建立核心员工保留模型:新心理契约的再考虑

原文：

Towards a contingent model of key staff retention:

The new psychological contract reconsidered

Gregory Lee

Theories and evidence of widespread changes in employment relationships abound in

literature. The organizational environment is increasingly characterised by mandates

of flexibility, reorganization, reengineering and downsizing. As a result, traditional

perceptions of what is owed between an employee and an organization are subject to

reappraisal. Such perceptions are encapsulated by the concept of the „psychological

contract‟. Evidence suggests that in the transient global business environment, the

psychological contract of employees and organizational representatives may be

shifting towards a far more transactional paradigm. Transactional contracts describe

perceptions that employment obligations are more short-term, work content based and

less relational. However in the case of key employee groups, such transactional

relationships may conflict with an organisation‟s need to retain its core skills and

knowledge that form one of its only truly sustainable competitive advantages.

Therefore divergent and varied psychological contracts increase the difficulty of

decisions regarding the long-term retention of key employees. An explanatory model

is therefore presented here, allowing for the various permutations and effects on key

staff retention that may arise from such differing perceptions. Organisational solutions

and research propositions are suggested for future research.

Psychological contracts and employee retention

It should be noted that, in this context, staff “retention” is a concept not only

concerned with stemming the dysfunctional turnover of key employees but also

(equally important) with the behaviours and attitudes that are evidenced if they stay

(Flowers & Hughes, 1973).It is important that those who stay are doing so for the

right reasons, and with the right attitudes and behaviours. A retention plan that does

not attend to both runs the risk of retaining employees who may not want to be there,

or even stay despite feelings of antipathy and frustration towards the organization.

Therefore, a retention plan must not only retain employees but also engage them in a

way that leads to positive, productive attitudes and behaviours for the period of

employment.

In this regard especially, perceived obligations and their consequences play an

important role. The psychological contract lies at the heart of the employment

relationship. The perceptions of its terms by both employees and organizational

agents are likely to direct much of the observable attitudes and behaviour within an

employment relationship (Schein, 1980), including turnover and retention.

The exact processes by which turnover and retention behaviours are affected by

psychological contracts seem to be varied. Psychological contracts have for example

been linked to commitment (Millward & Hopkins, 1998), organizational culture

(Nicholson & Jhons, 1985; see Sheridan, 1992 for impact on turnover) as well as

betrayal of trust (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau 1994). All these constructs

have links to both turnover an on-the-job hebaviour. Empirical research also confirms

that perceived violations of the psychological contract increase intended or actual

turnover, and negatively affect work attitudes and behaviour (Cavanaugh & Noe,

1999; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1999).

The nature of the interaction between psychological contracts and turnover can

generally be explained by the extent to which contracts are perceived as relational as

opposed to transactional. By definition, relational contracts are those where mutual

obligations of a longer-term nature are perceived, indicating a tendency towards

retention. Transactional contracts however are those where mutual obligations of a

more short-term nature are perceived, with the absence of long-term commitments ,

thus indicating a tendency towards flexibility and easy disengagement (Rousseau,

1990). As discussed next, changes in employment contracts appear to be occurring

with regard to the relational vs. transactional balance, with attendant consequences for

staff retention.

The “new psychological contract”

Prior to approximately the 1980s, organizations perceived labour competitiveness to

exist in a stable workforce with lifelong retention of employees (Cappelli, 1995;

Horwitz, 1991). As a result, many organizations (especially large corporations)

actively sought to insulate their workforce from the demands of the market by a

somewhat artificial system of internal controls and mechanisms such as promotion

and reward systems based on seniority.

The “old” psychological contract that accompanied this belief was essentially a

system of perceived relational obligations. Employers generally offered employees

almost absolute job security, consistent rewards, career management through steady

training and advancement and long term company-defined benefit plans(retirement),

in exchange for the expectation that employees would give all their loyalty and effort

to the company for the very long-term (Ehrlich, 1994). Individual employees and

organizational decision-makers alike genuinely perceived these as the mutual

obligations of a healthy employment relationship, and acted accordingly.

However, the 1980s (later for many South African organizations) saw the beginning

of broad economic pressures such as the increasing globalization of business,

changing demographics and information technology. These effectively shifted the

sources of competitiveness (Ehrlich, 1994; Kissler, 1994). Organisations implemented

increasingly stringent efforts to improve their productivity, including widespread

restructuring, downsizing and flexibility drives that stripped organizations to a

minimum of staff, with widespread terminations of mid-management in

particular(Cappelli, 1992&1999; Horwitz & franklin, 1996). The emphasis has shifted

to one of maximum productivity, commitment and efficiency from a minimized

workforce (Burack, Burack, Miller, & Morgan, 1994; Hiltrop, 1996; but see Coldwell,

1993). In many cases, long term company loyalty to employees has been replaced by

the demands of having a flexible workforce that can adjust quickly to market needs,

regardless of who needs to be hired, terminated or changed. Essentially, labour

markets appear to have become far more market-driven or externalized (Cappelli,

1995).

