Leadership & Organization Development Journal

The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff
David J . McDonald Peter J . Makin
Article information:
To cite this document:
David J . McDonald Peter J . Makin, (2000),"The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job satisfaction of
temporary staff", Leadership & Organization Development J ournal, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 84 - 91
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730010318174
Downloaded on: 13 October 2014, At: 00:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 19 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9252 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mohamed Behery, R.A. Paton, Rahim Hussain, (2012),"Psychological contract and organizational commitment: The
mediating effect of transformational leadership", Competitiveness Review, Vol. 22 Iss 4 pp. 299-319
J udy Pate, Graeme Martin, J im McGoldrick, (2003),"The impact of psychological contract violation on employee attitudes
and behaviour", Employee Relations, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp. 557-573
Abigail Marks, (2001),"Developing a multiple foci conceptualization of the psychological contract", Employee Relations, Vol.
23 Iss 5 pp. 454-469
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 566188 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
The psychological contract, organisational
commitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff
David J. McDonald
Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK
Peter J. Makin
Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK
The metaphor of the psychological contract
has recently become very popular in the
organisational psychology literature as a
way of examining and exploring the
expectations that individuals have of their
relationship with their employer. The
reasons for this sudden popularity are
perhaps twofold. First, the concept is, in our
experience, easily understood by most
managers and their staff. The other reason is
that the relationships, both formal and
informal, that people have with their
employing organisations are undergoing
rapid, and sometimes far-reaching, changes.
The psychological contract provides a way of
examining how such changes are perceived
by those most directly affected and gives
some indication of the effects such changes
may have on their attitudes and behaviour.
The purpose of this article, therefore, is to
examine the concept of the psychological
contract and its usefulness in understanding
the changing nature of employment
relationships, especially possible differences
between permanent and temporary staff. The
importance of understanding this segment of
the workforce is increasing as the numbers
in it increase. It is estimated that 7.1 per cent
of the working population of the UK in
employment are not employed on a
permanent contract or, in other words, 1.5
million employees in the UK have no
permanent job tenure (European
Commission, 1997).
Before moving on to examine these
differences, however, it will perhaps be
useful to outline the concept of the
psychological contract.
The psychological contract
Although the concept of the psychological
contract can be traced back to the work of
Argyris (1960) and Schein (1980), it has only
been in the last few years that it has become
the focus of theoretical and empirical
research. Perhaps the name most commonly
identified with its recent vogue status is that
of Rousseau. In a number of influential
publications she has refined the concept and
carried out empirical research to clarify its
nature.
According to Schein, the psychological
contract may be defined as an ``unwritten set
of expectations operating at all times
between every member of an organisation
and the various managers and others in that
organisation''. Rousseau has gone further
and argued that the psychological contract
involves something stronger than just
``expectations''. What is involved are
``promissory and reciprocal obligations'' that
are not included in the formal contract of
employment (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994;
italics ours). Promises of future behaviour by
the organisation are contingent upon some
action by the individual. Although the
organisation is perceived as making these
promises, these reciprocal obligations are,
according to Rousseau, defined by the
individual, not the organisation. They are,
therefore, highly subjective. The individual
interprets the various actions of the
organisation and infers their psychological
contract with the organisation on the basis of
these actions. Employees enter into an
employment relationship with an
understanding that their employer has
certain obligations to them, and they to their
employer, thus creating an atmosphere of
reciprocity. The contract is, therefore,
largely informal, unwritten, and constantly
developing as the individual interacts with
the organisation. Nevertheless, as Schein
points out, despite its informal and unwritten
nature, it is an important determinant of
people's behaviour.
As has been seen, the psychological
contract is based on a person's perceptions
and beliefs and hence is, by definition, highly
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
[ 84]
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/2 [2000] 8491
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0143-7739]
Keywords
Work psychology, Commitment,
Job satisfaction,
Temporary workers,
United Kingdom
Abstract
The proportion of the workforce on
temporary contracts of employ-
ment is increasing, as organisa-
tions use non-permanent staff as a
flexible resource. Rousseau and
Wade-Benzoni suggested such
temporary staff have a different
psychological contract with the
organisation than their permanent
counterparts. Temporary staff, it is
argued, will have a transactional
contract, with the emphasis upon
the economic elements of the
contract while permanent staff
will have a more relational con-
tract, involving commitment to the
organisation, and an interest in a
satisfying job. These differences,
it is argued, will influence staff
attitudes and behaviour. The arti-
cle tests these suggestions on
employees of a large holiday sec-
tor organisation. The results pre-
sent a consistent picture, at
variance with the above sugges-
tions. The levels of relational and
transactional contracts of perma-
nent and temporary staff did not
differ significantly. In addition they
had higher, rather than lower,
levels of job satisfaction and
commitment to the organisation.
Received: September 1999
Revised/accepted:
December 1999
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
subjective. There are, however, inevitable
similarities in people's perceptions, often
determined by the common work situation
that they share. In addition, whilst the
specific content of the contract may vary
from individual to individual, and group to
group there are, according to Rousseau,
common categories that seem to exist across
all contracts. In a study of 224 MBA
graduates, Rousseau (1990) found two distinct
sets of employee obligations. These she
referred to as relational, and transactional.
