RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Nelson, L., Tonks, G. & Weymouth, J. (2006). The Psychological Contract and Job Satisfaction: Experiences of a
Group of Casual Workers, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 14(2), 18-33.

The Psychological Contract and Job Satisfaction:

Experiences of a Group of Casual Workers
Lindsay Nelson, Graeme Tonks & Joshua Weymouth

ABSTRACT
Recent changes to the Australian workforce raise questions about the impact of casualisation on
employees. This study explored the effects of casual employment on a group of university students
using the psychological contract as an interpretative framework. Qualitative data indicated that
while these employees adopted a transactional work orientation, they expressed concern over the
relational obligations of employers. These findings were substantiated with quantitative research,
which revealed low job satisfaction and problems with the psychological contract. Although
respondents thought that the transactional dimension was satisfied, the relational contract
remained mostly unfulfilled. In particular they felt exploited and treated less fairly than fulltime
employees. This suggests management should pay more attention to the relational needs of all
their employees.

INTRODUCTION
The increased use of casual labour represents a significant development in the Australian labour market (Dawkins
& Simpson 1993, Pocock 1998). The number of employees categorised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS
1996) as casual rose from 700,000 in 1982 to 2.1 million in 2000, while casual density increased over the same
period from 13.3 per cent to 26.4 per cent (Burgess & Mitchell 2001). From 1988 to 2001, casual employment for
workers, aged between 15 to 19 years, grew from 38 per cent to 66 per cent; and it is predicted that, if current trends
continue, one in three Australian workers will be employed casually by 2010 (Watson, Buchanan, Campbell &
Briggs 2003).
Casualisation has resulted from labour market fragmentation and has been well documented over the past fifteen
years or so. There is a general agreement that it emerged from political and economic factors, and labour market
strategies used by employers to alleviate labour costs, and mitigate market uncertainty in order to gain a
competitive advantage (Dawkins & Norris 1990, Walsh 1997, Campbell & Brosnan 1999, Standing 1999, Campbell &
Burgess 2001, Hepworth & Murphy 2001, Watson, et al. 2003). Casual workers, compared with permanent
workers, have substandard rights, benefits and protection, as well as substantial levels of precariousness (Campbell
2000). Although casual pay rates often include a loading (additional payment) intended as an insulation against
employer exploitation (Campbell 1996), Campbell and Burgess (1997) argue that award provisions for casual
employees are not aimed at providing protection and benefits, but are more to denying them, thus becoming an
officially sanctioned gap in protection. Casual workers, therefore, may be classified as an inferior class of employee.
In this paper, perceptions of the psychological contract and job satisfaction of a group of casual workers is
examined using established measures from Millward and Hopkins (1998), and OBrien, Dowling, and Kabanoff
(1978), together with interviews. The combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches provides
robustness to the findings. The objective is to identify the perceptions held by casual employees towards their
employment situation, and as a consequence, their disposition towards their work and employer. The results begin
with interviews followed by quantitative data. These results are discussed, together with a concluding section, to
reflect on their relevance in terms of the work expectation of casual employees and the obligations of managers to
endorse appropriate human resource management (HRM) practices.

