiple organizational agents, and they could therefore prove a useful tool for the subsequent design of measures to improve the quality of experiences in today’s shifting work contexts (O’Leary-Kelly, Henderson, Anand, & Ashforth, 2014; Sutton & Griffin, 2004). If the evidence available to date has allowed us to see how each of these processes influences employees’ attitudes and behaviors in isolation, an integrated analysis should make it possible to improve our predictions of the factors that drive certain kinds of work outcomes and to design (or redesign) the social and relational contexts shaping the climate of contemporary organizations.

Conclusion

This paper highlights the potential value of applying a multiple-foci social exchange relationships approach to investigations of the PC. Furthermore, our propositions integrate the interpersonal, group, and organizational processes that are directly related to the formation, development, and fulfillment/breach of the PC. Specifically, we looked at identification (at the organizational and group levels); the quality of relationships and exchanges with the leader, coworkers, and other organizational agents; justice perceptions involving several organizational sources; and perceived organizational, leader, and coworker support to expand our understanding of the PC. Overall, then, we advocate a multiple-foci exchange relationships approach that will ultimately enable us to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the complex nature of PCs in organizations.