MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093449733 · doi:10.1108/02683940810894756

Relating employees' psychological contracts to their personality

2008· article· en· W2093449733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managerial Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological contractPsychologyPersonalitySocial psychologyGeneralizability theoryObligationPersonality psychologyOriginalityDevelopmental psychologyCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to increase one's understanding of psychological contracts by proposing and testing relationships between employees' personalities and their psychological contracts and to consider the influence of gender on psychological contracts. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 163 employees in ten organizations. Regression analysis was used to explore the relationships between each of nine psychological contract dimensions plus gender and the Big Five personality dimensions. Findings It was found that personality is related to five of the nine psychological contract dimensions and that each personality dimension is related to one or more of the psychological contract dimensions. It was also found that gender had a significant impact on our results. Women held stronger obligation attitudes than did men. The personality of men related to varying obligation attitudes, whereas, women's attitudes did not vary significantly within personality dimensions. The study suggests that employees' psychological contracts may be more emotionally based than cognitively based. Research limitations/implications The self selection of participants limits the generalizability of the results. The data is cross‐sectional precluding inference of causality. The paper assumed a linear career model for participants and did not consider alternate models Practical implications Personality would appear to be an important factor in our understanding of psychological contracts, particularly in men. Personality provides a basis for psychological contracts being idiosyncratic. The interaction of personality and gender complicates the psychological contract management process. Originality/value Despite 17 years of research, the factors underlying employees' idiosyncratic psychological contracts remain to be adequately explored through empirical research. This is the first study that connects employees' personality to their beliefs about employee and organizational obligations. Gender appears to play a role in the development of psychological contracts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it