A transactional psychological contract is
characterised by obligations that might be
considered to be ``economic'' in nature. They
include a willingness to work overtime, to
provide high levels of performance for
contingent pay, and to give notice before
quitting, but with the employee feeling no
loyalty to the organisation. These obligations
were correlated with employer obligations to
their employee to provide high performance-
based pay (Rousseau, 1990). Specifically,
Rousseau argues that those with
transactional psychological contracts are
characterised as having ``high competitive
wage rates and an absence of long term
commitment''.
A relational contract, on the other hand, is
characterised on the employees' side by
perceived obligations to their employer of
loyalty, and on the employer's by an
obligation to provide job security. These
factors, it is argued by Rousseau, are
representative of a relational psychological
contract as employees wish to build a long-
term relationship with their employers. As
can be seen, the two types of contract can
often be implicitly differentiated by the time
span of the contract. Transactional contracts
tend to be short term, whilst relational
contracts imply long-term reciprocal
expectations and obligations.
It is perhaps worth pointing out, however,
that psychological contracts are not usually
either/or. Rather the descriptions given
above represent the two ends of a continuum.
Any particular psychological contract will
contain both transactional and relational
elements, but in differing amounts. As will be
seen, the nature of this balance, and changes
to it, has considerable effects.
Although it is argued that the
psychological contract, like other contracts,
is an important influence on the relationship
between the employee and the organisation,
that influence may not be overtly apparent.
Just as with other types of contract, the
psychological contract often only becomes an
important influence on behaviour, when it
becomes salient, for example when it is
broken or undergoes substantial change.
Both of these will have an impact on the
psychological contract.
The most important effects occur when the
contract is perceived as having been violated
or broken. In these circumstances research
suggests that the nature of the contract will
change. In particular there will be a move
away from the relational end of the
continuum towards the transactional.
Robinson et al. (1994), for example, found that
employees experiencing contract violation
are more likely to report having a
transactional psychological contract with
their employing organisation. Robinson et al.
(1994) also found evidence that psychological
contract violation has a stronger impact on
relational obligations. Employees who
experienced psychological contract
violations were likely to feel less obliged to
fulfil relational type obligations to their
employers. This may have considerable
detrimental consequences for the
organisation. Those with a predominantly
transactional contract will only put in what
they feel they will get out ``I'm only here for
the money''. The ``personal'' commitment and
trust that characterises the relational
contract is likely to be absent. Such things as
loyalty, and the expending of extra unpaid
effort on the organisation's behalf, will be
lacking.
By now the importance of the
psychological contract to managers will, we
hope, have become apparent. The content of
the contract and, in particular, whether it is
transactional or relational will have
important implications for employee
attitudes and behaviour. This will be
particularly important at times of change,
just when the danger of contract violation is
at perhaps its highest.
Thus far we have been considering
``permanent'' employees, those who join with
the expectation of a long and close
relationship with the organisation. What,
however, of those employees whose initial
contract of employment was never intended
to be other than transactional? Those, for
example, taken on by the organisation on a
non-permanent basis. Rousseau (1989, 1990,
1995) and Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni (1995)
have suggested that non-permanent
employees' obligations can be characterised
by the saliency of transactional obligations
and absence of relational obligations. Indeed
Rousseau believes that non-permanent staff
will have a predominantly transactional
psychological contract. She states that the
transactional contract is typically made up of
``specific monetizable exchanges between
parties over a specific time period as in the
case of temporary employment'' (Rousseau,
[ 85]
David J. McDonald and
Peter J. Makin
The psychological contract,
organisational commitment
and job satisfaction of
temporary staff
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/2 [2000] 8491
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
1990, italics ours). This suggested difference,
between temporary and permanent
employees remains, as far as we are aware,
untested. Given the increasing numbers of
temporary staff, an understanding of the type
of psychological contract held by these
employees may be of considerable
importance for managers.
Organisational commitment
There are obvious links between the nature
of the psychological contract and the
individual's commitment to the organisation.
Those with contracts that are predominantly
transactional in nature are unlikely to have
high levels of commitment to the
organisation. Those with relational
contracts, on the other hand, may show much
higher levels of commitment. There are,
however, a number of different aspects to
commitment, and the nature of the
psychological contract may have differential
effects on these different aspects.
There have been many different
conceptualisations of the nature of
organisational commitment, but perhaps the
most influential of current models is that of
Meyer and Allen (see Meyer, 1997).
Organisational commitment, they suggest,
comprises three factors; affective, normative,
and continuance.
Affective commitment is concerned with
the extent to which the individual identifies
with the organisation. Continuance
commitment, on the other hand, in more
calculative. It concerns the individual's need
to continue working for the organisation.
Normative commitment is, in some respects,
similar to affective commitment. It is
commitment that is influenced by society's
norms about the extent to which people ought
to be committed to the organisation. In
simple terms people stay with the
organisation because they want to (affective),
because they need to (continuance), or
because they feel they ought to (normative).
Meyer and Allen suggest that the levels of all
three types of commitment are related to the
relationship between the individual and the
organisation. The strength of each of them,
however, is influenced by different factors.
Affective attachment to the organisation is,
Meyer suggests, influenced by the extent to
which the individuals' needs and
expectations about the organisation are
matched by their actual experiences. This
has clear links with the perceived reciprocal
obligations of the psychological contract.
Continuance commitment, on the other hand,
is determined by the perceived costs of
leaving the organisation. In particular side-
bets and other ``investments'' are an
important determinant. Some authors (e.g.
