Psychological contracts in

Self-directed work teams

Development of a validated scale and its effects on team commitment

Introduction
The overall objective of this study is to explore a contract perspective on team exchanges by
developing a validated scale for measuring team obligations and fulfillment. The increasing role
of work teams in organizations makes understanding of interaction in work teams and its
potential impact on extra-role behavior and team performance much more important. An
increasing number of organizations have adopted self-directed or self-managing work teams of
employees in response to competitive challenges in their business environment. o utilize self-
directed teams to meet both organizational and employee’s needs. As a consequence,
nowadays, employees spend more time in work teams than with anyone else at work. In recent
years, self-directed teams as a management style have become increasingly popular. The self-
directed team is often presented as a means to empower employees in more enriched jobs and
thereby increase workforce satisfaction, commitment, and to humanize the workplace. Work
performance improves and results in good citizen behavior. As a management style to promote
more employee involvement, the claimed benefits of the self-directed team are partially
dependent of the contents and state of PCs. Involvement can have a snowballing effect: it raises
aspirations and expectations that cannot always be met. In PCs, only beliefs involving
obligations of reciprocity are contractual. These subjective beliefs are based on promises. If an
overt promise is made, the more explicit and verifiable it is, the stronger is the belief that a
contract exists. Promises arise from words, whether spoken or written, but can also be derived
from an interpretation of actions. The PC can help to explain how and why relationships
develop in teams. Team member’s interactions and interdependence form the basis of
developing contracts that can be fulfilled, violated or breached. In theory, the contents of those
contracts encompass potentially any item that might be exchanged between the team and its
members. As a consequence, the instrument (scale) measuring team obligations and
fulfillments would be very long and certainly over identify the construct. Although
psychometrically sound, this tool measures employee and employer obligations, with a lot of
items that cannot be used in a team level context. To get enough items in the team obligation
and the member obligation scales for acceptable validity and consistency, the items from the
PCI were complemented with scale items from PC related but distinct constructs.
Hypotheses
To measure reciprocity in teams, we adopt a repeated measures model design where the same
team members provide several measures over time. In the first set of hypotheses, team
member obligations are the dependent variable and perceived team obligations and fulfillment
the predictors.

H1a. In student teams, there is a positive relationship between perceived team obligations and
perceived member obligations.

H1b. In student teams, there is a positive relationship between perceived fulfillments of team
obligations and perceived member obligations

In the second set, the emphasis is on the state of member obligations. Is in the perception of
team members their obligations to the team fulfilled or not as a result from perceived team
obligations.

H2a. In student teams, there is a positive relationship between perceived team obligations and
perceived fulfillments of member obligations.

H2b. In student teams, there is a positive relationship between perceived fulfillments of team
obligations and fulfillments of member obligations.

A perceived fulfillment of team obligations reflects the extent to which a team values the relationship
with its members. In this sense, the relationship may be interpreted as team’s commitment to its
members. When the team is not fulfilling its obligations, members redress the imbalance in the
relationship by reducing their commitment to the team. Thus, we expect a relationship between
perceived team obligations and team commitment. As the PC captures social exchange relationships in
teams, the reduced commitment as a result of not fulfilling its obligations by the team would also affect
the level of reciprocity in the contract. Stated differently, a violation or breach in the contract by the
team affects perceived obligations to the team and fulfillments by its members through its effects on
team commitment. Accordingly,

H3. Team commitment mediates the effects of perceived team obligations and fulfillments on perceived
member obligations.

Two sets of hypotheses about team member exchange relationships are constructed in this study; the
first set measures the content of member obligations, the second one the degree of fulfillments. We
hypothesized that team members would reduce imbalances in the relationship with their team through
team commitment. Team commitment was supposed to be an intervening variable in this reciprocity
process.
Conclusion
The results of the hierarchical regression models with member obligations and team commitment as
dependent variables are that predicted that team obligations and fulfillments are positively related to
member obligations at a later time point. This research was designed to extend the traditional employer
employee PC framework to self-directed student teams. Self-directed teams were broadly defined as:
“any team that engages in any of the decision-making typically made by a manager or supervisor”.

The resulting scales of obligations and fulfillments of the team and its members proved to have
satisfactory alpha coefficients (all 0.70). The matched samples represented an acceptable goodness of fit
for the Dutch first-year college student -population, when age and gender are considered A second,
perceived fulfillment of team obligations has significant effects on team commitment. When a member
perceives that the team obligations are fulfilled, they become more committed to the team. Third and
last, although the student teams show differences in the (average) levels of member obligations and
team commitment, they do not differ significantly in the studied exchange relationships. Apparently,
other exogenous factors, e.g. supervisor support, are contributing to the reciprocal exchange
agreements between the teams and their members.