PSYCHOLOGICIAL CONTRACT
The psychological contract has emerged as an analytical framework for analysing the impact which employment
changes can have on individuals (Guest 2001). Based on an individuals perception that an employer has agreed to
certain obligations in return for an employees contributions to the organisation (Turnley & Feldman 2000), the
psychological contract is an unique and subjective set of beliefs regarding reciprocal obligations. (Rousseau
1990: 390). Usually incorporating concrete and abstract dimensions, the psychological contract implies aspects of
the employment relationship, which go beyond the terms set in formal agreements (Anderson & Schalk 1998,
Rousseau & Schalk 2000).
Psychological contracts may be operationalised according to the type of relationship perceived to be present
between employee and employer (Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau 1994, Robinson & Rousseau 1994, Rousseau &
Wade-Benzoni 1995, Stiles, Gratton, Truss, Hope-Hailey & McGovern 1996, Herriot, Manning & Kidd 1997,
Anderson & Schalk 1998, Cavanaugh & Noe 1999). Transactional contracts are based on economic exchange, which
translates into a short term, closed ended focus on material rewards in return for well defined employee
contributions to the organisation (Rousseau & McLean Parks 1993, Millward & Hopkins 1998, Aselage &
Eisenberger 2003). In contrast, relational contracts are based on social exchange, and are broader, involving long
term and open ended obligations centred on support, loyalty and trust (Arnold 1996, Millward & Hopkins 1998,
Aselage & Eisenberger 2003). Robinson, et al. (1994), and Millward and Hopkins (1998) take the position that the
transactional and relational aspects are inversely correlated; that is, the higher the relational orientation, the
lower the transactional orientation, and vice versa. (Millward & Hopkins 1998: 1546). This suggests that a contract
can involve both extrinsic and intrinsic elements, but the weight given to these elements may vary (Shore & Tetrick
1994, Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni 1995).
Employees regard the psychological contract to be breached when there is a perception that ones organisation
has failed to fulfil one or more obligations composing ones psychological contract. (Morrison & Robinson 1997:
230), and for a breach to occur, an individual must elicit an affective response to this perceived violation. Morrison
and Robinson (1997) further suggest that there are two causes of psychological contract violations: (i) reneging
(when the employer deliberately breaks a promise, either purposely or due to unforeseen circumstances), and (ii)
incongruence (when the employee and employer have divergent perceptions regarding what has been promised).
Robinson, et al. (1994) found that psychological contracts become more transactional following violation, showing
that employees retreat from social exchange aspects and focus on pecuniary benefits in order to create a
psychological distance from the source of violation (McLean Parks & Kidder 1994). Research indicates that the shift
to a transactional contract results in changes in employee attitudes and behaviours.
Deery, Walsh and Knox (2001) provide evidence that changes in the Australian employment landscape, especially
the increasing incidence of casual employment, are not dissimilar to Sissons (1993) bleak house scenario salient in
the U.K. The prevalence of the bleak house scenario and hard approach to HRM fosters what Kabanoff, Jimmieson
and Lewis (2000) observe to be a movement by Australian employers towards more transactional orientations in
employment relationships. A plausible explanation of this movement is the increased use of casual workers. It can
be argued, therefore, that because casual workers are widely considered to belong to an inferior class of employee
(Campbell 2000), they are likely to have a short term focus on pecuniary benefits. This is supported by Rousseau
and Wade-Benzoni (1995), McLean Parks, Kidder and Gallagher (1998), Millward and Hopkins (1998), and Gakovic
and Tetrick (2003).
The paucity of research into the psychological effects associated with casualisation prompted the present study.
Observing the disadvantaged position of casual employees, Campbell (2000) suggests that future research on
casualisation requires more emphasis on its effects on individual employees, and notes that a sensitive
exploration of employee preferences and attitudes would help in teasing out these specific effects (p. 93). To
develop this latter point, an investigation was undertaken in connection with the work experiences and perceptions
of the psychological contract among a group of casual employees. University students provide a large pool of labour
for casual work and it was from this group that participants for the present study were drawn. In particular, this
study focussed on their experiences at work and what implications this has for the psychological contract.

METHODOLOGY
Participants and Sites
Approximately 2.4 million people in Australia are enrolled in a course of study, of which approximately 650,000
are undertaking a degree at a university (ABS 2004). Since the introduction of the Higher Education Contribution
Scheme (HECS) in 1989, a large proportion of these students have found it necessary to engage in casual
employment and it was this group, which formed the basis for the investigation. Respondents were self-selected
from a group of students who were both undertaking an undergraduate business management course, and in paid

employment on a casual basis. The participant students represented many diverse organisations, although the
majority worked in the service sector, particularly the hospitality and retail industries.

Procedure
The research was executed in three distinct phases. Firstly, exploratory interviews were conducted with a small
group of 20 students. The purpose of this phase was to ascertain the participants experiences as casual employees
to identify issues associated with their employment. The results of this preliminary research indicated that there
were a number of problems perceived by the majority of respondents, which could be seen as associated with, inter
alia, the psychological contract. Given these findings, the second phase of the research assessed the transactionalrelational orientation of their contracts. The third phase examined the level of job satisfaction experienced by this
small group.

Measures
Assessment of the Psychological Contract
In the first phase of the study, the focus was on accessing the expectations and perceptions of employees in relation
to transactional and relational aspects of the psychological contract. To this end, qualitative data were gathered by
way of semi-structured interviews of about one hour duration administered to a group (N = 20) of randomly
selected participants.
In the second phase of the study, the Psychological Contract Scale (PCS), which was developed by Millward and
Hopkins (1998), was used. This scale, which comprises of 17 items was administered (N = 20), as a seven point
Likert scale ranging from one for strongly disagree, to seven for strongly agree. This incorporated ten items relating
to the transactional sub scale and seven items relating to the relational sub scale. The scale is shown in Appendix A.
Mean scores were obtained, but due to the low number of participants (N = 20), it was felt that additional
quantitative tests would be unreliable.