McGee and Ford, 1987; Somers, 1993) have
suggested that this dimension may be further
sub-divided. They suggest that continuance
may comprise ``personal sacrifice'' associated
with leaving, and ``limited opportunities'' for
other employment.
Normative commitment is a perceived
obligation to stay with the organisation. It is
based upon generally accepted rules about
reciprocal obligations between organisations
and their employees. This is based on ``social
exchange theory'', which suggests that a
person receiving a benefit is under a strong
``normative'' (i.e. rule governed) obligation to
repay it in some way. Thus the receipt by the
employee of something ``over and above''
what they might normally expect from their
employer, places them under a social
obligation to repay it in some way. Examples
might include additional training, granting
of compassionate leave, etc. Once again the
links with psychological contract are
obvious.
Not only are the different types of
commitment influenced by different factors,
but they also have different consequences.
Meyer et al. (1989) found that there were
different relationships between measures of
performance, and affective and continuance
commitment. Supervisors' ratings of an
individual's job performance and
promotability were positively related to his/
her level of affective commitment. For
continuance commitment, on the other hand,
the relationship was negative. Higher
continuance commitment was associated
with lower ratings of performance and
promotability.
As mentioned earlier, there is some
similarity between the causes of affective and
normative commitment. Both are concerned
with exchanges. In affective commitment
these are concerned with what Rousseau has
called the ``relational obligations'' of the
psychological contract. The exchanges in
normative commitment are slightly more
transactional than relational. In fact
normative commitment may be seen, in one
respect, as lying between affective
commitment and continuance commitment.
It is concerned with transactional
obligations, but the underlying psychological
mechanism is not calculative but based upon
societal norms of what is ``fair''. Individuals
often feel an obligation to repay the
investment the organisation has put into
their training, even if this is not explicitly
stated in the contract of employment.
[ 86]
David J. McDonald and
Peter J. Makin
The psychological contract,
organisational commitment
and job satisfaction of
temporary staff
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/2 [2000] 8491
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
The close relationship between the causes
of affective and normative commitment is
reflected in the fact that they tend to be
correlated with the same things. Both are
related to better performance and more ``pro-
social'' and ``organisational citizenship
behaviour'', i.e. behaviour that goes beyond a
strict interpretation of the contract of
employment. As Katz and Kahn (1966) put it,
these are the ``countless acts of co-operation
without which the system would break down.
We take these acts for granted, and few of
them are ever included in the formal role
prescriptions for any job.''
The most important determinant of
affective commitment is the extent to
which the expectations the individual
has of the organisation are met. In other
words, the psychological contract. If
organisations wish to encourage such
commitment to the organisation, they will
need to engender a relational contract with
their employees.
Method
The sample involved in the current study
consisted of 797 staff employed in customer
service capacity by a large organisation in
the holiday sector. Some of the staff were on
permanent contracts, the others on
temporary contracts to cover the holiday
season. Overall, 145 questionnaires were
returned, representing a response rate of 18.2
per cent, of which 102 respondents (70.3 per
cent) were permanent and 43 respondents
(29.7 per cent) were temporary. The mean age
was 29.85 (s.d. 6.03) years and 85.5 per cent
were female.
Measurement of the psychological contract
was primarily based on the previous
research of Rousseau (1990), Robinson et al.
(1994), Robinson and Morrison (1995) and
Herriot et al. (1997). The previous studies of
Rousseau (1990) and Robinson et al. (1994)
specifically identified a number of items that
they argued assessed the transactional and
relational nature of the psychological
contract. However, their scales were narrow
in scope and their construction based on only
13 interviews with various organisations.
Additional items were therefore added from
the more expansive and interpretative work
of Herriot et al. (1997), who interviewed 184
managers and employees of various
organisations. Some of the more relevant
items highlighted by Herriot et al. (1997) were
added to broaden the scope and depth of the
questionnaire.
Twelve items were finally included to
assess the nature of the employees'
perceptions of the organisation's obligations.
Items chosen that had previously reflected
the transactional nature of employer
obligations in the psychological contract
were:
1 competitive salary;
2 benefits;
3 pay linked to performance.
Items chosen that had previously reflected
the relational nature of employer obligations
in the psychological contract were:
4 recognition of contributions to the
organisation;
4 training;
6 job security;
7 career development;
8 recognition and feedback on performance;
9 fairness and justice in personnel
procedures;
10 consultation and communication with
employees;
11 support with personal or family problems;
and
12 promotion opportunities.
Together these 12 items were used to
measure employees' perceptions of employer
obligations to them. Respondents were asked
to indicate on a five-point Likert scale,
(replicating Rousseau, 1990) `` . . . to what
extent do you believe your organisation is
obliged to provide the following items?''
Anchors on the scales ranged from 1
representing ``not at all obliged to provide'' to
5 representing ``very highly obliged to
provide''. Reliability for the scale was =
0.84.
Violation of the employee's psychological
contract by the employer was measured
using a dichotomous forced choice ``yes/no''
question, asking respondents if their
organisation had overall ``ever failed to fulfil
what you believe to be its obligations and
promises to you?''.
Measurement of respondents'
organisational commitment was made using
the revised three-component scale of
affective, normative and continuance
commitment (Meyer et al., 1993). A seven-
item Likert scale was used (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to capture
respondents' extent of agreement with each
statement. Reliability for the affective,
continuance and normative commitment
scales were = 0.83; 0.64; and 0.84
respectively.
