Is the psychological contract dead? Have HR killed it?
I ask this because I have read a number of threads recently with individuals asking for "tie-in" clauses for training and education. We often hear the justification "the employee holds a role that is difficult to replace" and because of this feel the need to make sure we 'get our monies worth".
Thinking about motivating factors and hygiene factors, the psychological contract is poles apart from the legal contract.
By generating a "tie-in" clause this is likely to be seen as a negative factor in employees eyes – She may have psychologically committed to the organisation anyway. I am not convinced that tie-in clauses help to keep people – people are not legal contracts they are complex individuals with emotions and beliefs. Contracts just act as restraints.
Do these additional ‘contracts’ we generate aid or inhibit the impact of the psychological contract? If someone said to me – “Mike we will pay for this development, we think you are worth it, I (my manager says) need to ensure this is seen as a good investment by the organisation – we hope that you will remain with the organisation for some time after completion” I am more likely to stay because my manger has shown some personal commitment to me.
If I am unhappy with one or two things, but not enough to start looking elsewhere yet having to sign a tie-in contract may be the straw that breaks the camels back and leave as soon as the programme is complete.
What are your thoughts?
Mike
Mike Morrison