Job Satisfaction
The third stage of the research investigated the level of job satisfaction experienced by the employees. The
respondents completed the OBrien, et al. (1978) scale, which rated 18 dimensions on a five point Likert scale (scale
responses ranged from 1 indicating very dissatisfied to 5 for very satisfied). The scale items are shown as Appendix
B. Here again, due to low numbers (N = 20), tests of significance were not considered justified. Mean scores were
calculated.

Analysis
Data obtained from the interviews were interrogated and analysed using QSR NUD*IST software. The pattern of
nodes emerged as shown in the results section. This programme, which facilitated the storage, management and
analysis of data, enabled the researchers to realise the interpretive component of the research. The application of
computer based analysis in social research is recommended by Padilla (1991), and Richards and Richards (1991).

RESULTS
Assessment of the Psychological Contract
The interview data revealed two primary categories reflecting the transactional and relational contract antithesis.
From this initial divergence, the QSR NUD*IST software revealed a number of sub-categories as shown in Figure 1.
The transactional dimension predictably exposed concerns about pay and benefits, but the relational dimension is
more complex. Of interest is the surfacing of hard and soft versions of HRM (Storey 1987, Legge 1995, Brosnan &
Walsh 1996). Interactions with colleagues and superiors revealed several less than satisfactory issues of trust,
commitment, organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) and anti role attitudes. However, the three levels of
subordinate nodes, which emerged below the transactional and relational dimensions, revealed the most
information.

Figure 1 QSR NUD*IST Node Tree – The Dimensions of the Psychological Contract

Transactional Dimension
Participant responses indicate a perception of transactional contracts, with many attributing this expectation to
their working mainly to support their university studies.
Im there to be able to put this on my resum so I can get a fantastic job earning a [large salary] and
the other one is to help pay my bills while Im at uni[versity]. I know Im not going to be there forever
Im looking at it as a stepping stone.
(Accountant tenure of 14 months).
I do it to pay the rent, to buy text books and stuff, I know its not something I really want to be doing
for the rest of my life.
(Retail tenure of six months).
Respondents felt that they were adequately and fairly paid. To some extent, pay was a nonissue, as it was viewed
merely as a means to an end; that is, to support their studies.
I get paid well.
(Fast food tenure of one year).
The pay doesnt worry me I get my $80.00 for my Saturday afternoon shift and Im not stuck in a
supermarket, Im at uni[versity] studying and Im going on to better things.
(Retail tenure of eight months).

The issue of benefits, or rather lack of benefits, reinforcing the inferior nature of casual employment, did not seem
to concern participants.
There may not be the benefits but I am in the position [university] where that doesnt get to me.
(Retail tenure of five years).
Being a casual I know I dont get the benefits I realise thats the type of employment Im in.
(Administration tenure of one year).
The mean scores for the transactional items are shown in Figure 2. Results reveal varied opinions on a range of
items. There was agreement with an expectation of being paid for overtime (mean 6.3), and doing the job for money
(5.2), but disagreement that there was a clear career path (2.1), a preference for defined working hours (2.4), and
the level of motivation (2.9) was relatively low. The remaining items were relatively neutral.
Figure 2 Mean Scores for Transactional Sub Scale Items (N = 20)
Item
# Mean
I do this job for the money.

5.2

I prefer to work a strictly defined set of working hours.

2.4

It is important not to get too involved in your job.

4.8

I expect to be paid for any overtime I do.

6.3

I come to work purely to get the job done.

4.6

My loyalty to the organisation is defined by the terms of my contract.

3.4

I only do what is necessary to get the job done.

11 4.4

I am motivated to contribute 100% to this company in return for future benefits.

12 2.9

My career path in this organisation is clearly mapped out.

14 2.1

I work to achieve the purely short terms of my job.

15 4.6

Relational Dimension
Few respondents felt positive about the relational dimension of the psychological contact. Most felt their relational
contract was not being met, or was being violated; this perception suggests that the relational aspect was deemed
important.
I feel like I am just there to get paid it should be more than that, they should at least be trying to
meet me at where I am and where Im trying to be in the organisation.
(Fast food tenure of three years).
Its just too hard to establish a proper relationship when youre there only 10 hours a week that
annoys me because work doesnt mean as much to me as it should.
(Fast food tenure of 1.5 years).
Respondents believed they were subjected to both hard and soft approaches to HRM and management styles that
were often perceived as uncaring. Respondents rarely experienced soft HRM, such as socialisation and training, but
in some instances made positive comments.