Two items were used to measure
satisfaction, the first dealing with job
satisfaction and the other with
organisational satisfaction. Each item was
[ 87]
David J. McDonald and
Peter J. Makin
The psychological contract,
organisational commitment
and job satisfaction of
temporary staff
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/2 [2000] 8491
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Respondents were asked to indicate the
extent of their agreement with each
statement. The measures were, as expected,
highly inter-correlated and therefore were
combined to produce an overall measure of
job satisfaction. The measure had a
reliability of = 0.86.
Results and discussion
The main objective of the study was to
examine the differences between the
psychological contracts of permanent and
non-permanent employees. As will be
recalled, Rousseau and others suggest that
the contract of the latter group of employees
will be transactional, rather than relational.
The results from the study were
surprising, and contradict the suggestion by
Rousseau and others, that non-permanent
employees would have a predominantly
transactional, rather than relational,
contract with the organisation. As can be
seen from Table I, there was no significant
difference between the permanent and non-
permanent staff in either the overall levels of
the psychological contract, or in the sub-
scales for transactional or relational
contracts. Examination of the items
comprising each of the scales revealed, in
fact, that the non-permanent staff scored
significantly higher on the relational item of
Career Development (t = 2.36, df = 143, p =
0.02). This is particularly surprising, given
that career development opportunities for
temporary staff might be expected to be
somewhat limited. We will return to this
issue later.
The levels of organisational commitment of
permanent and non-permanent staff present
a very similar picture to that of the
psychological contract. As might be expected,
given the temporary nature of their contract
of employment, the non-permanent staff had
a significantly lower level of continuance
commitment. On the measures of affective
and normative commitment, however, the
levels of commitment of the non-permanent
staff are significantly higher than those of
the permanent staff. As with the nature of the
psychological contract, these findings are
entirely unexpected. The emerging, counter-
intuitive, nature of the findings is reinforced
by the finding that job satisfaction is also
significantly higher among the non-
permanent staff.
Each of the findings is unexpected, but
each lends support to the others. According
to the data, the psychological contracts of
non-permanent staff are not predominantly
transactional, but have a relational element
at least as strong as that of permanent staff.
In addition, those aspects of job-related
attitudes that have been shown to be
associated with a relational contract, namely
organisational commitment and job
satisfaction, are actually higher among non-
permanent than permanent staff. These
findings may have important implications
for the management of non-permanent staff.
As described earlier, relational contracts
are characterised by high levels of
commitment to the organisation and of job
satisfaction. It is to the measures of
commitment, and particularly those aspects
of commitment concerned with mutual
Table I
Levels of commitment from permanent and non-permanent staff
Non-permanent
employees (n = 43)
Permanent
employees (n = 102)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t Sig.
Overall
psychological
contract
4.02 0.49 4.00 0.60 0.20 ns
Transactional
contract
3.93 0.66 4.00 0.67 0.60 ns
Relational
contract
4.11 0.53 4.00 0.66 1.01 ns
Affective
commitment
4.53 1.29 3.54 1.35 4.09 < 0.001
Continuance
commitment
3.22 1.00 4.27 1.15 5.23 < 0.001
Normative
commitment
4.13 1.39 3.07 1.32 4.35 < 0.001
Job satisfaction 5.84 1.25 4.27 1.42 6.25 < 0.001
[ 88]
David J. McDonald and
Peter J. Makin
The psychological contract,
organisational commitment
and job satisfaction of
temporary staff
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/2 [2000] 8491
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
obligations, that we need to turn for
explanations of these findings.
Affective commitment, it will be recalled,
indicates how strongly employees identify
with, and become involved in, the
organisation, exhibited through their
willingness to make an effort for the benefit
of the organisation and how much they want
to remain part of the organisation.
Employees feel committed and stay because
they want to (Meyer et al., 1993). Although the
present study does not provide direct
evidence, two possible causes for the high
levels of affective commitment present
themselves.
One possible explanation is the
phenomenon referred to by sociologists as
``anticipatory socialisation''. According to
anticipatory socialisation, the observance
and commitment to the norms, symbols, and
rituals of desirable groups is often higher
among those just outside, but wishing to join,
the group than it is among established
members. This might be the case with the
current subjects. From informal interviews it
became clear that the job itself was
considered highly desirable, almost
vocational, by both permanent and non-
permanent staff. Jobs in the holiday
industry, such as company representatives in
holiday resorts, or airline cabin staff, are
perceived by many new entrants to the job
market as being both high status and
glamorous. (The average age of the
respondents in this study, it will be recalled,
was just under 30.) It is likely, therefore, that
the desire to become a permanent member of
the group is high, one of the prerequisites for
anticipatory socialisation. What is also
required, however, is a reasonable
expectation that membership will,
eventually, be offered. This expectation, it
would appear, is fostered by the industry's
employment practices.
It is common practice in the industry for
organisations to seek many of their seasonal,
non-permanent, staff from amongst those
who have worked for them in previous
seasons. It is also very common for them to
recruit replacement permanent staff from the
pool of regular seasonal staff. It could well be
the case, therefore, that many of the non-
permanent staff in the present study had
high, and perhaps relatively realistic,
expectations of eventually joining the
permanent workforce. Under these
conditions it is quite possible that one of the
reasons for the high level of affective
commitment is the anticipatory adoption of
positive organisational attitudes and
behaviour.
