Team psychological contracts: Effects of gender and social comparison orientation

被引:0
作者
O'Neill, Bonnie S. [1 ,3 ]
Hassell, Martin D. [2 ]
机构
[1] Marquette Univ, Coll Business Adm, Milwaukee, WI USA
[2] No Arizona Univ, WA Franke Coll Business, Flagstaff, AZ USA
[3] Marquette Univ, Coll Business Adm, Obrien Hall,POB 1881,Room 448D, Milwaukee, WI 53201 USA
关键词
Psychological contracts; teams; gender; social comparison orientation; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; EMPLOYEE RESPONSES; WORK; TASK; COMMITMENT; DEAL; COHESIVENESS; ANTECEDENTS; PERSPECTIVE; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1177/09504222231189719
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:191 / 202
页数:12
相关论文
共 78 条
  • [21] Who they are versus what they want: How dominance, influence, steadiness, and compliance profiles can aid in developing employability
    Fertig, Jason
    O'Neill, Bonnie S.
    Wells, Pamela
    Bassil, Carelle B.
    [J]. INDUSTRY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, 2022, 36 (06) : 795 - 806
  • [22] Forsyth D. R., 2018, GROUP DYNAMICS
  • [23] Norming and performing: Using microworlds to understand the relationship between team cohesiveness and performance
    Fullagar, Clive J.
    Egleston, David O.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2008, 38 (10) : 2574 - 2593
  • [24] One Big Happy Family? Unraveling the Relationship between Shared Perceptions of Team Psychological Contracts, Person-Team Fit and Team Performance
    Gibbard, Katherine
    Griep, Yannick
    De Cooman, Rein
    Hoffart, Genevieve
    Onen, Denis
    Zareipour, Hamidreza
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2017, 8
  • [25] Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation
    Gibbons, FX
    Buunk, BP
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1999, 76 (01) : 129 - 142
  • [26] Gratton L, 2007, HARVARD BUS REV, V85, P100
  • [27] Guimond S, 2014, COMMUNAL FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL COMPARISON, P205
  • [28] The Mentoring Relationship as a Context for Psychological Contract Development
    Haggard, Dana L.
    Turban, Daniel B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2012, 42 (08) : 1904 - 1931
  • [29] Group personality composition and group effectiveness - An integrative review of empirical research
    Halfhill, T
    Sundstrom, E
    Lahner, J
    Calderone, W
    [J]. SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, 2005, 36 (01) : 83 - 105
  • [30] Time matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality
    Harrison, DA
    Mohammed, S
    McGrath, JE
    Florey, AT
    Vanderstoep, SW
    [J]. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 56 (03) : 633 - 669