While Martin Luther had wanted his vision of the world to be restricted to religious life, he lived (as did John Calvin) to see his vision transformed into a highly secular conception of the individualistic, anti-authoritarian, economic man. Most of the modern perspectives on the motivation to work have focused on economic factor and on individual accomplishments. While many of these perspectives are distinctly anti-Marxist, they share with Marxism an assumption that worker values are primarily determined by secular, economic factors. Eric Fromm noted more than four decades ago that an emphasis on the economic man is readily transformed into the model of man-as-consumer. The marketing orientation seemingly has replaced the religious orientation of modern man.[lix] We no longer derive meaning in the modern world from our religious beliefs or from the institutions (Catholic Church) that sustain and interpret these beliefs. Rather, we derive meaning (if at all) from the individualistic pursuit of wealth and the acquisition of goods that convey our personal identities and offer the promise (through advertisement) of happiness and personal esteem.
The Psychological Contract
This definition of man, the worker, in economic terms, is perhaps no more profoundly illustrated than in the notion of the psychological contract that is established between an organization and its employees:[lx]
“. . . it is a psychological agreement between two parties, and it is a much broader concept than the traditional use of the word “contract” in industrial relations. It is a reality that has a great many implications for productivity and individual satisfaction. This contract is concerned with the organization’s expectations of the individual employee and the employee’s attempts to meet those expectations. It also includes expectations of the employee, and the employer’s continuing willingness to satisfy his needs.
The dynamic quality of the psychological contract means that the individual and organization expectations and the individual and organization contributions mutually influence one another.. . . This contract is not written into any identifiable formal agreement between employee and organization, yet it operates as powerfully as its legal counterpart. Furthermore, it is not static; it is an evolving set of expectations. Thus, neither party to the transaction, since the transaction is such a continuing one, fully knows what he wants over the length of the psychological contract, although each acts as if there were a stable frame of reference [social construction of reality] which defines the relationship.”
Every member of an organization, in essence, establishes a tacit (unacknowledged, often unconscious) contract between himself or herself and the organization that the employee has joined. This contract typically has to do with the rewards that the employee expects from the organization and the resources, services, and attitudes that the employee will provide the organization in return. The rewards an employee expects range from seemingly rational and publicly acknowledged expectations regarding salary, benefits, and job security, to often unacknowledged expectations regarding career advancement, public recognition, and meaningful work, and even more highly irrational expectations concerning enhanced self-worth, personal security, and friendship.[lxi] Employees also tacitly expect to provide a variety of services and display certain attitudes. Some of these services and attitudes are publicly established, such as working a solid, eight-hour day. Others are less public, such as the employee’s willingness to overlook the incompetence of managers or their willingness to work overtime without complaining. At a particularly deep level, the employee may be selling his soul to the company in exchange for personal self-esteem.