The other possible explanation for the
higher levels of commitment of the non-
permanent staff is related to the extent to
which the staff perceive their psychological
contracts as having been violated in some
way. It will be recalled that the effect of a
perceived violation of the psychological
contract is to change the balance of the
contract away from a relational, and towards
a more transactional, relationship
characterised by a lowering of emotional
involvement with the organisation. In the
current study it was found that the extent of
perceived contract violation was
considerably lower in the non-permanent
than the permanent staff. Of the permanent
staff, 81.6 per cent reported a contract
violation, compared with only 36.6 per cent of
the non-permanent. These data would
support an interpretation that the higher
level of affective commitment among the non-
permanent staff may be due to the lower
levels of violation of the psychological
contract. Non-permanent staff may, on this
interpretation, be simply like permanent
staff whose contract has not been violated.
This high level of violation of the
psychological contract in permanent staff
may also be linked to the lower levels of
normative commitment. As with affective
commitment, psychological contract
research suggests that violation will result in
a shift to a more transactional, economic,
contract. If the perception is that the
organisation is not fulfilling its normative
obligations this will lead to lower motivation
in the employee to reciprocate with a sense of
moral obligation that they should stay. If the
organisation fails to reciprocate such
commitment, why should further
commitment be offered?
Normative commitment, according to
Meyer and Allan (1991) is a reflection of
employees' sense of moral obligation that
they ought to stay with their organisation.
Meyer and Allen argue that this moral
obligation arises either through the general
process of socialisation within society, or
through organisational socialisation
processes. In either case it is based upon a
norm of reciprocity that receipt of a benefit
places the person (or organisation?) under a
moral obligation to respond in kind. This
reciprocal, and unwritten, pattern of mutual
obligations lies at the heart of the concept of
the psychological contract. It is highly likely,
therefore, that at least part of the explanation
for the lower levels of normative
commitment of the permanent staff has its
origins in issues surrounding the
psychological contract.
[ 89]
David J. McDonald and
Peter J. Makin
The psychological contract,
organisational commitment
and job satisfaction of
temporary staff
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/2 [2000] 8491
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Finally, continuance commitment is the
only commitment scale on which the
permanent staff score significantly higher
than the non-permanent. On the surface this
may appear an unexceptional finding. It is
intuitively reasonable to assume that those
on fixed, short-term, contracts recognise that
they are not going to retain their
employment with the organisation.
Interviews with a sample of each group of
employees suggested that the picture was a
little more complex, reflecting the distinction
made by Meyer and Allan (1991) between
``desire to stay'' and ``inability to leave''. In-
depth interviews were carried out with nine
members of permanent staff, and the
evidence from these suggested a somewhat
negative interpretation of the higher
continuance commitment among the
permanent staff. Rather than reflecting a
strong desire to stay, some of the permanent
staff remain because of the costs associated
with leaving. The skills they have acquired
are not perceived as readily transferable
outside the holiday industry and moving to a
similar job within the industry often carries
a loss of salary and seniority. In addition, the
benefits they would lose, such as pension and
discounted holidays, mean that there is a
high cost involved in leaving.
Conclusion
Overall the findings of the current study are
consistent and interesting. The temporary
employees in the present study do not,
contrary to the suggestion of Rousseau, have
transactional psychological contracts. Rather
they are in many respects similar to
permanent employees. In fact, in some aspects
of the psychological contract, their
expectations of employer obligations are
higher than those of the permanent staff. This
may, of course, reflect ``wishful thinking'' on
the part of the temporary staff. They may,
quite rightly, assume that an organisation that
invests in a relational contract is more likely
to retain their services.
Why should levels of psychological
contract, organisational commitment, and
job satisfaction be higher among the
temporary staff? One possible explanation
may lie in the length of time they have spent
with the organisation. It is possible that the
short tenure of non-permanent staff may be
reflected in the state of their psychological
contract. This is supported by two other
findings that emerge from the data. Far fewer
temporary staff report violations of their
psychological contract by the organisation. It
may well be, therefore, that the most
parsimonious interpretation of the data is
that temporary staff are, at least in terms of
the variables measured in this study, very
similar to permanent staff who have yet to
experience a serious violation of their
psychological contract. But this suggestion
is, in itself, interesting as the assumption is
that temporary staff have a psychological
contract that is, to all intents and purposes,
identical to that of their counterparts on
permanent contracts. If so, there are
important implications for employers.
The important question, which this study
cannot answer, is whether these findings are
unique to the present organisation, or
industry sector, or are they generalisable to
other non-permanent staff in other
organisations? It could well be that the
holiday industry, with its image of
glamorous jobs, and a history of recruiting
permanent staff from seasonal staff, is
unique. This interpretation has some face
validity. The alternative explanation,
however, also has face validity.
It could well be that all employees, in
whatever industry, enter an employment
relationship, permanent or otherwise, with
the expectation that they are not only
entering a transactional, but also a
relational, contract with the organisation.
Makin and Van Ruitenbeek (1998) have
argued that employees relate to their
employing organisation as if were a person.
Given our evolutionary history as a social
animal, it could well be that it is a universal
characteristic of people that they are unable
to separate totally the economic from the
inter-personal. If this is so it has important
implications for organisations.