It should be noted that neither the old contract nor the changes are necessarily

representative of all (or even most) companies. However, where they have occurred,

the wholesale reduction of job stability essentially rewrote the perceived obligations

of psychological contracts. Employers had made it clear through action that, with the

new business environment, they could no longer be expected to owe employees the

same obligations that had previously been perceived as core to the employment

contract. Employees, initially shocked and depressed, have to varying degrees

responded by adjusting their own perceptions of mutual obligations. Literature reports

the realization by many employees that they must discard the old assumptions of

mutual loyalty and to some extent take responsibility for their own careers, without

dependence on any one organization(Tornow, 1998; Hardijzer, 2000) Practitioners and

academics have therefore observed and hypothesized the birth of a whole new

psychological contract, with significantly different perceived obligations on both sides

of the employment relationship(Kissler, 1994; Robinson & Rpisseai.1994).

The new psychological contract can be described simply as a movement towards a far

more transactional psychological contract, and less reliance on relational (long term)

obligations (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999). This relationship is one of self-reliance for

employees- it has been described as a shift from paternalism (where the organization

regulates and protects the entire labour relationship) to partnership (employees

assume significant responsibility for their careers and jobs).

With the emphasis on self-reliance and partnership in creating value, several changes

in human resource systems have been observed in companies (see Horwitz & Erskine,

1995 and Horwitz & Franklin, 1996 for South African parallels). Organisational forms

have become more fast and flexible, with narrowly defined jobs increasingly giving

way to teamwork, project orientations and flat hierarchies amongst other innovations

(Bridges, 1994). This pushes responsibility for contribution more onto employees,

who also gain more interesting and enriching work by being increasingly empowered

with strategic information, autonomy, rotations and often some flexibility in work

times and content (Waterman, waterman & Collard, 1994). Staffing for such systems

is increasingly based on short-term strategy (O‟Reilly,1994), allowing for flexible

hiring, firing and changing of employees as well as contingent staffing as needed

(despite questions as to the efficacy of this in a team based environment, Milner,

1995). Organisations are less able to develop careers over time, and are increasingly

becoming „buy‟ type firms that hire or fire talent as needed. As a result, career

development and concepts of job tenure have changed significantly. Employees are

expected to be more responsible for their own careers (Waterman et al., 1994), with

the help of organisations but without expectations of long-term job security

(researchers have thus observed shifts in employee loyalty from the company to the

profession or career (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999)). Organisations will help employees

be more „employable‟ in the general workplace by providing interesting, enriching

and productive work, coaching and mentoring, career guidance, empowerment and

aid in acquisition of generic skills (training is increasingly up to employees but more

portable). Long-term retention is therefore increasingly unlikely where these concepts

have taken hold. In addition, pay and performance appraisal are increasingly

reflective of true employee value, and less of seniority (thus increased use of incentive

and skill-based pay (Horwitz & Erskine, 1995)). Companies are also increasingly

abandoning expensive benefit plans with fixed outcome levels (Lucero & Allen, 1994).

Instead, they are capping their own contributions and giving employees more

responsibility for contributing as well as more say in levels and types of benefits (as

with defined contribution plans (Ippolito, 1995)). This allows for flexibility and

portability of benefits without tying employees to the organisation and vice versa

(Barringer & Milkovich, 1998). Even long-term stock plans tied to retention may give

way to the needs of flexibility.

These changes are consistent with agency theory, which postulates that expectations

of shorter relationships will lead to more outcome-based contracts and less

behaviour-based contracts. This is because with shorter expected tenures, information

asymmetry between the employee and the organization is likely to be higher (making

it harder for the organization to predict whether employees will act in its interests,

Eisenhardt, 1989).

Ascertaining employee psychological contracts

Some methods by which organizational decision-makers may ascertain employee

perceptions include simple talks and regular communication effort such as meetings,

surveys or interviews.