[My employer has] good training and a good introduction to the job, which backed up their high
expectations of working on the floor I saw it as a sign of respect.
(Fast food tenure of three years).
My workplace really supported me through the early stages with training that was helpful and a
valuable experience.
(Hospitality tenure of three years).
Where hard HRM systems prevailed, autocratic styles of management were commonly reported.
theyll expect you to work double shifts, and double shifts [are] 16, 17 hours long they dont think
were human.
(Hospitality tenure of five years).
I was sick, and I said I needed to go home and my [line] manager could see that I was sick, but he said
you have to stay to finish your shift in the end I just went home and the next week when I looked
at the roster I had no hours I nearly quit after that, but you know you have to keep going.
(Retail tenure of five years).
There was consensus, however, that more supportive HRM approaches were needed.
No we dont get any support HR wise its really just learn as you go well just chuck you in there
and you deal with it and looking back, yeah that was pretty stressful.
(Fast food tenure of three years).
Although interactions with superiors generally had a negative effect on a respondents job satisfaction, attitudes and
behaviours, the majority of the participants felt that their relationships with colleagues was a satisfying aspect of
their job.
All my co-workers seem to get on fairly well one thing we all agree on is how bad we are treated at
work.
(Hospitality tenure of one year).
You develop relationships at work a lot of us go out for a beer every now and then its a pleasing
thing about my work.
(Fast food tenure of three years).
Many respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their employment situation and treatment by their employer.
I have seen some dodgy stuff going on and youve got no one to turn to and they know that theres
not really anyone that supports the casual they could sack you at anytime if they wanted to and they
know that. You know youre always a casual youve got nothing.
(Retail tenure of six months).
We dont get the benefits but Im OK with that we dont have many rights, or power I guess, and that
gets on my nerves a bit. I feel insecure at times I feel I have to say yes to shifts, and that can hinder
my studying
(Fast food tenure of one year).
You work in a thankless environment.
(Retail tenure of 10 months).
They look at you as a lower class person.

(Administration tenure of nine months).

He makes me feel very insignificant.
(Fast food tenure of two months).
Views about management style and the affect it had on attitudes about trust, commitment and OCB appeared to be
issues of concern.
there has not been a breach of trust or respect, because there is none, no relationship whatsoever.
(Fast food tenure of three years).
I dont think my manager would trust me, just because Im casual I dont think I could trust my
manager, youre nothing to him, I wouldnt put myself in the position where I would need to trust him.
(Retail tenure of one year).
Im not committed because I want to get out as soon as possible
(Fast food tenure of two months).
I couldnt give a stuff about my organisation theres no attachment there, no commitment.
(Administration tenure of one year).
I dont get involved in my workplace no way.
(Fast food tenure of one year).
Nobody notices you or what you do you stop putting in 100 per cent and wanting to get involved and
after a while [it] becomes normal.
(Retail tenure of three years).
In some cases, respondents engaged in anti role behaviours, which were characterised as absenteeism, gossiping,
verbal abuse and even potential sabotage.
I often think whats my purpose here, why do I want to work in this job, what am I getting out of it?
theres a fair few feelings there anger, disappointment to disenchantment.
(Fast food tenure of 1.5 years).
There was an instance where five of us were going to quit at the same time just to leave the bastard
understaffed.
(Fast food tenure of one year).
Figure 3 Mean Scores for Relational Sub Scale Items (N = 20)
Item

# Mean

I expect to gain promotion in this company with length of service and effort to achieve goals.

2.3

I expect to grow in this organisation.

3.7

I feel part of a team in this organisation.

3.0

I feel this company reciprocates the effort put in by its employees.

10 2.4

I have a reasonable chance of promotion if I work hard.

13 2.2

Item

# Mean

I will work for this company indefinitely.

16 1.9

I am heavily involved in my place of work.

17 2.0

The mean scores for the relational sub scale are shown in Figure 3. These scores for each item show that there was a
low level of agreement for all items. This result suggests that respondents did not expect that relational aspects of
the psychological contract would be fulfilled. Respondents reported that it was unlikely that they would continue
working for the company (mean 1.9), felt uninvolved with the organisation (2.0), and did not expect promotion
(2.2). Notwithstanding the low expectation of promotion, however, there was a near neutral response relating to an
expectation to grow in the organisation (3.7).

Job Satisfaction
Figure 4 shows the casual workers were dissatisfied with many aspects of their job, yet were prepared to endure
these features of the workplace in order to gain employment. In particular, personal growth and individuality
(mean 1.9), a lack of job variety (1.9), and the absence of challenging work (2.0) are dissatisfying to this group of
casual workers. Only items relating to people (means 3.9, 3.6), pay (3.9) and physical working conditions (3.3)
received more positive means. This score for the items relating to people suggests that the respondents found their
working setting a social venue.
Figure 4 Mean Scores of Job Satisfaction Scale Items (N = 20)
Item
# Mean
Having a say about the way I do things in my job.