On the positive side of the equation, it is
realistic for organisations to assume that
their temporary employees are committed to
the organisation, with all the potential
benefits in work-related attitudes and
behaviour. The quid pro quo of this, however,
is that it is a mistake for organisations to
treat their non-permanent staff as if they only
have a transactional, economic, contract
with the organisation. Organisations will
have to give consideration to the relational
aspects of the contract, such as fairness, and
adequacy of communication, if the benefits of
staff commitment are to be retained.
References
Argyris, C. (1960), Understanding Organizational
Behaviour, Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL.
European Commission (1997), Employment in
Europe 1997, Directorate-General for
Employment, Industrial Relations and Social
Affairs, Unit V/A 1, Office for Official
[ 90]
David J. McDonald and
Peter J. Makin
The psychological contract,
organisational commitment
and job satisfaction of
temporary staff
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/2 [2000] 8491
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
Herriot, P., Manning, W.E.G. and Kidd, J.M.
(1997), ``The content of the psychological
contract'', British Journal of Management,
Vol. 8, pp. 151-62.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.l. (1966), The Social
Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New
York, NY.
McGee, G.W. and Ford, R.C. (1987), ``Two (or
more?) dimensions of organizational
commitment: re-examination of the affective
and continuance commitment scales'',
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4,
pp. 638-42.
Makin, P.J. and Van Ruitenbeek, D. (1998), ``The
psychological contract as a `close
relationship''', Proceedings of the British
Psychological Society, Vol. 6 No. 2, p. 110.
Meyer, J.P. (1997), ``Organizational commitment'',
in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12,
pp. 175-228.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), ``A three-
component conceptualisation of
organizational commitment'', Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993),
``Commitment to organizations and
occupations: extension and test of a three
component conceptualization'', Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-51.
Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin,
R.D. and Jackson, D.N. (1989),
``Organizational commitment and job
performance: it's the nature of the
commitment that counts'', Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 152-6.
Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (1995),
``Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect
of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue
behaviour'', Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, Vol. 16, pp. 289-98.
Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994),
``Violating the psychological contract: not the
exception but the norm'', Journal of
Organisational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 245-59.
Robinson, S.L., Kratz, M.S. and Rousseau, D.M.
(1994), ``Changing obligations and the
psychological contract: a longitudinal study'',
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37,
pp. 137-52.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), ``Psychological and
implied contracts in organizations'', Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 121-39.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990), ``New hire perceptions
of their own and their employer's obligations:
a study of psychological contracts'', Journal
of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 11,
pp. 389-400.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in
Organisations: Understanding Written and
Unwritten Agreements, Sage Publications,
London.
Rousseau, D.M. and Wade-Benzoni, K.A. (1995),
``Changing individual-organization
attachments a two way street'', in
Howard, A. (Ed.), The Changing Nature of
Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schein, E.H. (1980), Organizational Psychology,
3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Somers, M.J. (1993), ``A test of the relationship
between affective and continuance
commitment using non-recursive models'',
Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 185-92.
[ 91]
David J. McDonald and
Peter J. Makin
The psychological contract,
organisational commitment
and job satisfaction of
temporary staff
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/2 [2000] 8491
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Maria Jos Chambel, Filipa Sobral, Mafalda Espada, Lus Curral. 2014. Training, exhaustion, and commitment of temporary
agency workers: A test of employability perceptions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 1-16. [CrossRef]
2. Chen Fleisher, Svetlana Khapova, Paul Jansen, Ricardo Rodrigues. 2014. EFFECTS OF EMPLOYEES CAREER
COMPETENCIES DEVELOPMENT ON ORGANIZATIONS: DOES SATISFACTION MATTER?. Career
Development International 19:6. . [Abstract] [PDF]
3. Byoung Kwon Choi, Hyoung Koo Moon, Wook Ko, Kyoung Min Kim. 2014. A cross-sectional study of the relationships
between organizational justices and OCB. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 35:6, 530-554. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
4. Amie Southcombe, Liz Fulop, Geoff Carter, Jillian Cavanagh. 2014. Building commitment: an examination of learning
climate congruence and the affective commitment of academics in an Australian university. Journal of Further and Higher
Education 1-25. [CrossRef]
5. Maria Jos Chambel. 2014. Does the fulfillment of supervisor psychological contract make a difference?. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 35:1, 20-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Gregory S. Dawson, Elena Karahanna, Ann Buchholtz. 2014. A Study of Psychological Contract Breach Spillover in Multiple-