Another possible method for ascertaining a particular employee‟s stance in through

screening (Milgrom & Roberts, 1992). Here, an organization can discover the

privately held information of an employee (in this case the perception of mutual

obligations) by offering a variety of alternatives which would appeal to differing types

of persons. The employee‟s choices are therefore assumed to be an indication of

whether (s)he perceives mutual obligations of a relational or transactional nature. An

example of such a screening method might be in the choice of compensation. If

employees are offered a selection of long and short-term compensation elements

(such as how much of their own pay to invest in stock plans) then their relative

choices may describe the nature of their perception towards the employment

relationship. In this case it is possible that employees who choose to tie themselves

into long-term stock plans prefer a relational contract. Similarly, an employee‟s

choices in area of benefits (especially pensions) may indicate his or her stance.

Although at first it may seem impractical and costly to have to ascertain the

perceptions of individual employees, it is submitted that key employees are frequently

subject to individual analysis due to their worth (as occurs with one-on-one mentoring

or tailored compensation). The individual analysis of their contracts is no less possible

or desirable (Shore & Tetrick, 1994).

Ascertaining the psychological contracts of organizational agent

It is no less necessary to ascertain the perceived mutual obligations of those people

who represent the organization. It is unfortunately possible that, because of the

individual nature of psychological contracts, different employer agents may present

differing messages to employees as they represent the organization (Shore & Tetrick,

1994). It is necessary to assume however that there is some uniformity as regards

messages given to the single employee in question.

Note that messages may differ between employment groups or individuals. In fact,

theories of a „dual internal labour market‟ assume that some firms choose to have core

employees, towards whom employers perceive relational obligations, and periphery

employees such as temporary „buffer‟ workforce designed to react to strategic need,

towards whom only transactional obligations are perceived (Mangum, Mayall, &

Nelson, 1985). The important point is that messages presented to individual

employees need level of consistency for the model to have any reliability (Ehrlich,

1994).

Conclusion

Organisations rely on the quality and efficiency of the human and intellectual capital

at their disposal, particularly in the case of key employees. The retention of key staff

therefore remains a potentially valid and important strategic choice, despite the

increasing rationale for flexibility in organizations. However, it is becoming

increasingly difficult to understand and foresee the consequences of retention decision.

Rapid changes in business environments have wrought complex alterations in the

psychological contracts of employees and organizational agents. It is crucial for

organizations to understand that the perceptions of individuals are powerful

determinates of behaviour that require understanding and skilful management. The

contingent model presented in this article is a vital step in helping organizations to

contract with maximum efficiency through an informed understanding of employee

reactions, and ultimately to create an optimal fit between the organization and its key

staff. As similar theories are proposed and expanded, organizations will be better

equipped for a future that promises constant change and increasingly less certainty.

资料来源：.2001,32(2):P1-9

译文：

建立核心员工保留模型：新心理契约的再考虑

Gregory Lee

关于雇佣关系变化的理论在文字记载中比比皆是。组织环境日益以对灵活性的要求，重组，机构重组和裁员来进行其特征描述。因此，对于员工和组织关系的传统观念被重新探讨和评估。简而言之，它可以用“心理契约”来描述。资料表明，在快速变化的全球商业环境下，员工和组织的心理契约正在朝着交易型模式转化。在交易型契约中，员工责任是短期的，基于工作内容而非雇佣关系的。然而对于核心员工群体而言，这种契约模式与组织留住核心员工，形成组织的可持续竞争优势是相矛盾的。因此，心理契约的不同类型和其分歧的存在，增加了关于核心员工长期保留决策的难度。以下呈现的模型，可以解释在不同观点之下，核心员工保留的排列组合形式和由此产生的影响。这些组织解决方案和命题对将来的研究有很大的意义。

心理契约与员工保留

应该指出的是，在这种情况下，员工“保留”不仅是一个与防止核心员工因功能失调性而产生的人员流动的有关概念，它与在职核心员工被证明的行为、态度密切相关(Flowers和Hughes,1973)。重要的是，那些留下来的核心员工之所以这样，是因为他们有正确的理由，正确的行为及态度。一份保留计划，不会冒着风险去涉及这样两种人，一是不想要继续留下的员工，另一种是留下但对组织充满反感和失望的员工。因此，它不但要留住员工，更应该在他们的工作期间，致力于引导积极的，有成效的态度和行为。

在这一点上，可认识到的责任及其后果就起到了尤为重要的作用。心理契约成为员工关系的核心。员工及组织机构对它的看法很有可能直接影响雇佣关系中可直接观察到的行为和态度(Schein, 1980)，其中包括人员的流动率和保留。