2.5

Being able to change the things I dont like about my job.

1.8

The chance to use my abilities within my job.

2.8

The people I talk to and work within my job.

3.9

The chance to get to know other people in my job.

3.6

The chance to learn new things in my work.

2.3

The amount of change and variety in my job.

1.9

The chance to do different jobs.

2.1

Being able to do my job without a supervisor worrying me.

2.3

Having enough time to do my job properly.

10 2.9

Chances of achieving something worthwhile.

11 2.2

The amount of pay I get.

12 3.9

Promotion opportunities.

13 2.0

Quality of supervision.

14 2.3

Physical conditions at work (cleanliness, noise levels).

15 3.3

The amount of pressure or stress.

16 2.9

Item

# Mean

Opportunities to do challenging and interesting work.

17 2.0

Opportunities to grow as a person and be yourself.

18 1.9

DISCUSSION
The research questions centred on the work experiences of casual workers, and what this might suggest about the
psychological contract. Since the respondents were drawn from a population of university students it is problematic
whether they could be viewed as typical of all casual workers. However, even if regarded as atypical, they
nevertheless represent a significant cohort in the Australian labour force as more than half a million or more casual
workers are students attending university or some other tertiary institution in Australia. By any standards this is a
significant proportion of the working population.
The findings do not entirely concur with Woodens (1998) assertion that casual jobs for those attending university
are not bad jobs, because the research results (reported in this paper) demonstrate that employers regularly treat
casuals derogatively and unfairly. Respondents felt that they were treated in an inferior manner because of their
employment status and were conscious of power differentials between themselves and their employer. For example,
they complied with employer requests for working additional hours, even if it conflicted with study commitments.
Respondents often felt that they were victims of injustice and power abuse by managers. This, in turn, invoked low
job satisfaction, as well as low levels of trust and commitment, a withholding of organisational citizenship
behaviours (OCBs) and involvement in anti role behaviours by employees. In light of these findings, a casual job
could be interpreted as a bad job. However, the research does endorse the view that casual work appeals to
university students because of its flexibility (Wooden 1998, Murtough & Waite 2000), and the claims by Bessant
(2003), and Lawson (2001) that work and study commitments often conflict. Overall, students were prepared to
endure negative work experiences as a short term solution to meeting their financial commitments whilst studying
at university. A worrying implication is that the need for money, met through casual employment, may well
interfere with academic requirements to attend classes and complete assignments on time.
Although the sample size in this group was small, the findings showed a strong transactional orientation. Whilst it
was to be expected that casual workers, especially among university students, would focus on transactional
obligations, such a result has been found in wider populations (Rousseau 1990, Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler 2000,
2002). It is, however, entirely plausible that the contingent workers in the present study would feel lower levels of
relational obligations, such as commitment and OCBs than other workers, as observed by Coyle-Shapiro and
Kessler (2000).
Although Figure 2 shows that the respondents reject the suggestion that they may prefer to work to a strictly
defined set of working hours, it was obvious from the interviews that problems over shifts and overtime were very
much on the minds of the workers. This could be interpreted as a desire for working hours to be determined by
employees themselves, rather than by employers. Career paths, the likelihood of future benefits and loyalty issues,
however, held few expectations for the employees. Given the short term nature of casual work this was
unsurprising. Pecuniary matters figured prominently, although a stronger response to the proposition that the job
was only done for the money, could have been expected, compared to the question on paid overtime (means of 5.2
and 6.3 respectively; in Figure 2).
Figure 3 reveals that on the relational side none of the items spilled over to the agree end of the scale, indicating
that the employees held no thoughts of a permanent relationship or a sense of belonging and involvement. At the
same time, however, the qualitative data revealed a strong feeling of dissatisfaction over the way these employees
were treated. For example, employers showed a lack of trust and treated them poorly. Thus, in a convoluted way,
although the relational obligations were at a very low level, workers resented the poor treatment to which they were
exposed, indicating that even these contingent workers wish to be treated with respect and dignity. For this reason,
and notwithstanding support for the transactional obligations, it appears that the relational side of the
psychological contract was regarded as important. Support for this is derived from the NUD*IST node tree, (Figure
1) which highlighted relational aspects of the psychological contract, revealing negative feelings of employees
towards their managers and the employing organisation.
Although the contingent workers of this study expressed a preference for pecuniary benefits they apparently also
expected a relational orientation to their psychological contract. These findings agree with observations of CoyleShapiro and Kessler (2002), and McDonald and Makin (2000). The participants desire for a transactional
emphasis in employment relationships may be explained by the theory of life space (Guzzo & Noonan 1994). As
students, the respondents were entrenched in the social system of a university (perceived to be important to their
future), and were engaged in casual employment primarily to support their studies. Being a means to an end,
remuneration and benefits were non-issues in the relationship in the sense that they believed their transactional