Agency Relationships in Consulting Professional Service Firms. Organization Science 25, 149-170. [CrossRef]
7. Jane Oakland, Jane Ginsborg. 2014. Continuing professional development in a chamber orchestra: player and management
perspectives. Music Education Research 16, 13-31. [CrossRef]
8. Tim Klaus. 2013. Understanding User Dissatisfaction. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 23:10.4018/
JOEUC.20110701, 1-25. [CrossRef]
9. Aikaterini Koskina. 2013. What does the student psychological contract mean? Evidence from a UK business school. Studies
in Higher Education 38, 1020-1036. [CrossRef]
10. Rhys Andrews, Steven Van de Walle. 2013. New Public Management and Citizens' Perceptions of Local Service Efficiency,
Responsiveness, Equity and Effectiveness. Public Management Review 15, 762-783. [CrossRef]
11. Laura Nicholson, David Putwain, Liz Connors, Pat Hornby-Atkinson. 2013. The key to successful achievement as an
undergraduate student: confidence and realistic expectations?. Studies in Higher Education 38, 285-298. [CrossRef]
12. Christa L. Wilkin. 2013. I can't get no job satisfaction: Meta-analysis comparing permanent and contingent workers. Journal
of Organizational Behavior 34, 47-64. [CrossRef]
13. Jee Young Seong, Doo-Seung Hong, Won-Woo Park. 2012. Work status, gender, and organizational commitment among
Korean workers: The mediating role of person-organization fit. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29, 1105-1129. [CrossRef]
14. Anastasia A. Katou, Pawan S. Budhwar. 2012. The Link Between HR Practices, Psychological Contract Fulfillment, and
Organizational Performance: The Case of the Greek Service Sector. Thunderbird International Business Review 54:10.1002/
tie.v54.6, 793-809. [CrossRef]
15. Chun-hsi Vivian Chen, Rui Hsin Kao. 2012. Work Values and Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The
Mediation of Psychological Contract and Professional Commitment: A Case of Students in Taiwan Police College. Social
Indicators Research 107, 149-169. [CrossRef]
16. Conny H. Antoni, Christine J. Syrek. 2012. Leadership and Pay Satisfaction. International Studies of Management and
Organization 42, 87-105. [CrossRef]
17. Maria Jos Chambel, Filipa Castanheira. 2012. Training of temporary workers and the social exchange process. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 27:2, 191-209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Juozas MerkeviiusAspects of Personnel Loyalty of Virtual Organization 873-878. [CrossRef]
19. Anthony Brien, Clive Smallman. 2011. The respected manager the organisational social capital developer. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 30, 639-647. [CrossRef]
20. Nele De Cuyper, Hans De Witte, Hetty Van Emmerik, Belinda C. Allen. 2011. The role of professional identity commitment
in understanding the relationship between casual employment and perceptions of career success. Career Development
International 16:2, 195-216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Mirva Hyypi, Sanna Pekkola. 2011. Interaction challenges in leadership and performance management in developing a
network environment. Journal of Advances in Management Research 8:1, 85-98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Nele De Cuyper, Hans De Witte Hetty Van Emmerik, Nele De Cuyper, Hans De Witte, Hetty Van Emmerik. 2011.
Temporary employment. Career Development International 16:2, 104-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Nele De Cuyper, Hans De Witte, Hetty Van Emmerik, Maria Jos Chambel, Filipa Sobral. 2011. Training is an investment
with return in temporary workers. Career Development International 16:2, 161-177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
24. Orla Gough, Sepideh Arkani. 2011. The impact of the shifting pensions landscape on the psychological contract. Personnel
Review 40:2, 173-184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. James D Hunter, Allastair N Hall. 2011. From the shadows into the light: Let's get real about outsourcing. Journal of
Management & Organization 17, 77-94. [CrossRef]
26. Jrg Felfe, Franziska Franke. 2010. Invited reaction: Examining the role of perceived leader behavior on temporary
employees' organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly 21:10.1002/
hrdq.v21.4, 343-351. [CrossRef]
27. Tim Klaus, J Ellis Blanton. 2010. User resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system
implementations. European Journal of Information Systems 19, 625-636. [CrossRef]
28. Ebru Gunlu, Mehmet Aksarayli, Nilfer ahin Perin. 2010. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment of hotel
managers in Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22:5, 693-717. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
29. Filomena Buonocore. 2010. Contingent work in the hospitality industry: A mediating model of organizational attitudes.
Tourism Management 31, 378-385. [CrossRef]
30. Nicole Torka, Birgit Schyns. 2010. On the job and co-worker commitment of Dutch agency workers and permanent
employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21, 1307-1322. [CrossRef]
31. Sven Svensson, LarsErik Wolvn. 2010. Temporary agency workers and their psychological contracts. Employee Relations
32:2, 184-199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Jannifer David. 2009. Standard skilled employees' and job applicants' behaviors in the presence of independent contractors
and outsourcing arrangements. Personnel Review 39:1, 62-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Marie-ve Lapalme, Christina L. Stamper, Gilles Simard, Michel Tremblay. 2009. Bringing the outside in: Can external
workers experience insider status?. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30:10.1002/job.v30:7, 919-940. [CrossRef]
34. Beatriz Sora, Amparo Caballer, Jos M. Peir, Hans de Witte. 2009. Job insecurity climate's influence on employees' job
attitudes: Evidence from two European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 18, 125-147.
