Fix an image in your mind of an angry employee, who's been
angry for a long time. Let's call him Bill. Bill often
grumbles to whomever will listen, and sometimes even grumbles
to himself. He complains about you, company policies, and
coworkers; and he seems to be withholding effort. He doesn't
work as hard as he used to work. And Bill's annual
performance review will likely be an occasion of dramatic
suffering. Something is sure to be unfair, and everyone will
soon hear the story - at least Bill's side of it.
It's a funny thing about Bill, though. He didn't start out
cynical and mistrusting, and if he leaves, it won't take long
for someone else to take his place. He seems to speak words
others feel.
Would it surprise you to learn that the Bills in your company
feel you betrayed them? That you broke promises and violated
an implicit, unwritten agreement that obligated you to
provide certain conditions of employment in return for good
effort and loyalty?
Sandra Robinson of New York University studies implicit,
unwritten employment agreements. She calls them
psychological contracts, and Bill's belief that this contract
was violated lies at the heart of his dissatisfaction.
Now you may protest that you've made no promises to any Bills
in your company, and broken no agreements. You couldn't be
in violation of any contract. That's probably true. So
where does all this betrayal nonsense come from? Is it in
Bill's imagination?
Professor Robinson explains: Employees often begin jobs full
of hope, with unrealistic expectations and assumptions. We
employers are delighted with their enthusiasm and encourage
it, not realizing we are supporting beliefs that obligate us
to provide job security, pay increases, and promotions we
can't meet. Hence, a sense of betrayal gradually builds.
In Robinson's latest study, she questioned 125 MBA graduates
over a 30-month period, and she found that most believed
they'd received promises that had gone unfulfilled. Previous
research had also found high percentages in other samples of
employees, too, but in this study, Robinson explored the role
trust plays in contract breaches.
Robinson reasoned that varying levels of trust at the time of
hire combines with a common bias, called a confirmation bias,
to influence both a recognition of contract breach, and
reactions to it. A confirmation bias is the tendency to
notice things that confirm what we already believe to be
true, and to ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs.
For example, if we believe an acquaintance to be a kind
person, we notice kind words and deeds that support this view
and fail to notice evidence that contradicts it. And if
negative acts are unmistakable, we're likely to attribute
blame in a way that protects our beliefs, for example, that a
negative act was an accidental slip rather than an
intentional unkindness.
Robinson compared trust levels at the beginning of these
graduates' employment to perceptions of contract breach 30
months later, and she found surprisingly strong support. To
be sure, no one began employment genuinely distrustful. Her
measure of trust yielded a range from moderate trust to high
levels of trust. Still, those lowest on the trust measure
were the most likely to feel betrayed 30 months later, and
their performance and contributions to their coworkers
reflected this alienation.
Robinson explains that a lower level of trust at the
beginning of employment led these people to form an
expectation of betrayal of their psychological contracts.
Then a confirmation bias caused them to notice evidence that
confirmed their belief and to overlook evidence that
contradicted it. Notice, that an objective appraisal of what
the employer actually did is missing from this reasoning.
So, yes, it could be all in Bill's head.
Robinson also found the reverse of this process to be true,
too. People measuring highest on trust at the time of hire
were least likely to notice a contract breach and their
performance reflected a continuing positive, hopeful
outlook - once again, regardless of what the employer
actually did.
Two implications immediately jump out. First, you must
manage your employees' perception of trust, and not leave it
to their imaginations. Give them good reason to believe they
can trust you by demonstrating integrity, honesty,
consistency, self restraint, and honorable intentions. And
second, find a way to measure trust in your screening of new
employees. An objective measure would be best, but you could
also note comments people make in interviews about previous
employers that reveal a lack of trust.
However you accomplish it, if you can select employees with
high levels of trust, and keep that trust, you're likely to
be satisfied with them in years to come.
Reference: Robinson, Sandra L. (1996) Trust and Breach of
the Psychological Contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41 (4), 574-599.
Supervision Findings, by James Larsen, Ph.D.
A Matter of Trust
Researcher discovers a connection between initial trust and later job performance.