contract was being fulfilled. However, the findings diverged from the theory of life space (Guzzo & Noonan 1994) in
one significant aspect. Guzzo and Noonan (1994) propose that individuals embedded in social systems outside their
job will place less importance on the relational dimension of the psychological contract. The respondents in this
inquiry were found to regard the relational dimension of employment as important. In fact, the findings suggest
that relational qualities are more important than the transactional orientation, because its fulfillment or
unfulfillment can impact on an individuals attitudes and behaviours, and thus, on organisational performance.
This finding supports the Turnley, Bolino, Lester and Bloodgood (2003) conclusions. The study findings also reveal
that, because the respondents depend on employment for their income, the relational unfulfilment was not strong
enough for them to leave their employment, but it was sufficient to impair attitudes and behaviours regarding
satisfaction, trust, affective commitment and OCBs.
Job satisfaction levels reflect the general unhappiness expressed by the study respondents. In Figure 4, only three
issues scored on the satisfied side of neutral: (1) the hygiene factors of pay, (2) colleagues and (3) physical working
conditions. Intrinsic issues or those relating to management were all viewed as unsatisfactory, the worst being the
opportunity for change and to be oneself. The general impression given by these scores is, that reduced to
automata, workers have little, if any, opportunity to express themselves and develop as individuals. As university
students, however, it is possible that the respondents may be more strongly oriented to ideas of personal growth
and self actualisation than other workers. Since the quality of management appears to be a continuing complaint,
the relatively mild level of dissatisfaction about supervision (mean of 2.3 in Figure 4) may well have been higher.
During the interviews, the respondents felt that employers exploited their power and treated casuals in a degrading
and unfair manner. Although procedural and interactional injustices were evident within the interviews, instances
of interactional injustice in particular were cited as a common cause of dissatisfaction. This finding was supported
in the job satisfaction survey, with a majority of the respondents expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of
supervision.

CONCLUSION
This inquiry is notable for the consistency of its findings across several research instruments, which included
personal interviews, a job satisfaction questionnaire and two surveys of the psychological contract. The study
established that the employment relationship for casually employed university students has a short term focus
based on pecuniary benefits. However, the respondents retained a desire for relational aspects of the psychological
contact, which most participants perceived as being unfulfilled. This unfulfillment perception was identified to be
primarily related to the oppressive management style and abuse of power by superiors. A majority of respondents
felt they were subjected to a casual stereotype and a hard approach to HRM, which left them starved of respect,
value and support. Believing that they were routinely treated less fairly than their full time counterparts were, they
felt they were victims of interactional injustice, the effects of which probably account for the lack of attachment
these employees feel toward their employing organisation. Given that university students generally regard casual
jobs as temporary employment pending graduation, it is surprising this group perceived that relational aspects
were so important. Experiencing relational unfulfillment, and regarding themselves as second class workers,
casual employees reported affective and behavioural outcomes such as low levels of trust, dissatisfaction, little
affective commitment, a withholding of OCBs and involvement in low intensity anti role behaviours.
Although this study was undertaken in an Australian context, it should be noted that the present global
environment encourages deregulated labour markets, where employees are increasingly exposed to contracts,
which offer little motivation for corporate loyalty and attachment to jobs. In the name of economic imperatives,
government policies, academic literature and business publications often promote the virtues of short term
transitional employment relationships. Whilst casual labour does provide employers and employees with particular
benefits, the management of such arrangements needs to be considered carefully. Specifically, employers should
not assume that casual workers are interested in little else than pay. If organisations, in both developed and
emerging economies, adhere to the notion of the relative importance of financial rewards, they may be creating
structures that could ultimately contribute to reduced performance, or even their own failure.
Organisations wishing to capitalise on the advantages of using casual labour, need to reverse the trends identified
in this study. Irrespective of the prevailing political and economic milieu, management are encouraged to configure
HRM policies and practices to strengthen links with the relational dimension of the psychological contract. This
requires a much greater emphasis on the tenets of soft HRM. Employers who focus on the relational contract
within the context of the contemporary workplace and the needs of casual workers are likely to create work place
climates that have potential to encourage employees to develop their resourcefulness. Under this model, civility,
respect, value, and sensitivity would replace hard HRM, which has been shown to be detrimental to both casual
employees and those who engage casual labour.

