Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., and McKee, M.C. (2007). Transformative leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work. J. Occupied. 12, 193–203. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193 As regards the other employment and employment variables, this means that a fixed-term and non-permanent contract is linked to better physical health, but does not have a significant impact on mental health. Physical stress at work has a negative effect on mental and physical health. Surprisingly, the impact on MCS and PCS is just as high. In contrast, high yields are positively associated with MCS and PCS. Based on the assumptions of the theory of social exchange (Blau, 1964), the psychological contractual approach explores the processes and contents of labour relations.

In particular, the aim of this approach is to cover the unwritten and possibly implicit elements of labour relations based on individual perceptions and mutual expectations. Psychological contracts are essentially defined as “individual beliefs shaped by the organization in relation to the terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization” (Rousseau, 1995, p. 9). These beliefs are the fact that employees expect organizations to reward their efforts because they are bound by mutual commitments (Rousseau, 1989). The literature on various aspects of psychological contracts is extensive (for a detailed overview, see Conway & Briner, 2009). Some research focuses on the description of substantial differences. B, for example, if contracts are relational or transactional (Rousseau, 1990). “Content” refers to the specific mutual obligations that characterize an individual`s psychological contract (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). Theoretically, the obligations contained in such contracts can be all conceivable aspects of the employment relationship (Rousseau, 1990); For example, they can include easily quantifiable aspects (salary, working hours), social aspects (pleasant atmosphere, social activities) and a long-term perspective (job security, career opportunities) or short-term perspective (an interesting new work task). Guest (1998) argues that researchers in their search for a general theory should go beyond simply describing the content of psychological contracts and try to assess their status, such as determining.B whether obligations are fulfilled (fulfillment) or unfulfilled (violation). This study has its limitations.

First, we were able to test the violation of only 10 different specific contents of psychological contracts due to data limitations. Even though this content has been selected for its relevance in previous research, we have necessarily and systematically omitted other possible obligations. More research is needed to examine less specific commitments, such as relationships. B with supervisors and co-workers, or expectations regarding work-life balance. Second, the sample was mainly composed of permanent employees, which is still typical of large companies in Germany (Eichhorst & Tobsch, 2014). Research has shown that the psychological contracts of permanent and temporary workers are different (Conway & Briner, 2002b). Third, the coupled employer-employee study covered only large firms. The structure of psychological contracts can be very different in small businesses where employer-employee relationships are much more direct. However, in order to adequately develop the effect of PCBs on employee health, a large workforce structure with different occupations and different education and income groups will be required, which is often not available in small businesses. Fourth, while data from two waves allowed for the examination of inverse causality issues, the relationship between PCBs and employee health should be examined using more longitudinal data. Current research measures PCBs primarily by either determining the overall extent to which the organization has fulfilled its obligations, or by calculating the average score of a different number of obligations not fulfilled in the psychological contract (Jong et al., 2015; for a detailed discussion, see Zhao et al., 2007). Since these comprehensive measures consider all obligations to be of equal importance, they do not take into account the heterogeneity of the workforce and the relevance of different obligations in different work contexts.

In addition, calculations of average values are based on the assumption that the bonds fulfilled are just as important as the missed obligations and therefore balance the PCBs (Jong et al., 2015). Conway and Briner (2002a) have shown that a single breach of a single obligation can in itself affect an employee`s daily mood. In our study, we provide a more detailed measure of PCBs by examining, in addition to an overall imbalance in the psychological contract, the relative effect of certain unfulfilled obligations: GCP good career opportunities, high salary, performance-based compensation, training, long-term job security, flexible work schedules, workplace autonomy, an interesting job, a pleasant social atmosphere and social appreciation. We therefore hypothesize that even by controlling for an overall imbalance in the psychological contract, the PCB of specific content helps predict the mental and physical health of employees. However, the negative effects differ between the different specific contents; that is, the magnitude of the negative impact differs depending on the content being violated. Rousseau, D.M. (2001). Scheme, promise and reciprocity: the constituent elements of the psychological contract. J. Occupied. Organ.

Psychol. 74, 511–541. doi: 10.1348/096317901167505 Psychological breach of contract. PCBs were measured in two ways, using a method commonly used to study psychological contracts (Conway and Briner, 2009). First, respondents were asked to rate the overall balance between their contribution to the workplace and the remuneration of their contribution (the overall psychological contract) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = absolutely unbalanced to 5 = absolutely balanced. Secondly, the specific contents of the psychological contract were measured by various characteristics: good career opportunities, high salary, performance-based remuneration, continuous training, long-term job security, an interesting workplace, professional autonomy, flexible working hours, a pleasant social atmosphere and social appreciation. Respondents were asked to use a 5-point scale to assess the extent to which they expected these characteristics from their employers. They were then asked to use the same 5-point scale to assess the extent to which their employers actually provided these characteristics. The GCP was calculated as the difference between waiting and delivery (1 = violation). A breach of the psychological contract was considered to be present if what was provided was less than what workers expected (Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Robinson and Rousseau, 1994).

Griep, Y., Vantilborgh, T., Baillien, E., and Pepermans, R. (2016). The mitigating role of exchanges between management and members in the perception of a psychological breach of contract: a survey of volunteers. Euro. J. Werk Orgel. Psychol. 25, 254–271.

doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1046048 Model 2 estimates violations of certain contents of psychological contracts. PCBs from waiting for long-term job security have a significant negative effect on mental and physical health, although the effect is stronger for GCS. The mental health score is 1.054 points lower (p < 0.01) if an employee perceives the psychological contract as violated in terms of a commitment to long-term job security. In comparison, PCS is 0.849 points (p < 0.05) lower when PCB produces this content. The PCBs of performance-based compensation and autonomy in the workplace also have a significant negative impact on both dimensions of health. In comparison, long-term job security PCBs have the strongest negative effect on both dimensions of health compared to all other PCBs with specific content. The fact that the model also takes into account the breach of specific obligations slightly increases the spread explained for MCS and PCS (R2 10.6% and 12.5% respectively). The differences in the variances explained are statistically significant (likelihood ratio test, p = 0.004), confirming that the explanatory power of the model increases significantly when the PCB of specific content variables is added to the prediction. . .

.