人员流动率和员工保留行为受心理契约影响的这个微妙的过程是多种多样的。心理契约与许多因素有关联，例如责任(Millward和Hopkins, 1998)，组织

文化(Nicholson和Jhons, 1985; 参看Sheridan, 1992)，以及信任感背叛(Robinson, 1996; Robinson 和Rousseau 1994)。所有的因素都与人员流动，员工行为表现密切相关。经研究证实表明，心理契约一旦被侵犯，人员离职率就会增加，并且会对工作态度和行为产生负面影响。(Cavanaugh和Noe, 1999;

Robinson, 1996; Robinson和Rousseau, 1994; Turnley和Feldman, 1999)

员工心理契约和员工流动率之间的关系，通常可以用契约被视为是交易的相反方来解释。按照定义，关系契约是指可被察觉的较为长期的双方义务与责任，它表明了人员流动的倾向性。然而交易契约是指在缺失长期承诺的情况下，那些可被察觉的较为短期的双方义务与责任，因此它表明的是更灵活和更容易使员工关系解体的倾向(Rousseau, 1990)。接下来我们要进一步讨论的是，基于相关性和交互性的平衡作用下，组织员工保持力的状况与雇佣关系的变化。

新心理契约

大约在20实际80年代之前，企业认为劳动力竞争存在于一个稳定的劳动力群体，这个群体中的雇员具有终身保留性。(Cappelli, 1995; Horwitz, 1991) 因此，许多企业（尤其是大型企业），积极寻求通过人为的隔离和内部控制，例如按工龄级别高低的晋升机制和奖励制度机制，将劳动力市场的需求排除在外。

“旧”的心理契约这一传统观念，实质上是一种能被感知的关系责任体系。通常情况下，雇主会提供给雇员有绝对安全感的工作，包括一致性赏酬，通过稳定的培训体系和晋升制度体现的职业管理，以及长期的与公司盈利相关的福利计划（退休）。与此同时，公司希望雇员能为公司提供永久的忠诚度与极大地努力(Ehrlich, 1994)。员工个人和组织决策者同样由衷地将这些视为良好雇佣关系中的双方义务与责任，并采取相应的行动。

然而在20实际80年代（后来的许多南非企业）察觉到了来自国外的经济压力，例如不断增长的全球化贸易，不断变化的全球人口总数以及信息技术。这些因素有效地扭转了竞争性的来源(Ehrlich, 1994; Kissler, 1994)。企业开始付诸更多的努力以提高他们的生产力，包括广泛的机构调整和重组，人员精简和使目标灵活化，以达到企业员工雇佣最少化的目的，并伴随着中层管理的普遍终止

(Cappelli, 1992&1999; Horwitz & franklin, 1996)。劳动力的最小化被转移

到重点上，即生产力的最大化，责任的最大化，和效率的最大化(Burack, Burack,

Miller, & Morgan, 1994; Hiltrop, 1996; but see Coldwell, 1993)。在许多情况下，员工对企业的长期忠诚度，已经被拥有灵活的劳动力这一需求是否能迅速适应市场需求所取代，不管这两种需求是否会被雇佣，终止和改变。非常重要的一点是，劳动力市场开始显现出它凌驾于市场的驾驭或摆脱市场的影响。

应该指出的是，无论是旧的契约还是新的契约，都不具备所有（或者大多数）企业所必须的代表性。然而，一旦改变发生，工作稳定性会大幅度降低，这将使心理契约在先前被认识到的责任从根本上被改写。在新的贸易环境下，雇主采取一系列行动使责任明确化。此时，组织的责任与之前被视为雇佣关系核心的组织心理契约相比，已经发生了改变。起初，员工为这样的改变感到震惊和失望，他们只能尽力适应双方责任中自己一方所占比重的部分。资料记载了员工意识到，他们必须摈弃双方忠诚度中旧的责任，并在某种程度上为自己的职业负责，而不是靠依赖于任何企业和组织(Tornow, 1998; Hardijzer, 2000)。一些学者便因此着手推测，创造一套全新的心理契约。这一新的契约将完全不同于之前员工关系中存在的责任与义务(Kissler, 1994; Robinson & Rpisseai.1994)。

新的心理契约可以简单描述为一种走向，它趋向于更为简单的交易契约，较少依赖长期关系义务与责任(Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999)。这种关系体现了员工的自恃，它可以被看做是家长式作风（组织对整个雇佣关系的控制与保护）向伙伴关系（员工对自己的职业和工作承担大部分责任）的转变。