AUTHORS
Lindsay Nelson BA (Hons), MSc, PhD is a Senior Lecturer with the School of Management, based at the University
of Tasmanias Hobart campus. He has extensive HRM and Employee Relations experience in the public and private
sector, and teaches in the HRM and Organisational Behaviour areas. Dr Nelsons research interests include
organisational change, workplace change, and occupational health and safety.
E-mail: Lindsay.Nelson@iinet.net.au
Graeme Tonks BBus, MEd, PhD is a Lecturer with the School of Management, based at the University of
Tasmanias Launceston campus. Prior to entering academe, he has held management positions in the finance
industry. He teaches in the HRM, Organisational Behaviour, and International Business areas. Dr Tonks research
interests include management in developing economies, management education, and HRM.
E-mail: Graeme.Tonks@utas.edu.au
Joshua Weymouth BCom (Hons) is a past student at University of Tasmania. His studies focussed on HRM, with an
emphasis on non-traditional work arrangements.
E-mail: Joshua.Weymouth@dhhs.tas.gov.au

REFERENCES
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (1996). Trade Union Members, Australia. Cat No. 6325.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (2004). Education and Work. Cat No. 6227.0. Canberra: ABS.
Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. (1998). The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 19(Special Issue), 637-647.
Arnold, J. (1996). The psychological contract: A concept in need of closer scrutiny? European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 511-520.
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical
integration. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24(5), 491-509.
Bessant, J. (2003). Student poverty in the enterprise university. [On-line] Australian Catholic University. Available
http://www.unistudent.com.au/uploads/nus/campaign/wel_Bessant_Report. pdf, [2003 September 22].
Brosnan, P., & Walsh, P. (1996). Non-standard employment in Australia and New Zealand: Results from a
workplace survey. In J. Teicher (Ed.), Non-standard employment in Australia and New Zealand (1-22).
Melbourne: Monash University.
Burgess, J., & Mitchell, W. (2001). The Australian labour market. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 4(2), 124147.
Campbell, I. (1996). Casual employment, labour regulation and Australian trade unions. The Journal of Industrial
Relations, 38(4), 571-599.
Campbell, I. (2000). The spreading net: Age and gender in the process of casualisation in Australia. Journal of
Australian Political Economy, 45(1), 68-98.
Campbell, I., & Brosnan, P. (1999). Labour market deregulation in Australia: The slow combustion approach to
workplace change. International Review of Applied Economics, 13(3), 353-394.
Campbell, I., & Burgess, J. (1997). National patterns of temporary employment: The distinctive case of casual
employment in Australia. Monash University Working Paper No. 53.
Campbell, I., & Burgess, J. (2001). Casual employment in Australia and temporary employment in Europe:
Developing a cross-national comparison. Work, Employment & Society, 15(1), 171-184.

Cavanaugh, M.A., & Noe, R.A. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relational components of the new
psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20(3), 323-340.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the employment
relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 903-930.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., & Kessler, I. (2002). Contingent and non-contingent working in local government:
Contrasting psychological contracts. Public Administration, 80(1), 77-101.
Dawkins, P., & Norris, K. (1990). Casual employment in Australia. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 16(3), 156-173.
Dawkins, P., & Simpson, M. (1993). Work, leisure and competitiveness of Australian industry. Institute for
Research into International Competitiveness: Curtin University of Technology.
Deery, S., Walsh, J., & Knox, A. (2001). The non-union workplace in Australia: Bleak house or human resource
innovator? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4), 669-683.
Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L.E. (2003). Perceived organizational support and work status: A comparison of the
employment relationships of part-time and full-time employees attending university classes. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 24(5), 649-666.
Guest, D.E. (2001). Industrial relations and human resource management. In J. Storey (Ed.), Human resource
management: a critical text (2nd ed., 96-113). London: Thomson.
Guzzo, R.A., & Noonan, K.A. (1994). Human resource practices as communications and the psychological contract.
Human Resource Management, 33(3), 447-462.
Herriot, P., Manning, W.E.G., & Kidd, J.M. (1997). The content of the psychological contract. British Journal of
Management, 8(2), 151-162.
Hepworth, A., & Murphy, C. (2001 August 10). Uncertainty creates more part-time work. The Australian Financial
Review, 11.
Kabanoff, B., Jimmieson, N.L., & Lewis, M.J. (2000). Psychological contracts in Australia: A fair go or a not-sohappy transition? In D. M. Rousseau & R. Stern (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national
perspectives (29-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lawson, M. (2001). Students strive to balance study and work. Inside QUT, February 13 - March 5, 5.
Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. London: Macmillan.
McDonald, D.J., & Makin, P.J. (2000). The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job satisfaction
of temporary staff. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(1/2), 84-91.
McLean Parks, J., & Kidder, D.L. (1994). Till death us do part Changing work relationships in the 1990s. In C.L.
Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behaviour (Vol. 1, 111-136). Chichester, England: John
Wiley & Sons.
McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D.L., & Gallagher, D.G. (1998). Fitting square pegs into round holes: Mapping the
domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
19(Special Issue), 697-730.
Millward, L.J., & Hopkins, L.J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 28(16), 1530-1556.
Morrison, E.W., & Robinson, S.L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract
violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226-256.
Murtough, G., & Waite, M. (2000). The diversity of casual contract employment. Canberra: AusInfo.
OBrien, G.E., Dowling, P., & Kabanoff, B. (1978). Work, health and leisure. Flinders University Working Paper No.
28.

