Economic Man and the Psychological Covenant
Whether speaking of hygiene or motivating factors, the modern emphasis on contracted exchange of services and benefits between the organization and employee is built on an economic model of man. Both parties look to the fulfillment of specific needs that they hold independent of the other party. A manufacturing company needs skilled technicians who will remain loyal to the company for at least ten years, and skilled technicians need adequate salaries, decent medical health and retirement plans, and a setting that is conducive to gratifying work. A hospital needs dedicated and highly trained nurses, and nurses need job security, good salaries, decent childcare facilities, and an institutional commitment to continuing education and professional development services. Each party makes an independent assessment of the capacity of the other party to meet his, her or its needs. While the notion of psychological contract may accurately portray modern day organizations, it also contains the flaws that are inherent in the highly secularized, economically driven world of modern organizations.
First, a contract can be broken by either party. Thus, there is no commitment (as there was in premodern times) to the ultimate welfare of the employee (on the part of the organization) or the ultimate welfare of the organization (on the part of the employee). Everyone is in it for himself or herself. This leads to the dissolution of community in existing organization and to the absence of community in newly formed organizations. There is no glue. There is no commitment that holds everything together, especially during difficult times. Given the accompanying tendency of modern organizations to become large and complex, it is no wonder that these institutions are now in trouble. These organizations must move away from the secular and economically driven notions of work, to a model of work that is both secular and sacred. Such a model would embrace and more fully explore the notion of a psychological covenant rather than psychological contract.
The psychological covenant is not readily broken. It involves deeply felt commitments on the part of both the employee and organization. Furthermore, these commitments are made public and are usually enacted in some ceremonial form. Neither party can break a covenant, without the other party’s permission. Thus, men and women in a covenant-based organization must work through their problems, rather than simply giving up and parting company. Covenants are based on sacrifice (as in the Old Testament covenant made between Abraham and Jehovah). Both parties are willing to give up a part of their selves in order for the relationship to work. This flies directly in the face of individualistic concerns. It speaks to the need for collective responsibility (the more feminine way of knowing) and partnership (the more feminine way of organizing) and to a relative de-emphasis on individual rights (the more masculine way of knowing) and dominance (the more masculine way of organizing).[lxvii]