[CrossRef]
35. Mohamed H. Behery. 2009. Person/organization jobfitting and affective commitment to the organization. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal 16:2, 179-196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Kate J. McInnis, John P. Meyer, Susan Feldman. 2009. Psychological contracts and their implications for commitment: A
feature-based approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior 74, 165-180. [CrossRef]
37. Nele Cuyper, Guy Notelaers, Hans Witte. 2009. Transitioning between temporary and permanent employment: A two-
wave study on the entrapment, the stepping stone and the selection hypothesis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology 82, 67-88. [CrossRef]
38. Sonia San Martn. 2008. Relational and economic antecedents of organisational commitment. Personnel Review 37:6, 589-608.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Dora Scholarios, Beatrice I.J.M. Van der Heijden, Esther Van der Schoot, Nikos Bozionelos, Olga Epitropaki, Piotr
Jedrzejowicz, Peter Knauth, Izabela Marzec, Aslaug Mikkelsen, Claudia M. Van der Heijde. 2008. Employability and the
psychological contract in European ICT sector SMEs. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19,
1035-1055. [CrossRef]
40. Nele De Cuyper, Thomas Rigotti, Hans De Witte, Gisela Mohr. 2008. Balancing psychological contracts: Validation of a
typology. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19, 543-561. [CrossRef]
41. Peter R. Davis. 2008. A relationship approach to construction supply chains. Industrial Management & Data Systems 108:3,
310-327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Nele De Cuyper, Jeroen de Jong, Hans De Witte, Kerstin Isaksson, Thomas Rigotti, Ren Schalk. 2008. Literature review
of theory and research on the psychological impact of temporary employment: Towards a conceptual model. International
Journal of Management Reviews 10:10.1111/ijmr.2008.10.issue-1, 25-51. [CrossRef]
43. Ercan Yilmaz. 2008. ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND LONELINESS AND LIFE SATISFACTION
LEVELS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 36, 1085-1096. [CrossRef]
44. Susan J. Ashford, Elizabeth George, Ruth Blatt. 2007. 2Old Assumptions, New Work. The Academy of Management Annals
1, 65-117. [CrossRef]
45. Jacqueline A-M Coyle-Shapiro, Paula C. Morrow, Ian Kessler. 2007. Serving two organizations: Exploring the employment
relationship of contracted employees. Human Resource Management 45:10.1002/hrm.v45:4, 561-583. [CrossRef]
46. Neeru Malhotra, Pawan Budhwar, Peter Prowse. 2007. Linking rewards to commitment: an empirical investigation of four
UK call centres. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18, 2095-2128. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
47. Maria Jos Chambel, Filipa Castanheira. 2007. They don't want to be temporaries: similarities between temps and core
workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28:10.1002/job.v28:8, 943-959. [CrossRef]
48. Gbolahan Gbadamosi, Josephine Ndaba, Francis Oni. 2007. Predicting charlatan behaviour in a nonWestern setting: lack of
trust or absence of commitment?. Journal of Management Development 26:8, 753-769. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Terry Wallace. 2007. Went the Day Well: Scripts, Glamour and Performance in Warweekends. International Journal of
Heritage Studies 13, 200-223. [CrossRef]
50. Francine Schlosser, Andrew Templer, Denise Ghanam. 2006. How human resource outsourcing affects organizational learning
in the knowledge economy. Journal of Labor Research 27, 291-303. [CrossRef]
51. Carol Atkinson, Peter Cuthbert. 2006. Does one size fit all?. International Journal of Manpower 27:7, 647-665. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
52. Avinandan Mukherjee, Neeru Malhotra. 2006. Does role clarity explain employeeperceived service quality?. International
Journal of Service Industry Management 17:5, 444-473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Claire Murphy, Christine Cross, David McGuire. 2006. The motivation of nurses to participate in continuing professional
education in Ireland. Journal of European Industrial Training 30:5, 365-384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Jacqueline A-M. Coyle-Shapiro, Paula C. Morrow. 2006. Organizational and client commitment among contracted employees.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 68, 416-431. [CrossRef]
55. David Biggs, Stephen Swailes. 2006. Relations, commitment and satisfaction in agency workers and permanent workers.
Employee Relations 28:2, 130-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Saija Mauno, Ulla Kinnunen, Anne Mkikangas, Jouko Ntti. 2005. Psychological consequences of fixed-term employment
and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14, 209-237.
[CrossRef]
57. Steve McKenna. 2005. Organisational commitment in the small entrepreneurial business in Singapore. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal 12:2, 16-37. [Abstract] [PDF]
58. Louise Lemire, Christian Rouillard. 2005. An empirical exploration of psychological contract violation and individual
behaviour. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20:2, 150-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Inmaculada Silla, Francisco-Javier Gracia, Jos-Mara Peir. 2005. Diferencias en el contenido del contrato psicolgico en
funcin del tipo de contrato y de la gestin empresarial pblica o privada. Revista de Psicologa Social 20, 61-72. [CrossRef]
60. Sylvie Guerrero. 2005. La mesure du contrat psychologique dans un contexte de travail francophone. Relations industrielles
60, 112. [CrossRef]
61. Janice Johnson. 2004. Flexible working: changing the manager's role. Management Decision 42:6, 721-737. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
62. Neeru Malhotra, Avinandan Mukherjee. 2004. The relative influence of organisational commitment and job satisfaction on
service quality of customercontact employees in banking call centres. Journal of Services Marketing 18:3, 162-174. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
63. Andrew R.J. Dainty, Ani B. Raiden, Richard H. Neale. 2004. Psychological contract expectations of construction project
managers. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 11:1, 33-44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Ronan Carbery, Thomas N. Garavan, Fergal O'Brien, Joe McDonnell. 2003. Predicting hotel managers turnover cognitions.
Journal of Managerial Psychology 18:7, 649-679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Neeru Malhotra, Avinandan Mukherjee. 2003. Analysing the Commitment Service Quality Relationship: A Comparative
Study of Retail Banking Call Centres and Branches. Journal of Marketing Management 19, 941-971. [CrossRef]
66. Donald Hislop. 2003. Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment. Employee Relations
25:2, 182-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Tim KlausUnderstanding User Dissatisfaction 215-241. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

L
A

T
R
O
B
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

0
0
:
1
1

1
3

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)