Padilla, R.V. (1991). Using computers to develop concept models of social situations. Qualitative Sociology, 14(3),
263-274.
Pocock, B. (1998). All change, still gendered: The Australian labour market in the 1990s. The Journal of Industrial
Relations, 40(4), 580-604.
Richards, L., & Richards, T. (1991). The Nudist qualitative data analysis system. Qualitative Sociology, 14(4), 307324.
Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A
longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 137-152.
Robinson, S.L., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 15(3), 245-259.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employers obligations: A study of
psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 11(5), 389-400.
Rousseau, D.M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organisations. In L.L. Cummings &
B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (1-43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rousseau, D.M., & Schalk, R. (2000). Introduction. In D.M. Rousseau & R. Schalk (Eds.), Psychological contracts
in employment: Cross-national perspectives (1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rousseau, D.M., & Wade-Benzoni, K.A. (1995). Psychological contracts in organisations: Understanding written
and unwritten agreements. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (290-322). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Shore, L.M., & Tetrick, L.E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment
relationship. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behaviour (Vol. 1, 91-109).
Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Sissons, K. (1993). In Search of HRM. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31(2), 201-210.
Standing, G. (1999). Global labour flexibility: Seeking distributive justice. New York: St. Matins Press.
Stiles, P., Gratton, L., Truss, C., Hope-Hailey, V., & McGovern, P. (1996). Performance management and the
psychological contract. Human Resource Management Journal, 7(1), 57-66.
Storey, J. (1987). Developments in the management of human resources: An interim report. Warwick Papers in
Industrial Relations, 17. School of Industrial and business studies: University of Warwick.
Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M., Lester, S., & Bloodgood, J.M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on
the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206.
Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet
expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21(1), 25-42.
Walsh, J. (1997). Employment systems in transition? A comparative analysis of Britain and Australia. Work,
Employment and Society, 11(1), 1-25.
Watson, I., Buchanan, J., Campbell, I., & Briggs, C. (2003). Fragmented futures: New challenges in working life.
Sydney: Federation Press.
Wooden, M. (1998). The Labour market for young Australians. Australias youth: reality and risk. [On-line]
Dusseldorp Skills Forum, Available http://www.dsf.org.au/papers/ol/yr98/wooden.html, [2004 September 22].

APPENDICES
1

Appendix A Items Adapted from the Millward and Hopkins (1998) Psychological Contract Survey
T I do this job for the money.

T I prefer to work a strictly defined set of working hours.

R I expect to gain promotion in this company with length of service and effort to achieve goals.

T It is important not to get too involved in your job.

R I expect to grow in this organisation.

T I expect to be paid for any overtime I do.

T I come to work purely to get the job done.

R I feel part of a team in this organisation.

T My loyalty to the organisation is defined by the terms of my contract.

10 R I feel this company reciprocates the effort put in by its employees.

11 T I only do what is necessary to get the job done.
12 T I am motivated to contribute 100% to this company for future benefits.
13 R I have a reasonable chance of promotion if I work hard.
14 T My career path in this organisation is clearly mapped out.
15 T I work to achieve the purely short-term goals of my job.
16 R I will work for this company indefinitely.
17 R I am heavily involved in my place of work.
Key: T = Transactional R = Relational

Appendix B Items from OBrien, et al. (1978) Employee Satisfaction Survey

Having a say about the way I do things in my job.

Being able to change the things I dont like about my job.

The chance to use my abilities within my job.

The people I talk to and work within my job.

The chance to get to know other people in my job.

The chance to learn new things in my work.

The amount of change and variety in my job.

The chance to do different jobs.

Being able to do my job without a supervisor worrying me.

10 Having enough time to do my job properly.

11 Chances of achieving something worthwhile.

12 The amount of pay I get.
13 Promotion opportunities.
14 Quality of supervision.
15 Physical conditions at work (cleanliness, noise levels).
16 The amount of pressure or stress.
17 Opportunities to do challenging and interesting work.
18 Opportunities to grow as a person and be yourself.