随着员工自恃和伙伴关系在价值创造中被逐渐强调，我们可以观察到公司人力资源体系的变化(参看 Horwitz & Erskine, 1995 and Horwitz & Franklin, 1996

for South African parallels)。组织形式变化更加迅速和灵活，狭义的工作正在被创新领域的团队合作、项目导向和扁平式结构所取代(Bridges, 1994)。员工对战略信息，自主权，岗位轮换以及灵活的工作时间、内容的掌控权的增加，使员工获得更有乐趣和丰富的工作(Waterman, waterman & Collard, 1994)。诸如此类的人员编制体系越来越建立在短期战略之上(O’Reilly,1994)，它允许灵活的雇佣，解雇，人事变动，并按照需要进行调整。企业难以做到随着时间变化发展员工职业，越来越多的是通过“购买”企业类型来雇佣所需的核心用工。因此，职业发展和终身聘用的概念发生了极大地变化。在组织的帮助下，员工被认

为要为自己的职业负责(Waterman

et al., 1994)，而不是期待长期的工作保障（研究人员因此发现了员工忠诚度从企业向职业的转变（Cavanaugh & Noe,

1999））。企业通过向员工提供富有乐趣的，丰富的，多产的工作，提供引导和职业指导，授权给员工，以及基本技能的培训（培训应该指向员工且更加便利）。这样，对雇员的长期保留的理解便与以往所持的大不相同。另外，薪酬和绩效考核在员工价值上的体现度越来越高，在工龄上的体现减少，因此激励工资和技能工资得到增加（Horwitz & Erskine, 1995）。公司也逐渐取消了有固定标准的高额的福利计划(Lucero & Allen, 1994)。取而代之的是，他们用不断地赶超，促使员工对自己所做的贡献负起责任，制定拥有更多水平和类型，与贡献计划相匹配的福利 体系(Ippolito, 1995)。这些使灵活的福利制度得以实施，而不是将员工与企业捆绑起来(Barringer & Milkovich, 1998)。即使通过长期的股权计划来留住员工的方式将被更灵活的方式所取代。

这些改变与代理理论相一致。代理理论假设对短期雇佣关系的期待会导致更多的绩效导向的契约，而行为导向的契约则会减少。这是因为，在较短的所期待的任期下，员工和企业间信息的不对称会增强，企业难以估计员工的行为表现（Eisenhardt, 1989)。

明确员工的心理契约

组织决策者可以通过一些方法来明确员工的认知，包括简单的会谈和日常沟通，例如会议，调查或者访谈。

另一种明确员工特殊立场的可行方法可通过甄选来实现(Milgrom & Roberts,

1992)。组织提供多重选择来吸引不同类型的员工，并可从中察觉到员工的个人信息。因此员工的选择被假定为他（她）是否认识到关系型或交易型中双方的责任和权利。使用甄选方法的一个例子是薪酬的选择。如果对员工提供长期和短期薪酬元素的选择权（例如如何对自己的股权计划进行投资），将有可能显现出他们对雇佣关系的看法。在这种情况下，选择长期股权计划的员工则倾向于关系型的契约。同样的，选择补贴（尤其是养老金）的员工也表达了他（她）的立场。

尽管起初看来，明确员工个人的看法是不切实际和高成本的，但由于核心员工本身具有重要价值，他们则被认为是个人分析的最佳对象（如使用一对一的特定薪

酬时），对他们契约的个别分析便十分具有可行性或者可取性了(Shore和Tetrick, 1994)。

明确组织的心理契约

对于那些能够代表企业的员工而言，明确双方权利与责任是十分有必要的。有一种不乐观的可能是，由于心理契约具有个人属性，不同的雇主代理人向员工传达信息与向企业递交的信息会有所不同(Shore 和Tetrick, 1994)。然而我们需要假设这之间存在一定的一致性。

我们注意到企业和员工个人所接收的信息的不同，实际上，“双重内部劳动力市场”理论是建立在一些企业选择核心员工的假定之上。通过核心员工使雇主认识到关系型责任和周边员工，例如为了迎合战略需要而分派的零时性员工，他们只注重于交易性权责(Mangum, Mayall和 Nelson, 1985)。重要的是，传达给员工个人的信息水平要与规范的可信度之间存在一致性。

结论

一个组织依赖于可用人力资本的质量和有效性，尤其是核心员工。因此留住核心员工是一个确凿且重要的战略决策，即使组织的人员变动率正在合理化增长。然而，掌控和预见任免决策的结果变得越来越困难，贸易环境的迅速变化使员工和组织的心理契约的选择变得复杂。组织必须认识到，员工的观点决定了他们的行为。本文所阐述的不断变化的模型，是帮助组织通过对员工反馈的较全面了解，与其订立最有效的契约，并最终使组织和其核心员工之间达到最优匹配。与其他理论的出发点一样，组织如果能拥有与时俱进的，高确定性的心理契约的组织，将会有更好的未来。

资料来源：.2001,32(2):P1-9